University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study examining how a land-grant research university integrated global initiatives into its mission and institutional program

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study examining how a land-grant research university integrated global initiatives into its mission and institutional program

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
A CASE STUDY EXAMINING HOW A LAND-GRANT RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY INTEGRATED GLOBAL INITIATIVES INTO ITS MISSION AND
INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM

by

Kathleen Barbara Knodel

__________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Kathleen Barbara Knodel
ii
DEDICATION
To Erik, thank you for understanding the meaning of, “I have to write my
dissertation now”. Your continued love, support and encouragement means the
world to me!
To my Parents, who always believed in me and supported my educational
endeavors. Without you I would not be the person I am today.
To Kimmie, thank you for knowing how and when to listen. I could not ask
for a better best friend and sister.
To my family and friends, thank you for being my support system.
To my co-workers, for understanding what it means to work and go to school
full-time.
And finally, to Willow, my puppy, for sitting through all those hours of
constant typing. You make a great dissertation companion.
Love you all!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Committee: Dr. Karen Symms Gallagher, Emery Stoops and Joyce King-
Stoops Dean. Dr. Michael Diamond. Dr. Frances Richmond.
My Support System: Dr. Edlyn Peña, Dr. Linda Fischer, Dr. Ilda Jimenez y
West.
Classmates at the University of Southern California: Aura Sburlan, Binh
Tran, Bridget Le Loup, Josephine Bixler, Joy Lorenzana.
The Research Site, University of Waterside: Executive Vice Chancellor and
Provost Alletrawa; International Committee on International Programs Chair, Dr.
Gregg; Director of the UAC-UW Center, Dr. Larry.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
Chapter 3: Methodology 41
Chapter 4: Findings 60
Chapter 5: Conclusion of Findings 89
References 98
Appendix: Interview Protocol For Senior Leaders 101
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Bolman and Deal (2003) Leadership Frames Guide 35
Table 2: Summary of Findings by Research Question 77
vi
ABSTRACT
Living in a post-modern era where globalization has impacted the world’s
economy, students, faculty and administrators in higher education today are exposed
to global forces in their daily lives which influence the way they express their views
in and outside of the classroom (Suarez-Orozco, 2004). This study is important for
practitioners, policymakers and researchers to gain a better understanding of how
leadership plays a role in making an institution more global and meeting the needs of
graduating students academically and professionally, a phenomenon not well
understood in the field of higher education (Armstrong, 2007; Scott 2000; Suarez-
Orozco, 2004). One of the difficulties in studying this trend is that the term
globalization is hard to define in respect to the field of education (Armstrong, 2007;
Spring, 2008). Also, integrating globalization into mission statements proves
difficult for senior leaders at public research institutions because mission statements
have been historically tied to locale (NASULGC, 2004). Furthermore, universities
are complex organizations and studying leadership can be a daunting task for
researchers in higher education (Birnbaum, 1988).
This study examines the senior leadership at a land-grant research university
in the United States whose efforts went into integrating globalization into its
institutional mission, global partnership and overseas program. A single case study
approach was used to investigate senior leadership roles at the University of
Waterside (UW) in globalizing the institution. The purpose of performing a
vii
qualitative study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of
globalization in higher education in a natural setting (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 1998).
Findings revealed that UW has not yet become a top-ranked global research
university, as projected in the institution’s mission. Senior leaders have different
interpretations of the term globalization and apply it differently to the field of higher
education. Up until today, senior leaders at UW have not demonstrated support for
its international programs and activities across campus. And although individual
faculty, departments and centers are internationally involved UW is still faced with
many challenges that stand in the way of it becoming a global research university.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
“If we are to maintain our place at the forefront of the world’s
institutions of learning, we must truly be universities and colleges of
the world. To make this claim we must internationalize our mission –
our learning, discovery and engagement. As it is the presidents and
chancellors who must lead the change”

–NASULGC Task Force Report on International Education, 2004

Globalization has impacted the world’s economy by influencing societal,
cultural and political concerns on areas of the environment, healthcare, government
and economy in great markets like the United States, European Union, and Pacific
Rim nations (Armstrong, 2007; Armstrong & Becker, 2004; Scott 2000). The effects
of globalization in the United States higher education system today suggest that
students, faculty and administrators living in a post-modern society are exposed to
global forces daily which have changed the way they express their societal, cultural,
political, and economic views in and outside of the classroom (Suarez-Orozco,
2004). It is important that higher education institutions in the United States as a
whole begin to mirror these new changes in the environment with the advancement
of technology and telecommunications to better equip students with the academic
and professional skills needed to excel in a world without borders (Armstrong &
Becker, 2004). Qiang (2003) writes that the “academic and professional
requirements for graduates increasingly reflect the demands of globalization of
societies, economy and labor markets and thus higher education must provide
adequate preparation” (p. 248) for university graduates of the future. Yet,
2
understanding how American leadership creates organizational change in higher
education by integrating globalization into their institutional missions, global
partnerships and overseas programs to meet the needs of graduating students
academically and professionally is a phenomenon which is not well understood and
needs further examination (Armstrong, 2007; Scott 2000; Suarez-Orozco, 2004).
This study examines the senior leadership at a land-grant research university whose
efforts went into integrating globalization into its institutional mission, global
partnership and overseas program.
Background of the Problem
Impact of Globalization
One of the difficulties in understanding the impact of globalization and the
role of leadership in creating organizational change in higher education is that the
term globalization is open to different interpretations and areas of applicability. For
example, Beerkens (2003) writes that the term global can be approached as a
“geographical concept distinguishing it from local, as a concept of authority
distinguishing it from territorial sovereignty, as a cultural concept distinguishing it
from isolation, and finally, as an institutional concept distinguishing it from national”
(p. 130). Knight (1997) introduces four rationales for globalization including
political, economic, academic, and cultural and social reasons. And Chan (2004)
states that globalization tends to erase the lines between cross-national borders,
nations power and structures and brings about shared societal concerns. As noted,
there are many interpretations of the term globalization but the overall notion is that
3
globalization incorporates the transnational movement of capital, goods, services,
and ideas (Mapping the Global Future, 2004). Historically, the term globalization has
been used in the corporate world to describe a process of global competitiveness and
collaboration which is market driven through the use of modern day technology by
creating borderless nations to increase the movement, or the production and
distribution, of capital, goods, services and ideas worldwide (Armstrong, 2007; Scott
2000; Suarez-Orozco, 2004). The economic effects of globalization have been well
defined by the corporate world but understanding the effects of globalization on
higher education systems in the United States is a phenomenon that must be further
examined.
Armstrong (2007) writes that globalization today has impacted the United
States higher education system minutely and this is partially due to the fact that the
system uses the corporate hub-and-spoke model which is similar to business’s
industrial internationalization. In relation to higher education, Armstrong defines the
hub-and-spoke model as the outsourcing of institutional services to foreign partners
where the student who received the services is brought back to the home campus to
share his or her experiences. An example of this model is university international
study-abroad programs where students are the product who are sent out along spokes
from the hub, or home institution, to foreign partner institutions for a term, and then
come back to the home institution to share their personal experiences abroad. Under
this model, the institution itself as an organization is not changed by globalization
but rather the individuals who attend the study-abroad program are changed.
4
In 2007, Lloyd Armstrong proposed a new conceptual framework on how
higher education institutions can change at the organizational level to become more
global. He does this by reframing the process of globalization into a new
multinational context which is different from the traditional-based internationalized
or hub-and-spoke model. Armstrong describes a new model of multinational
institutions where students and faculty earn degrees from offshore sites through
global partnerships thereby categorizing such institutions as non-traditional in a
geographic borderless sense. Thus, post-modern institutions are becoming less
traditional and more global as they move away from the concept of cross-border
international activities, such as study-abroad programs, to a more radical reordering
of offshore programs which relies heavily on the partnerships between leaders of
higher education institutions (Armstrong, 2007; Scott, 2000). This new conceptual
framework brings up several issues that will be examined in Chapter 2 through the
review of literature on the construct of globalization in higher education.
Land-Grant Research University Missions
Armstrong (2007) suggests that the primary challenge American Universities
face when integrating globalization into their institutions is that their mission
statements have been historically tied to locale. Since the concept of globalization
extends beyond borders changing a mission to be more global may be a difficult task.
One way leaders at U.S. institutions can begin to face this challenge is by presenting
a clearer, well-defined strategic plan of what globalization means to the organization.
An example that illustrates Armstrong’s generalization of mission statements
5
representing the local community from a historical stand point in the U.S. higher
education system is the formation of land-grant institutions.
Land-grant research universities in the United States have been in existence
for over 140 years and first served to foster local agricultural demands by stimulating
the economy. In 1862 the Land-grant College Act was passed by President Abraham
Lincoln leading to the formation of land-grant universities nationwide whose mission
was to teach, perform applied research, and to serve the local public communities
(Lucas, 2006). The land-grant model was initially formed to teach students in the
areas of agriculture, farming and industrial professions like mechanics providing
students with the skills to support the local economy during the industrial revolution.
In 1914 the Cooperative Extension system was established with the passing of the
Smith-Lever Act which emphasized research collaborations between agricultural
universities and industry so that real life problems could be transferred from lab
research to industry and eventually to commercialization (Land-grant Model Speech,
2005).
As noted, the original mission of land-grant institutions was to teach, perform
research and serve the local community. However, within the past decade leaders at
land-grant institutions have begun discussions on the importance of integrating
global concepts into their institutions missions. For example, the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Task Force
recently published a report in 2004 on the importance of leadership roles in changing
state and land-grant institutions to become more global. One way to incur change
6
specifically is to include globalization in the mission, stressing the need to not only
offer services to students within the local community but also worldwide. The report
states that globalization in higher education “must move from the periphery to the
center of our institutional teaching, research, and engagement commitment.
Missions must be reframed to include global as well as metropolitan and regional
communities. Partnerships must grow in diversity, reach and location” (NASULGC,
2004, p. 5). Further discussions relevant to the topic of globalizing mission
statements will be reviewed in Chapter 2. The next section will focus on the role of
leadership in creating institutional change by introducing new global initiatives,
partnerships, and programs in American higher education universities.
University Organizational Leadership
The University of Waterside (UW) (pseudonym), a land-grant research
institution, is an example where senior leadership recently incorporated globalization
into its institutional mission. In 2005, UW’s senior leaders created global initiatives
for the institution that called for internationalization, in particular, encouraging
partnerships with Chinese Universities. As a result UW established an overseas
graduate program in Beijing, China where students and faculty from UW and
University of Agriculture, China (UAC) (pseudonym) collaborate on scientific
advancements in agricultural research. A key factor contributing to the global
partnering between American and Chinese institutions is the role of UW’s senior
leadership.
7
Studying the role of the senior leadership in higher education, such as
exemplified by UW’s senior leadership, has been limited in the past since the
majority of research performed on organizational leadership focused primarily on
businesses, the military and governmental organizations (Birnbaum, 1988).
Birnbaum (1988) suggests that there are several reasons for the limited research on
organizational leadership and organizational change in higher education relating to
the complexities of the university system. He states that “the study of leadership is
even more difficult in colleges and universities than in other settings because of the
dual control systems (faculty versus administrative control), conflicts between
professional and administrative authority, unclear goals, and the other unique
properties of professional normative organizations” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 22).
Because there are different approaches to organizational leadership (trait, behavioral,
power and influence, contingency, and symbolic and cultural theories) and since
universities are complex organizations, studying leadership can be a daunting task
for researchers in higher education (Birnbaum, 1988).
This study will use Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames as the main
approach to studying organizational leadership at the University of Waterside. This
comprehensive approach incorporates the structural, human resource, political and
symbolic frames which illustrate different leadership perspectives and roles when
leading complex organizations like universities. Bolman and Deal’s four frames
provide a structured approach to understanding leader’s prospective of their
institution; specifically on how UW leaders view their institution as a global research
8
university. Further discussion and applicability of Bolman and Deal’s four leadership
frames will be presented in Chapter 2.
Statement of the Problem
One of the difficulties in understanding the impact of globalization and the
role of leadership in creating organizational change in higher education is that the
term globalization is hard to define in respect to the field of education. Historically,
the term globalization has been linked to the corporate world describing a process of
global competitiveness and collaboration that is market driven through the use of
modern day technology by creating borderless nations to increase the movement, or
the production and distribution, of capital, goods, services and ideas worldwide
(Armstrong, 2007; Scott 2000; Suarez-Orozco, 2004). Spring (2008) suggests that
the term globalization was originally coined in the mid 1980’s with the purpose of
addressing issues in global economics. Shorty after the term was conceived, it then
was applied to political and cultural contexts and finally education. Since the
economic effects of globalization have been well defined by the corporate world
understanding the effects of globalization on higher education systems in the United
States is a phenomenon that needs further assessment.
Leaders in American higher education institutions can begin to integrate the
concepts of globalization into the US higher education system by presenting clearer,
well-defined strategic plans of what globalization means to the organization
(Armstrong, 2007). Specifically, these terms should be expressed in institutional
mission statements and initiatives. For land-grant research universities, like UW, the
9
difficulty of integrating the concepts of globalization into mission statements,
making it a global research university, is that mission statements have been
historically tied to locale. And since the concept of globalization extends beyond
borders changing a mission to be more global may be a difficult task (Armstrong,
2007).
Furthermore, studying the role of the senior leaders in higher education
institutions has proven difficult in the past (Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Birnbaum (1988) states that research on leadership roles in higher education has
been limited in the past since the majority of research performed on organizational
leadership focuses primarily on businesses, the military and governmental
organizations. Also, he suggests that there are different approaches to organization
leadership (trait, behavioral, power and influence, contingency, and symbolic and
cultural theories) and since universities are complex organizations, studying
leadership can be a daunting task for researchers in higher education (Birnbaum,
1988).
Purpose of the Study
This study examines the senior leadership at a land-grant research university
whose efforts were directed at integrating globalization into its institutional mission,
global partnership and overseas program. There are three primary purposes to this
study. The first purpose is to examine how the senior leadership at the University of
Waterside, defined globalization and in particular, how they defined their institution
as a global research university. The second purpose is to investigate how UW senior
10
leaders integrated global initiatives which were designed at the system level into
their institutional mission and program. And finally, this study investigates the
opportunities and challenges that UW senior leaders faced when integrating concepts
of globalization into their institution.
This study uses a qualitative, case study approach. Interviews, document and
artifact analyses were conducted within a single institution. The purpose of using a
qualitative research design approach was to gain an in-depth understanding of the
globalization phenomenon in higher education expressed through the perspective of
the researcher (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 1998).
The study and its effects used Armstrong’s (2007) theoretical framework to
define globalization and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames to identify
leadership approaches to integrating institutional global initiatives. In order to fully
understand this phenomenon, the following research questions are posed:
1. How does UW’s senior leadership define globalization?
2. How does UW’s senior leadership define itself as a global research
university?
3. How does the senior leadership at UW integrate concepts of globalization
into their institutional mission and initiatives?
4. What opportunities and challenges have UW leaders faced when
integrating concepts of globalization into their initiatives?
11
Importance of the Study
At the end of this study, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers will
better understand senior leadership efforts when incorporating globalization into
their university mission statements. At the senior administrative level, presidents,
vice presidents, provosts, academic deans, and program directors at four year land-
grant research universities may gain new insights from this study into key concepts
of globalization and challenges encountered during the integration process of
globalization as acknowledged by UW’s senior leaders. With this information, top-
level practitioners at research universities may refer to specific concepts identified in
this study for future implementation of their own global initiatives and challenges.
Policymakers should examine the contributions of this study since they are
the persons influencing global education policies and reforms currently affecting
leadership in higher education. If policymakers better understand the challenges
UW’s leadership faced when implementing globalization into a four year public
research university setting, then policymakers could gear federal or state policies,
reforms, or funding programs towards a more effective system of supporting the
implementation of globalization for future leaders in higher education.
Researchers in education and other social sciences including business may
benefit from the study by recognizing the dynamics of leadership roles in higher
education. For example, researches may better understand how the leadership style
of senior leaders impacts the implementation of global initiatives within the
institution. Researchers may consider leadership roles and styles described through
12
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames as an effective way of categorizing
leadership efforts to better understand how they are practiced. They may also gather
from this study a deep description of how senior leadership function when
integrating globalization into large decentralized organization such as a four year
public research university. Understanding the phenomenon of global institutional
change from the senior leadership perspective may help researchers find a more
common framework for the future of higher education.
Finally, this study is important because the term globalization is defined as it
pertains to the field of higher education. With a need for specificity in its definition
in the field, leaders were interviewed and asked to describe their own personal
concepts of globalization and how it relates to their initiatives and program. Thus,
this study provides a more specific, concrete, and descriptive analysis of
globalization in higher education for future leaders in higher education.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
There are several limitations to this study. One limitation was that the
researcher could not control changes, such as leadership or fiscal changes, during the
investigational time of this study. For example, Chancellor Heart (pseudonym)
resigned from her position shortly after implementing her global initiatives at UW
and was no longer tenured as Chancellor of the institution when this study took
place. Change in leadership is an important factor to consider when evaluating the
status of a university’s global initiative since new leadership may or may not support
initiatives that were created by the prior administrator. Also, during the period of this
13
study, the world’s economy experienced an economic downturn which resulted in
budget cuts affecting institutions in the U.S., including UW while this study took
place.
A second limitation was that the researcher did not study the Chinese side of
the UAC-UW partnership, and solely focused on examining the US institution and its
leaders. The primary reason for this choice was that the researcher did not know how
to speak the Chinese language. Also, presenting information to the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) would have been a major hurdle with the translation of Chinese
documents, and data collection, performing interviews and document analysis, would
have been difficult with language as a barrier. Finally, location was another factor.
Traveling to China from California and back required a certain amount of time and
cost that the researcher could not afford to spend at the time of this study.
Third, the study used snowball sampling methodology for gathering data.
This method for gathering data through interviews was limited by the participation of
subjects and their references on substantial persons. This was because a participant
was more likely to refer persons with similar beliefs rather than someone they felt
contradicted their views.
Another limitation was that this study was limited in scope to a few key
questions. Also, reliability of the units of analysis such as the leaders chosen,
research questions asked, and documents reviewed or those not disclosed to the
public may affect the validity of this study.
14
Researcher’s bias was another limitation to this study. Validity of the study
could be limited by the skills of the researcher in conducting and interpreting
interviews, data collection, and overall analyses. Finally, the researcher has only
worked at private research institution in California and may lack full understanding
of a highly political public university system.
A delimitation of this study was that the researcher decided to examine a four
year public research university setting. Since the researcher chose to use one of the
ten institutions that is part of the “10+10 Alliance” in forming global partnerships
and creating initiatives for the advancement of research in science, engineering and
technology the study was limited to this area of study.
Another delimitation was the use of Armstrong’s (2007) framework of
globalization and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames. Although these
models are valuable for the basis of the study, choosing to use just these two
theoretical frameworks may limit the study in the end.
There are several assumptions for the study. One was that the researcher
assumed that the senior leaders being interviewed understood the UW’s global
involvement which includes the “10+10 Alliance”, the Chancellors global initiatives,
and the UAC-UW partnership. Another assumption was that the participants in the
study were entirely honest and willing to express openly their responses to interview
questions. Also, the researcher assumed that all documents requested were presented
in a clear, concise manner and that information gathered was not manipulated in any
way prior to the investigation of the study.
15
Definitions
There are several key terms that were used throughout this study. These
definitions include:
Association of American Universities (AAU). A nonprofit organization
consisting of 62 leading public and private research universities in the United States
and Canada which focus on issues important to research-intensive universities (AAU
Website, 2008).
Globalization. The process of transnational movement of capital, goods,
services, and ideas creating borderless nations (Mapping the Global Future, 2004).
Land-Grant Institutions. In 1862 the Land-grant College Act was passed by
President Abraham Lincoln leading to the formation of land-grant universities
nationwide whose mission was to teach, perform applied research, and to serve the
public (Lucas, 2006).
Leadership Frames. Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest that there are four
leadership frames or lenses to view leadership through; these include the structural,
human resource, political and symbolic frames.
Hub and Spoke Model . Describes the traditional cross-border activities
stemming from the industrial model of the corporate business world. An example in
higher education are study-abroad programs where universities send out students
internationally for a period of time and then expect the student to return back to their
home campus bringing with them their individual experiences learned from abroad
(Armstrong, 2007).
16
Multi-national Model. In Armstrong’s (2007) framework of globalization he
describes the process of setting up offshore degree-granting programs through the
building of global partnerships where the use of modularization and outsourcing
between offshore sites share resources between students, faculty, and administrators
in higher education.
Research globalization. Partaking in Armstrong’s (2007) multi-national
concept of globalization, government, students, faculty, and administrator’s are often
absent from their home campus and much time is spent at offshore research facilities
designed through the formation of global partnerships for the purpose of research
advancement.
Senior University Leadership. Senior administrative level, presidents, vice
presidents, provosts, academic deans and program directors.
Organization of Study
Chapter 1 provides the reader with a basic understanding and broad overview
of the study including the background and statement of the problem, the purpose and
importance of the study, the limitations, delimitations, assumptions and definitions of
the study. The purpose of Chapter 2 is to review the literature through synthesis,
noting the methodologies and provide the reader with significances of the literature
reviewed. Chapter 3 focuses on the methodology of the study which describes the
sample and population of study, the instrumentation used, how data was collected,
and the overall analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presents the reader with the study’s
17
findings per research question. And finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the study and
presents concluding remarks on the implications of the study.
18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of literature will cover topics related to the study’s research
questions. This chapter will review literature as it relates to topics on globalization,
mission statements, and leadership in creating organizational change in higher
education. In particular, the first topic will review literature on defining globalization
in higher education (Beerkens, 2003; Spring 2008). The second topic of review will
cover the role of leadership in globalizing the university. This section will examine
the role of leadership in integrating globalization into mission statements and
understanding Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four approaches to how leaders reframe
organizations to become more global (Bolman & Deal, 2003; NASULGC, 2004).
Finally, a review on the motivations, realities, and challenges that leaders face when
integrating globalization into higher education will be discussed (Armstrong &
Becker, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Scott, 2000). The purpose of this chapter is
to synthesize relevant literature on the topics and theories of interest how they relate
to Armstrong’s (2007) framework on globalization in higher education, the
globalization of land-grant universities, and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership
framework in creating organizational change.
Synthesizing the Literature
Defining Globalization in Higher Education
This section will review literature as it relates to Armstrong’s (2007)
framework on globalization in higher education. The articles in this section were
chosen and reviewed primarily on the basis that the authors discuss the concept of
19
globalization as it relates to higher education (Beerkens, 2003; Spring, 2008).
Specifically, Spring’s (2008) article describes where the term globalization
originated, gives his definition and then discusses four main educational discourses
on the topic of globalization in the field of education. Beerkens (2003) article
presents his definition and then four conceptualizations of globalization as they each
apply to the field of education. The articles included in this section will be
synthesized and then related back to Armstrong’s concept of globalization in higher
education.
First, an overview of Armstrong’s (2007) framework on globalization in
higher education will be discussed. Lloyd Armstrong proposed a new conceptual
framework on the impact of globalization in US higher education institutions. He
reframes the process of globalization into a multinational context which is different
from the traditional-based internationalized or hub-and-spoke model. Armstrong
describes the new model of multinational institutions where students and faculty earn
degrees from offshore sites through global partnerships thereby categorizing such
institutions as non-traditional in the geographic borderless sense. Thus, institutions
become less traditional (tied to their locale) and more global as they move away
from the concept of cross-border international activities, such as study-abroad
programs, to a more radical reordering of offshore programs which relies heavily on
the partnerships between leaders of higher education institutions (Armstrong, 2007;
Scott, 2000). Armstrong proposes that the term globalization incorporates the
transnational movement of capital, goods, services, and ideas (Mapping the Global
20
Future, 2004). Relating this definition of globalization to higher education,
Armstrong suggests the term globalization can be applied to research universities. He
states the following on research globalization:
“At the more familiar end of the spectrum, many researchers seek to
optimize problem solving by ‘outsourcing’ some component of a
problem to a colleague with complementary expertise. At the other
end of the spectrum is ‘large’ research, such as high energy physics,
that may involve thousands of researchers working in mainly
relatively small groups on precisely defined modules that will
ultimately be brought together, typically at one site, to perform an
exceedingly complex experiment. At this end of the spectrum,
governments are often involved, faculty are absent from campus for
long periods, and graduate students and postdocs may almost never be
on their ‘home’ campus” (Armstrong, 2007, p. 3).

Armstrong’s example of how globalization applies to research universities in
higher education on a small and large scale will be useful when applying his
conceptual framework to UW which is a research university who strives to be global.
In particular, this framework will be used to understand how UW’s leaders define
globalization at their institution. In addition, this study will examine what factors
make their institution a global research university through the investigation of
leadership in defining their global research efforts.
The first article reviewed relating to Armstrong’s framework on globalization
in higher education is Spring’s (2008) article Research on Globalization and
Education. Spring’s peer-reviewed article addresses two areas of research on
globalization and higher education. First, he provides a definition of globalization as
it relates to the field of education. He states that “globalization involves the study of
intertwined worldwide discourses, processes, and institutions affecting local
21
educational practices and policies” (Spring, 2008, p. 330). Then Spring describes the
evolution of the term globalization which was originally coined in the mid 1980’s
with the purpose of addressing issues in global economics. Shorty after the term was
conceived, it then was applied to political and cultural contexts and finally education.
He mentions that the founding of the Globalization, Societies and Education journal
in 2003 marks an important milestone in the study of globalization in education
because it required researchers to define this new area of study. Spring’s notion that
globalization is a fairly new term used in education agrees with Armstrong’s
argument who stated that the concepts of globalization in higher education
historically has not been well understood or studied.
Second, Spring discusses four theoretical frameworks in the field of research
on globalization and education. These four frameworks are world culture, world
systems, postcolonial, and culturalist. He suggests that it is important to understand
these frameworks since they will provide structure in shaping future educational
policies and procedures. In addition, Spring writes on the major global educational
discourses on the knowledge economy and technology, lifelong learning, global
migration or brain circulation, and neoliberalism (a free market economy).
Spring’s article is important for this study because he illustrates that within
the past five years practitioners, policymakers, researchers and leaders in higher
education have begun to define globalization in the field of education. More
importantly, there are similarities expressed between Spring’s and Armstrong’s
definition of globalization in education. Both agree that globalization in education is
22
a process of worldwide discourse across transnational boarders affecting local
institution policies and procedures (Armstrong, 2007; Spring, 2008). Similar
discourse on the knowledge economy and technology, brain drain and neoliberalism
were discussed by both authors. The only major difference is the way each author
presented the discourse. Spring organized major educational topics into their own
sections in his paper, whereas Armstrong intertwines the discourse of the topics
throughout his paper.
The next article reviewed attempts to identify different interpretations of the
term globalization and then applies it to higher education. Beerken’s (2003) article
is titled Globalisation and Higher Education Research. He suggests that the term
globalization is regarded as a process and has several conceptual terms that pertain to
geographic locale. The author writes that the term global can be approached as a
“geographical concept distinguishing it from local, as a concept of authority
distinguishing it from territorial sovereignty, as a cultural concept distinguishing it
from isolation, and finally, as an institutional concept distinguishing it from national”
(Beerkens, 2003, p. 130). The first conceptualization of globalization describes an
expansion from geographical location, unconnected localities, to the expansion
worldwide, or increasing interconnectedness in a geographical sense. This expansion
worldwide includes the movement of people, products, finance, images, and
information. The second conceptualization of globalization is applied to the context
of power and authority where territory or jurisdiction becomes more global.
Denationalization occurs when nation-states become more global, a loss of clearly
23
defined territories amongst state sovereignty, and thus nation-states experience a
transfer in authority to other governmental bodies. Third, globalization is also
discussed in the context of cultural meaning. Globalization equals the mixing of
cultures creating either uniformity or friction amongst people of different ethnicities.
The final conceptualization of globalization relates to an institutional concept where
national identity as a society is questioned (a nation’s identity, solidarity and
citizenship based on the nation) and as a result the institution becomes more
cosmopolitan in identity.
After defining his four conceptualizations of globalization, Beerkens relates it
to the field of higher education research. He suggests that geographically, institutions
in higher education are experiencing the movement of information (curriculum) and
students (people) internationally. With the erosion of territorial sovereignty, higher
education institutions has witnessed an increase in international flows of students,
graduates, information, course materials, academic labor, and financial resources.
These flows not only change the dynamics of the institution but also how the
government responds to the international movement of these different flows.
Beerkens (2003) writes that “in addition to states, universities are also seen as
change agents in the process through the expansion of their boundaries by
establishing off-shore campuses and franchise agreements outside their national
boundaries” (p. 144). Culturally, there may be a threat to diversity as societies merge
culturally and fears of McDonaldization of higher education exist. Finally, he relates
the global concept of institution, or the loss of national identity, to higher education
24
institutions. And that institution in higher education, the students, faculty and staff
lose their national identity because they base their identity on areas outside of their
nationality. However, Beerkens (2003) does write that “to what extent loss on the
one side (traditional values, cultural heritage, and so forth) is compensated by
benefits on the other (international awareness, knowledge about cross-cultural issues,
comparability, and transparency) is debatable” (p. 145).
Beerkens articles relates back to Armstrong’s (2007) main definition of
globalization which is centered on the movement of capital, goods, services, and
ideas. The difference here is that Beerkens organizes the definition of globalization
into four conceptualizations of the term -locale, power/authority, cultural, and
institutional. Another important fact to point out is that Beerkens definition is in
agreement with Spring (2008) and Armstrong (2007) that globalization is a process
in the movement of capital, good, services, and ideas. In addition, Beerkens writes
that universities are seen as change agents in the globalization process as they
expand their boundaries by establishing overseas campuses outside their boundaries.
This statement is similar to Armstrong’s definition of globalization in higher
education where institutions in higher education form partnerships worldwide and
then create campuses overseas for research and teaching. Overall, the importance of
Beerkens article is to understand the conceptualizations of globalization and how
they apply to higher education today in conjunction with Armstrong’s framework.
25
The Role of Leadership in Globalizing the University
Next, literature on the role of leadership in globalizing the university will be
reviewed in this section. Two pieces of literature will be reviewed in this section.
The first piece of literature reviewed focuses on institutional leadership in integrating
globalization into land-grant universities (NASULGC, 2004). This report will
facilitate discussion on Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames. Bolman &
Deal’s four frames are a comprehensive approach to leadership when reframing
complex organizations like universities. These frames will be essential to
understanding how UW’s leaders view their institution as a global institution.
Leadership in globalizing land-grant research universities will be the first
topic reviewed. The literature piece examined under this topic is the NASULGC
Task Force Report published in 2004. The purpose of this report is to call on leaders,
in particular, presidential leader, to change state and land-grant institutions into
becoming more global. It is important to note that although this report is geared
towards presidential leaders of institutions it may also apply to other senior
administrative leaders such as vice chancellors, provosts or academic deans. Recall,
that the original mission of land-grant institutions was to teach, perform research and
serve the local community. Within the past decade leaders at land-grant institutions
have begun discussions on the importance of changing missions to incorporate
global concepts into their institutions. The report suggests that one way to integrate
globalization into an institution is through its mission stressing not only services to
students within the local community but also worldwide. Specifically, the report does
26
not suggest adding a fourth dimension to the three part mission of teaching,
providing research and service, but rather leaders should enlarge and define concepts
of globalization into a new century mission. This statement agrees with Armstrong’s
(2007) suggestion that one way leaders at U.S. institutions can begin to integrate
globalization into an institution is by presenting a clearer, well-defined strategic plan
into its mission of what globalization means to the organization. When leaders
redefine higher education by creating a new global university by changing its
mission they must commit to what the task force report terms as the “3 A’s of
Leadership” which is to articulate, advocate, and act.
First, leaders must articulate “a clear and compelling vision for a global
university within the unique context and heritage of each individual institution”
(NASULGC, 2004, p. 17). The initial step is for leaders to articulate a transforming
vision for students, faculty, and administration on becoming globally competent
individuals. For transforming students, global competency means having a diverse
and knowledgeable worldview, understanding international dimensions in the area of
studies, communicating effectively in another language and/or cross-culturally,
exhibit cross-cultural sensitivity and adaptability, and continues global learning
throughout life (NASULGC, 2004). For transforming faculty and staff to be globally
competent this means that they should be active on campus in a global aspect
through teaching, research, and service and practice abroad. And finally, a globally
competent university 1) has globalization as an integral part of its mission, 2) has
strong commitments and financial support from top university administrators, 3)
27
integrates international perspectives into all curricula, 4) promotes, encourages,
values, and rewards faculty and staff involved in international activities, 5) integrates
global perspectives into appropriate research and outreach programs, and 6) has a
campus culture that values and encourages global aspects in all programs, among
faculty and students, and in campus life (NASULGC, 2004). In the end, the
responsibility of implementing a global mission is not necessarily the responsibility
of a college leadership such as the president, but rather to define and articulate a
clear strategic vision of what it means for an institution to be globally competent.
The next step after articulating a vision is for leaders to advocate
globalization within their institution by mobilizing support on and off campus. Two
ways to advocate globalization is through personal and institutional advocacy
(NASULGC, 2004). For personal advocacy, this is conveyed through personal, one-
on-one relationships that create change and can include speaking with students,
faculty, staff, trustees, donors or business executives. “Personal advocacy involves
telling stories (to inspire and motivate), creating relationships (to mobilize and
fertilize), and asking the right questions (to challenge the status quo)” (NASULGC,
2004, p. 32). At the institutional level, “creating the new global university will not
involve tweaking the academy around the edges but rather require substantive,
transformative change at all levels” (NASULGC, 2004, p. 33). For leaders to create a
process of change, the culture within the institution must be assessed. This
assessment should take into consideration how the institution currently partakes in
global activities and the degree of support from students, faculty, and staff. This
28
should be a collaborative effort between senior administration and individuals within
the institution. In fact, “the new global university requires a birthing process – led by
the president – that builds teams, empowers leaders (and followers), and involves
faculty, staff, students, administrators and friends” (NASULGC, 2004, p. 33). The
role of a leader to advocate is important because it stresses the need for buy-in at all
levels within and outside the institution. This process will not only create deep
change but will in the end increase the likelihood for sustainability of global
initiatives as they are implemented.
Finally, leaders must act “by implementing specific action strategies that will
advance the vision and hold the institution accountable for transformation”
(NASULGC, 2004, p. 17). Such strategies include building capacity, being
accountable, identifying and maintaining partnerships, and developing funding
relationships. By building capacity, the task force report defines a team of leaders as
senior administrators, deans, faculty, staff, and even students and leaders from the
community. The team should be focused on global efforts by “spearheading
globalization on the campus, amplifying communication across all constituencies,
building momentum for change, and recruiting and nurturing leadership for
globalization throughout the university” (NASULGC, 2004, p. 40). These senior
leaders should take responsibility in implementing globalization through
(NASULGC, 2004, p. 40):
29
• Personal commitment, evidenced by international relationships.
• Creating job descriptions and hiring systems for globally competent
faculty and administrative staff.
• Allocating budget dollars to international education and research.
• Demonstrate commitment to fund-raising in support of
internationalization.
• Interpreting and communicating the international vision for their
individual university and community partners.
• Supporting faculty development that encourages internationalization.
• Developing and empowering leaders for international education efforts.
• Creating and facilitating networks and partnerships in support of
international education.
In addition, it is important for leaders to create physical structures that align with the
global mission. This can be done by creating an international office, appointing a
campus leader to global education and research, and creating international centers in
global locations. By creating a physical presence of what the mission states resonates
loudly to the institution letting them know that globalization has a clear presence at
the institution. Lastly, leaders should be accountable for their global visions and
should continue to forge partnerships at the local, national, and international level.
Overall, the NASULGC task force report is applicable to this study in that the
literature targets leaders at land-grant institutions in the US. The report presents a
clear pathway for leaders to follow in globalizing their university. Specifically, the
30
three A’s to leadership provide a framework for leaders to better understand how to
articulate, advocate, and act on their global visions and incorporate them into their
institution. The importance of this review is that it will help position the remaining
literature for Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership frames which will help identify
how UW leaders perceive their institution as a global research university.
Leadership frames will be the second topic reviewed in this section to gain a
better understanding of how leaders reframe universities to become more global.
Recall that studying leadership in universities can be a daunting task for researchers
in higher education because universities are complex organization and because there
are different approaches to studying leadership within organization (Birnbaum,
1988). This study will use Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames as the
main approach to studying organizational leadership at the University of Waterside.
The reason for choosing this literature is because the authors present a
comprehensive approach that incorporates the structural, human resource, political
and symbolic frames which illustrate different leadership perspectives when leading
complex organizations like universities. Bolman and Deal (2003) define frames as a
type of mental map that are a “set of ideas of assumptions carried around in your
head…like maps, frames are both windows on a territory and tools for navigation”
(p. 12). In leadership, each frame is unique, logical, and influential and when viewed
together they can help captivate a comprehensive representation of an organization.
Each frame and its relation to this study will be discussed below.
31
First, the structural frame is centered on the organizations goals, specialized
roles, and formal relationships. Structures are usually represented by organizational
charts where leaders within the organization create rules, policies, and procedures
under an integrated strategy (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The structural frame “can be
used to organize and structure groups and teams to get results and fit an
organization’s environment and technology” (Stadtlander, 2003). Characteristics of a
structural leader is one who does their homework before acting, they rethink the
relationship of structure, strategy and environment, they focus on implementation,
and they experiment, evaluate and adapt (Bolman & Deal, 2003). There are six
assumptions that the authors point out under the structural frame (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p. 45):
1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.
2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through
specialization and a clear division of labor.
3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts
of individuals and units mesh.
4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal
preferences and extraneous pressures.
5. Structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances
(including its goals, technology, workforce, and environment).
6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can
be remedied through analysis and restructuring.
32
Second, the human resource frame is organized around human needs. This frame
see’s individuals within the organization like family who have needs, emotions,
skills, and relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The goal of the human resource
frame is to “align organizational and human needs to build positive interpersonal and
group dynamics” (Stadtlander, 2003). Characteristics of a human resources leader is
they believe in people and communicate their belief, they are visible and accessible,
they empower others, and often promote openness, mutuality, listening, coaching,
and participation (Bolman & Deal, 2003). There are four core assumptions for the
human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 115):
1. Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse.
2. People and organizations need each other. Organizations need, ideas,
energy, and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities.
3. When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer.
Individuals are exploited or exploit the organization – or both become
victims.
4. A good fit benefits both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work,
and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed.
Third, the political frame revolves around leadership power, conflict, competition,
and organizational politics. This frame can be used to “cope with power and conflict,
build suitable coalitions and hone political connections, and deal with both internal
and external politics” (Stadtlander, 2003). Characteristics of a political leader is that
they are realists in that they clarify what they want and what they can get, they assess
33
the distribution of power and interests, they build linkage to key stakeholders, and
finally, they persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce if necessary (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). The political frame is built on the core assumptions (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p. 186).
1. Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups.
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values,
beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources – who gets
what.
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to
organizational dynamics and underline power as the most important asset.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying
for position among competing stakeholders.
And fourth, the symbolic frame sees organizations as cultures where rituals,
ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths drive the organization rather than rules,
politics or authority (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Standtlander (2003) states that “the
goals of this frame is to shape a culture that gives a purpose and meaning to workers,
provides organizational drama for internal and external audiences, and builds team
spirit through ceremony and story”. Characteristics of a symbolic leader are that they
lead by example, they capture attention and frame experiences, they communicate a
vision and tell stories, and finally they respect and use history (Bolman & Deal,
34
2003). There are five assumptions that summarize the symbolic perspective (Bolman
& Deal, 2003; pg. 242).
1. What is most important is not what happens but what it means.
2. Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings
because people interpret experience differently.
3. In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create
symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and
anchor hope and faith.
4. Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than
what is produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes
and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find
purpose and passion in their personal and work lives.
5. Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people
around shared values and beliefs.
The final section of this review will examine how the four frames can apply
to this study. Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest that in order to match frames to
situations “choosing a frame, or understanding other’s perspectives, involves the
combination of analysis, intuition, and artistry” by the researcher (pg. 309).
Basically, leaders at UW will be asked about their perspective (or frame) regarding
UW as a global research university. Then, with their responses, the authors have
provided questions to facilitate analysis and stimulate intuition by the researcher.
35
Furthermore, they provide suggestions for conditions in which each frame may likely
be most effective (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 310). See Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bolman and Deal (2003) Leadership Frames Guide
Question If yes: If no:
Are individual commitment and
motivation essential to success?
Human resource;
symbolic
Structural; political
Is the technical quality of the decision
important?
Structural Human resource;
political; symbolic
Is there a high level of ambiguity and
uncertainty?
Political;
symbolic
Structural;
human resource
Are conflict and scarce resources
significant?
Political;
symbolic
Structural;
human resource
Are you working from the bottom up? Political;
symbolic
Structural;
human resource

These questions and suggestions will be useful during the fieldwork of this study.
During the data collection and analysis process, this table will act as a guide for the
researcher to understand leader’s perspectives at UW on the topic of globalization.
And once all data has been collected on each leader, it will be important for the
researcher to analyze any themes or patterns collectively to see if common
perspectives persist on institutional leadership and their perspectives on operating as
a global research university.
Overall, the NASUGLC (2004) task force report and Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) four frames on leadership roles in organizations interrelate. The task force
36
report provides a framework for university leaders at land-grant research universities
to incorporate concepts of globalization into their institutions. While Bolman and
Deal’s four frames provide a structured approach to understanding leader’s
prospective of their institution; specifically on how UW leaders view their institution
as a global research university. Both literature reviews are important for this study
because they help identify key strategies for leaders in their roles in integrating
global initiatives into their institution.
Motivations, Realities, and Challenges in Globalizing Higher Education
This section will review literature on the motivations, realities, and future
challenges for leaders when integrating globalization into their institutions. The first
literature reviewed is a lecture series by Armstrong & Becker (2004) which discusses
the current, evolving and future implications for US research universities in response
to globalization. Second, Altbach & Knight (2007) articulate through their article the
motivations and realities in integrating globalization into higher education
institutions. And the final article, written by Scott (2000), presents challenges for the
21
st
century when globalizing higher education.
The first piece of literature reviewed in this section is a lecture series
available in document format presented by Armstrong & Becker in 2004. The Pullias
lecture series was hosted by the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis on the
topic of Higher Education and the Global Marketplace. The purpose for reviewing
this literature is that Armstrong & Becker (2004) discuss the present status, the
evolving environment, and future implications of US research universities
37
functioning in a global marketplace. Armstrong & Becker suggest that the present
status of the research university is costly for institutions to provide research,
education and social growth for students in undergraduate, master, and doctoral
programs serving mostly traditional students. Armstrong defines traditional student
as those who come to the institution who study on-campus where a student affairs
department is present at the institution to assist in the social growth of the students.
Next, Armstrong discusses the evolving environment for non-profit research
universities in the US. Topics include the increase presence of ‘winner-takes-all’
competition among research universities, the changing societal expectations of
education as a public (entitlement) or private good (an investment for the future),
increasing globalization, and changing access to information. In particular,
Armstrong mentions that education must adapt to the changes in the market economy
so that students can gain the knowledge and skills needed to work across national
boundaries and excel in this new environment.
Finally, Armstrong’s closing statement includes three views of future social
expectations for the evolution of research universities. First, in a market driven
society, expectations for research universities will be to not only create new
knowledge but also to contribute to important societal problems. Such issues would
include areas of “health promotion and care, urban sustainability, effective
governance, education, immigration, and job creation” (Armstrong & Becker, 2004,
p. 19). Second, is that because of new technology, research universities will need to
focus more on the learning needs of the student and not be constrained to teaching
38
traditional based students. This requires research universities to increase their
flexibility in terms of the location and time of student learning. The final view is that
“those universities that choose to emphasize issues of societal impact will need to
create an international presence to facilitate the research of their students and faculty,
and to enable access to policy makers worldwide whose cooperation will be
necessary to move research into practice” (Armstrong & Becker, 2004, p. 20). The
importance of Armstrong’s lecture is to understand the current, evolving and future
implications that research universities face when operating in a global marketplace in
the US.
The second article reviewed in this section is Altbach & Knight’s (2007)
peer-reviewed article on the motivations and realties for the globalization of higher
education. There are several motivations of globalizing higher education. For
traditional, non-profit research universities, their motivation is not as much financial
but rather “to enhance research and knowledge capacity and to increase cultural
awareness” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 292). The authors state that the reason for
this motivation is that many of these research universities are in countries where they
are publicly funded by the government and most initiatives include “branch
campuses, franchised degree programs, and partnerships with local institutions that
are focused on developing and middle-income countries” (Altbach & Knight, 2007,
p. 292). A reality behind the recruitment of international students for such research
universities is that these students bring revenue to the institution through tuition fee’s
and also spend significant amounts of money in the host country.
39
Other motivations for research universities to open branch campuses,
franchise foreign academic programs/degrees, or sponsor international students to
study at home campuses is to provide access to students worldwide and to increase
prestige, enhance competitiveness and strategic alliances of the institution. Altbach
and Knight (2007) write that in North America specifically, “U.S. colleges and
universities and private companies are undertaking hundreds of initiatives and
partnerships to deliver cross-border education courses and programs – probably the
most active and innovative nation in worldwide program and provider mobility” (p.
298). The reality of the situation is that U.S. institutions are partnering in cross-
border activities with developing countries in Asia and the Middle East. It is
important to note that Altbach and Knight’s motivations and realities noted above for
US higher education institutions mirror Armstrong’s framework in that that both
authors discuss the movement of resources from home campuses to overseas branch
campuses which entails cross-border education.
The final article reviewed in this section is a peer-reviewed article published
by Scott in 2000 on challenges in the 21
st
century when globalizing higher education.
Scott writes that the research university is challenged by globalization in three ways.
First, because universities have close ties with their locale which includes their
national culture. Second, is that the emergence of global research cultures, networks
and the presence of information technology challenges current standardized teaching
and communication practices. And lastly, public research universities are challenged
by global markets because they depend mostly on state or federal funding from the
40
government. Scott (2000) suggests that in order for research universities to survive
today’s challenges of globalization universities will need not only build alliances
with other institutions but to “reinvent, reengineer, and re-enchant itself, to
compromise its own integrity in order to allow a new configuration of knowledge
institutions to develop” (p. 10). The importance of this article relates back to
Armstrong’s framework which illustrates that institutional response to globalization
is to become less traditional (tied to their locale) and more global moving away
cross-border international activities, such as study-abroad programs, to a more
radical reordering of offshore programs relying heavily on the partnerships between
leaders of higher education institutions (Armstrong, 2007; Scott, 2000). Institutional
response to globalization in higher education in the 21
st
century presents its
challenges but in the end will transform universities into offering new forms of
knowledge organizations.
Overall, literature reviewed on the motivations, realities, and future
challenges in globalizing institutions in higher education are important to this study
because it highlights important implications that leaders at UW may face during their
own global implementation process.
41
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This study examines the senior leadership at a land-grant research university
whose efforts went into integrating globalization into its institutional mission, global
partnership and overseas program. There are several purposes to this study. The first
serves to examine how the senior leadership at the University of Waterside defined
globalization and in particular, how they defined themselves as a global research
university. Second, is to investigate how UW senior leaders integrated global
initiatives which were designed at the system level into their institutional mission
and program offered. And finally, this study investigates the opportunities and
challenges that UW senior leaders faced when integrating concepts of globalization
into their institution.
This study will address the following research questions:
1. How does UW’s senior leadership define globalization?
2. How does UW’s senior leadership define itself as a global research
university?
3. How does the senior leadership at UW integrate concepts of globalization
into their institutional mission and initiatives?
4. What opportunities and challenges have UW leaders faced when
integrating concepts of globalization into their initiatives?
Qualitative Research Study
Qualitative research is the main methodological approach used in this study.
In particular, a single case study approach is used to investigate a single public
42
research university which is the University of Waterside. The purpose of a
qualitative study is to gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of
globalization in higher education in a natural setting (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 1998).
Merriam (1998) suggests that the basis for qualitative research is to gain a better
insight into understanding how people construct meaning from real life experiences
as they interact in their social networks. Through the eyes of the researcher,
qualitative research can provide a descriptive understanding of interactions with
people in different situations. And in the end, qualitative research should “reveal
how all the parts work together to form a whole” (Merriam, 1998, p. 6). Merriam
explains five concerns or characteristics for qualitative research.
The first concern that Merriam (1998) points out about qualitative research is
that the phenomenon being studied should be understood from the participant’s
perspective, not from the researcher’s perspective. In this case, when examining UW,
the researcher should pay close attention to the details of the participant’s views,
beliefs, and values without imposing their personal views onto the participants.
A second characteristic of qualitative research is that the researcher is the
main person for data collection and analysis (Merriam, 1998). The premise of this
characteristic is that the researcher is a human instrument who must be sensitive and
aware of human interaction when collecting data. During the data collection process
this means that the researcher should be responsive to situations by adjusting and
adapting accordingly with instances of nonverbal cues, contextual surroundings, and
overall the researcher should evolve while the study evolves.
43
Third, qualitative research typically includes fieldwork (Merriam, 1998). This
includes having the researcher observe a natural setting in-person, onsite of where
the institution or person is located. For this study, the researcher will interview
leaders at UW without manipulating the situation so that the environment remains in
its natural setting.
A fourth characteristic of qualitative research is that it uses an inductive
research approach to “build abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, or theories rather
than test existing theory” (Merriam, 1998, p. 7). Usually when there is a lack of
theory or there are no existing theories to support a phenomenon a qualitative
approach is used. Merriam (1998) states that “qualitative researchers build toward a
theory from observations and intuitive understandings gained in the field” (p. 7). In
this study in particular, the researcher will investigate common themes incurred in
the field on how leaders at UW conceptualize globalization at their institution.
The final product of qualitative research is an in-depth description that
focuses on the process, meaning, and understanding of the phenomenon (Merriam,
1998). Rich descriptions about the context of a situation include pictures and words
rather than numbers. The data collected uses participant’s direct quotes, document
citations and excerpts when describing the findings of the study.
The researcher for this study followed Merriam’s qualitative research
characteristics which included gathering information from the participant’s
perspective, being the primary instrument for data collection, partaking in fieldwork,
using an inductive approach, and using in-depth descriptions when examining and
44
analyzing UW and its leaders in a natural setting. Describing how leaders at UW
define globalization within the single institution was accomplished through open-
ended interviews, document and artifact analyses.
Elements of a Case Study Design
Yin (2006) suggests that there are three basic steps in designing a case study.
These include defining the case, choosing a single or multiple cases, and using
minimal theoretical perspectives to discover how and why a phenomenon exists. The
researcher has defined this study accordingly. This is an applied research case where
the findings for this study are bounded. This means that the study is limited to a
specific time, place, and condition (Patton, 2002). Specifically, the time for this
study is from October 2005, when the “10 + 10 Alliance” was formed, to present
time since the global initiatives, partnerships and program will be studied at UW.
The place is the four year land-grant research university, UW. And the condition is
the integration of global initiatives at UW creating partnerships and program with a
Chinese university.
The researcher used a single case-study approach to gain a rich understanding
of the situation at the single institution, UW. As Yin (2006) writes that the
importance of a single case study is to pay close attention to the specific case; in this
instance, UW.
The researcher’s mode of analysis was an inductive qualitative approach
(Merriam, 1998). Both Armstrong and Bolman and Deal’s framework were used to
guide the researcher but the main purpose of this study was to make new discoveries.
45
The researcher’s focus was to gain further insight and understanding on how and
why this global phenomenon higher education exists.
Sample and Population
Sample
The sampling of UW and its leaders is based on three major factors: 1) UW is
part of an institutional system in the U.S. which the “10+10 Alliance” umbrellas, 2)
UW leaders have integrated global initiatives into its mission, and 3) UW leaders
have integrated global initiatives by creating a partnership and program with a
Chinese university in Beijing, China.
Snowball sampling was used during the interview process of senior leaders at
UW which implies that the researcher asked key informants, like Executive Vice
Chancellor and Provost Alletrawa (pseudonym), for new contacts of other important
persons involved in the global initiatives process within the institution. The purpose
of snowball sampling was to ask a broad group of knowledgeable people to identify
key persons responsible for the integration of global initiatives within the institution
(Patton, 2002). This was accomplished by the researcher who asked for leads from
current leaders in the organization if they were aware of other participants involved
with the global efforts at UW. When the researcher received a recommendation the
snowball grew as the researcher accumulated new information-rich leads. As a result,
the researcher was able to focus on individual leaders within the institution that have
contributed to the efforts of globalizing their institution.
46
Population
Specifically, the UW senior leaders that were interviewed were UW’s
Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) and Provost Alletrawa, the Chair of the
International Committee on International Programs, Dr. Gregg (pseudonym), and the
Director of the UAC-UW International Center for Ecology and Sustainability, Dr.
Larry (pseudonym).
The Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) and Provost role was to work closely
with the Chancellor in formulating UW’s vision, implementing programs and
policies, and managing the daily operations of the UW campus.
The role of the International Committee on International Programs, that the
Chair orchestrated, was charged with developing a vision, mission, strategy, and
resource plan for international programs and initiatives at UW. This report was
submitted by the Chair to EVC Alletrawa in August 2006.
And finally, the role of the Director of the UAC-UW Center was to bring
students and faculty overseas from UW to the Beijing campus at UAC. The
Director’s main role was coordinating and collaborating, as a faculty member and
administrator from UW, with the Chinese Ministry of Education and UAC. The
Center’s main purpose is performing scientific research on important global
agricultural issues affecting both the US and China.
Overview of Institution
This study examines UW, a four year public university in the United States.
In fall 2007, the institution enrolled a total of 17,000 students comprised of 15,000
47
undergraduate and 2,000 graduate students (UW, About Us – Facts, 2008). By 2015,
the institution has projected its enrollments to grow to 22,000 students. Currently,
UW offers 78 bachelor degree programs, 50 master degree programs, 38 PhD degree
programs, and 17 state teaching credentials. The academic units at UW are the
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, the College of Natural and
Agricultural Sciences, the College of Engineering, the Graduate School of
Management, the Graduate School of Education, the Division of Biomedical
Sciences, and University Extension.
For this study, the main overseas research partnership and Center is between
UW and University of Agriculture, China (UAC), called the UAC-UW International
Center for Ecology and Sustainability. UW’s College of Natural and Agricultural
Sciences is partnered and located on the UAC campus in Beijing, China. The Center
is co-directed by the UW faculty/administrator, Dr. Larry and the UAC
faculty/administrator. For the purposes of this study, only the UW
faculty/administrator, Dr. Larry, was interviewed.
Rationale for Selecting the Case
Within the past decade, UW’s senior leadership, initiated by Chancellor
Heart and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Alletrawa made efforts to integrate
globalization within the land-grant institution. Together, they had done this by
participating in the “10 + 10 alliance”, writing two institutional global initiatives,
forming international partnerships with leaders in China, and facilitating the UAC-
UW agreement of an offshore research program in Beijing, China. Understanding
48
how these senior leaders integrated their global initiatives into their institution was a
phenomenon which served as one of the main purposes for performing this study.
An example within the past decade of leadership involvement in higher
education creating global partnerships with China in an attempt to make universities
in the U.S. global was the conception of the “10 + 10 Alliance”. Formed in October
2005, the “10 + 10 Alliance” was a new model formed by higher education leaders in
the US and China to strengthen the relationship and collaboration between the top
ten public research universities in China and the top ten public research institutions
on the west coast in the U.S. (10+10 Alliance, 2005). Benefiting both China and U.S.
institutions the model targeted collaborative research and educational programs for
faculty and students to work together bi-nationally both in undergraduate and
graduate disciplines in science, engineering, technology, medicine, business, and
humanities. In the “10+10 Alliance” document the authors expressed the need for
joint research advancement in these disciplines because China and U.S. each face
societal challenges in the future of healthcare, environmental resources and
economic developments.
One of the institutions participating in the “10 + 10 Alliance” is the
University of Waterside (UW), a land-grant university. In response to the global
involvement with China UW’s Chancellor Heart and Executive Vice Chancellor and
Provost Alletrawa released two initiatives for the institution that were directed
towards future research collaboration and globalization. The first initiative, released
in September 2005, addressed the anticipated partnership with China which
49
highlights the five year agreement to partner with UAC to operate the UAC-UW
Center for Biological Sciences located on the UAC campus in Beijing, China (UW’s
Chancellor’s China Initiative, 2005). The UAC-UW Center is different from a study-
abroad program such as a summer exchange program, in that UW has physically
established a facility offshore with China on the UAC campus which is more
permanent than an exchange study aboard program. This arrangement allows UW
and UAC faculty and students to collaborate at a designated center on the UAC
campus, away from UW’s home campus in the U.S., and promulgate new knowledge
and research advancement in the area of agriculture, particularly in biological
sciences and biotechnology for the betterment of both cultures.
The second initiative that Chancellor Heart and Executive Vice Chancellor
and Provost Alletrawa introduced to UW was the Initiative for International
Cooperation (UW’s Chancellor’s Initiative for International Cooperation, 2006).
Released in September 2006, the initiative discusses the importance of international
research collaboration in scientific advancement. Four main criteria were addressed
which include research collaboration with multiple sectors of society, increasing
student involvement in global research collaborations, adding value as a reason for
global partners to work together, and removing barriers such as governing policies
dealing with visa issues (UW’s Chancellor’s Initiative for International Cooperation,
2006). Overall, the purpose of the initiative was to acknowledge, in writing, that UW
is establishing international collaborations in science with global leaders in higher
education.
50
In fall 2007, UW underwent a major change in leadership. One year after
UW’s global initiatives were released, Chancellor Heart resigned from UW after
serving five years at the institution. Chancellor Stark (pseudonym) is currently the
new residing Chancellor at UW who now works closely with Executive Vice
Chancellor and Provost Alletrawa. EVC Alletrawa’s role at UW has been important
as she continues to carry out the institution’s strategic global visions throughout the
leadership change. In addition, she is the individual who oversees the Office of the
Executive Vice Chancellor which is responsible for caring out the global initiatives,
after the leave of Chancellor Heart.
Today, the vision statement at UW emphasizes the importance of becoming a
global research university:
UW will be a top-ranked, global research university that creates a
nurturing and learning environment for our students, provides a
welcoming and stimulating environment for our friends and
supporters, and serves as both a source of pride for our region and a
leader in its economic and cultural development. To do this requires
attracting a diverse, world-class faculty (UW’s Vision Statement).

The inclusion of the term global in UW’s mission statement suggests that the
institution focuses its efforts on becoming a top-ranked, global research university.
Instrumentation
The researcher was the primary instrument for data collection. This case
study involved three sources of data used in order to construct validity. The three
sources of data include interviews, document analysis and artifact analysis.
Describing how leaders at UW define and integrate globalization within the single
51
institution was accomplished through open-ended interviews, document and artifact
analyses. Documents such as UW’s Mission Statement, China Initiative (2005) and
Initiative for International Cooperation (2006) written by senior leaders at UW was
reviewed. And finally the artifacts analyzed were websites. Specifically, the final
report titled A Vision, Mission, Strategy, and Resource Plan for International
Programs and Initiatives at the University of Waterside (Final Report, 2006)
submitted in August 2006 was used as the main document for analysis.
Overall, the instrumentation of this study is the interview protocol. The
interview protocol is designed to obtain answers to this study’s research questions
developed by the researcher. The interview protocol was submitted and approved by
both universities and their Institutional Review Board (IRB). The structured
interview protocol contained open-ended questions aimed to answer the research
questions. The interview protocol was field tested by the researcher for purposes of
validity.
Validity and Reliability
Research should produce valid and reliable knowledge in an ethical manner
(Merriam, 1998). Regardless of the study, research should be conducted in careful
manner with particular attention given to the collection, analyses, interpretation, and
presentation of data and findings. Recall that for qualitative research study the
purpose is to gain a better insight on understanding how people construct meaning
from real life experiences as they interact in their social networks. Thus, research
findings should be congruent with reality in order for a study to be internally valid.
52
For this case, the findings should reflect senior leader’s perspectives at UW and their
perception of reality in order for the study to be valid.
Merriam (1998) suggests several ways to enhance internal validity. In
particular, four strategies were be used to enhance internal validity in this study.
These include triangulation, member checks, peer examination, and researcher’s
biases. Triangulation is defined as the use of a variety of data sources in a study
which converge lines of evidence to make findings as robust as possible (Patton,
2002; Yin, 2006). A good case study typically has multiple sources of evidence. This
study uses three sources for data triangulation - interviews, document and artifact
analysis. Second, member checks includes the process of using data, interpreting it
and then reporting it back to participants where it originated and then inquiring with
them about the possibility of results. Reanalyzing data is a process that was done
throughout the study. Next, peer examination was important to consult with
colleagues, such as dissertation classmates and committee members in the EdD
program, to discuss the findings of the studies as they were discovered. Lastly,
researcher’s biases, such as assumptions and individual perspectives, were addressed
at the beginning of the study.
In order for a study to be reliable, research findings should be able to be
replicated (Merriam, 1998). Meaning that if this research study were to be repeated it
should yield similar results. Qualitative research deals with social issues such as
human behavior which is sometimes difficult to replicate. Thus, Merriam (1998)
53
suggests that qualitative researchers should “describe and explain the world as those
in the world experience it” (p. 205).
Ethical Considerations
Merriam (1998) argues that valid and reliable research should be conducted
in an ethical manner. Applied qualitative research intervenes in people’s lives and
therefore it is important to protect human subjects during research studies. As a
result, the researcher had been CITI (Collaborative IRB Training Initiative) certified
and understood the importance of protecting human rights. The researcher obtained
approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for interview protocols dealing
with the direct contact of persons. During the collection of data and dissemination of
findings the privacy and protection of individuals will be taken into consideration for
all participants by using pseudonyms for identification purposes. The institution,
subjects, and website links have been changed to reflect the pseudonym used for
purposes of protecting identities. Lastly, the researcher remained unbiased and free
from personal beliefs or opinions when collecting data and during the data analysis
process.
Data Collection
Once IRB approval was obtained the researcher begin collecting data. Data
from the three sources (interviews, document analysis, and artifact analysis) were
used to triangulate the validity of the findings. Content of the data was then analyzed
through a narrative approach. Overall, this study used a pure naturalistic-qualitative
54
strategy when collecting and analyzing data (Patton, 2002). Meaning the researcher
used naturalistic inquiry during interviews, document and artifact analysis.
The Role of the Researcher
The role of the researcher was to act as the primary instrument for data
collection. Since this is a qualitative study data was conveyed through the words of
the researcher about the study participants. Thus, it was important the researcher
presented a clear, in-depth description of the data for the reader that remained as
close to reality as possible. In addition, the researcher had to remain unbiased and
free from individual ideologies while collecting and analyzing data.
In addition, the researcher used the doctoral coursework as preparation and
training for performing interviews and reviewing documents and artifacts. The
researcher relied on interpersonal and communication skills gained from academic
schooling and from the work environment. The researcher has five years of work
experience in higher education as an administrator at a four year private research
university. Attributes gained from professional experiences with leaders in the
profession helped the researcher build rapport with participants during interviews
and at the same time helped the researcher understand the sensitivity of
circumstances when discussing private information. Also, it was important for the
researcher to clarify ambiguous answers to questions and use probing questions to
gain further insight for certain areas that might need further investigation. During
interaction with the participants, the researcher dressed professionally and presented
herself in a professional manner.
55
Interview Procedures
Interviews were conducted with UW’s senior leaders during the fall 2008 and
spring 2009 academic terms. The most common form of interviews, person-to-
person, was used to gather information. The purpose of using interviews was to make
purposeful conversation. Specifically, “interviewing is necessary when we cannot
observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the world around them”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 72).
Since this is a qualitative investigation, questions during the interview were
more open-ended and less structured; or notably termed semi-structured. A semi-
structured interview guide was used by the researcher during each individual
interview. An interview guide is a list of questions that contain several specific
questions for all participants, and more open-ended questions that could be followed
up with probing questions. Merriam (1998) even suggests that the guide could
contain a “list of some areas, topics, and issues that the researcher wants to know
more about but does not have enough information about at the onset of the study to
form specific questions” (p. 82).
Each interview was taped after being approved by the individual leader.
During the interview, the researcher took notes but made sure not to be distracting to
the subject during this process. Once the interview was over the researcher
transcribed the taped interview onto paper including hand written notes. The
researcher focused on paying close attention to each leader’s demeanor such as body
language and as to be responsive to understanding the participant’s feelings,
56
thoughts, and intentions when answering questions. Finally, interviews were
reviewed for patterns and themes during the analysis process.
Document and Artifact Review
Documents and artifacts are different than interviews in that they are not
usually made for the purpose of the research and therefore do not alter the setting as
the way an interviewer would in the presence of a participant. Merriam (1998) writes
that documents are “a ready-made source of data easily accessible to the imaginative
and resourceful investigator (p. 112). It was important that the researcher questions
the authenticity of a document or artifact by asking where the document originated
from, how was it found, has it been edited, who is the author, and are there any
biases. Questioning the authenticity of documents and artifacts was a part of the
research process.
In this study, both documents and artifacts were examined. The main
document of interest for this study was the final report of the International Advisory
Committee submitted to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost on August 1,
2006. Dr. Gregg was appointed by EVC Alletrawa to Chair this Committee in
October 2005. The committee consisted of nineteen UW faculty, nine staff, and two
external advisors. The document is titled A Vision, Mission, Strategy, and Resource
Plan for International Programs and Initiatives at the University of Waterside. This
document is the first report ever written in UW’s history which encapsulated a
comprehensive strategy to achieve Chancellor Heart’s goal of becoming a top-ranked
research university. The main objective and purpose of this report was to present a
57
vision, mission, strategy, and resource plan for international programs and initiatives
at UW.
Other documents reviewed by the researchers during fieldwork was UW’s
Mission Statement, China Initiative (2005), and Initiative for International
Cooperation (2006) written by senior leaders at UW were reviewed. Physical
artifacts were websites which were used to better understand UW’s mission and
integration of global initiatives.
Data Analysis
After the data was collected, the content was analyzed to identify patterns,
characteristics, and themes obtained through the lens of individual participants
(Patton, 2002). The purpose of data analysis was to bring together data and find
common patterns, themes, and interrelationships amongst data collected. Specially,
this study used a narrative approach to analyze the data. The technique used for
narrative analysis was to present participant experiences through stories. Merriam
(1998) states that “emphasis in on the stories people tell and on how these stories are
communicated” (p. 157). In doing so, the researcher was careful to be clear and
engaging yet support claims with evidence.
Analyzing data for qualitative case studies is a process of gathering
comprehensive, systematic and in-depth information about the case of interest
(Patton, 2002). Thus, the term case study is used to describe a process of analysis.
Patton describes three steps for constructing case studies from taking raw data and
turning it into an in-depth case study narrative. First, the researcher must assemble
58
the raw case data. Once the raw data is accumulated then the researcher can write a
case record. Step two is where the researcher pulls together all the data into one
comprehensive, resource package. Patton explains that the case record is where “the
raw data is organized, classified, and edited into a manageable and accessible file”
(p. 450). Step three is the final case study narrative which is what will actually be
reported in the study. The final case study narrative is described by Patton (2002)
below:
“The case study is a readable, descriptive picture of a story about a
person, program, organization, and so forth, making accessible to the
reader all the information necessary to understand the case in all its
uniqueness. The case story can be told chronologically or presented
thematically (sometimes both)” (p. 450).

The researcher of this study used Patton’s process for constructing case
studies. First, the researcher pulled together all the data accumulated from
interviews, document and artifact analysis. Next, the researcher compiled this
information into one case record that is sorted by patterns, or descriptive findings,
and themes pertaining to the research questions. Lastly, the researcher used this case
record to write a final case study narrative on the senior leaders at UW who have
integrated global concepts into their mission and initiatives.
Throughout the data collection, organization, and analyses process the
researcher was constantly interpreting and reacting to the data. In particular, the
researcher continued to go back to the sources of data to make sure the information
gathered is appropriate for the themes of the study. And if any problems incurred
59
during the data collection process, the researcher consulted the dissertation
committee members for expert opinions before continuing on with the study.
60
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
This chapter presents findings from data collected using the narrative
analytical approach. The raw data were gathered from interviews, documents and
artifacts then analyzed, organized, classified, and edited into a case study narrative
presented as a readable, descriptive picture story on UW leaders and their global
efforts.
Interviews
Three senior leaders were interviewed. UW’s Executive Vice Chancellor
(EVC) and Provost Alletrawa, the Chair of the International Committee on
International Programs, Dr. Gregg, and the Director of the UAC-UW International
Center for Ecology and Sustainability, Dr. Larry.
EVC Alletrawa’s interview took place in her office located on UW’s campus.
When I arrived, I was greeted by her secretary who notified me immediately that
EVC Alletrawa was running late due to an emergency meeting called by Chancellor
Stark. Thirty minutes after our meeting was originally scheduled, an energetic,
friendly but poised woman walked through the mahogany doors, apologizing
profusely. During our interview EVC Alletrawa was keen on making sure that all
questions were answered sufficiently. In the end, she provided a personal contact
phone number for Dr. Gregg, the Chair of the International Committee on
International Programs, who wrote the final report on UW’s International Programs
three years ago. She suggested that this would be the best person to speak with
regarding my study.
61
Before contacting Dr. Gregg, an interview was set up with Dr. Larry, the
Director of the UAC-UW International Center for Ecology and Sustainability. Dr.
Larry is both a faculty member of the Botany and Plant Sciences Department and the
Director of the UAC-UW Center. Our meeting took place at a hotel café near the Los
Angeles International Airport.
The final interview, with Dr. Gregg, took place at a café near UW’s campus,
which was recommended by Dr. Gregg. During our interview I was informed that
EVC Alletrawa hired Dr. Gregg because of his former experience as Vice Provost at
Georgia Tech and Associate Dean of Engineering at Penn State. These positions
required extensive travel and numerous meetings with senior administrative leaders
in higher education worldwide and whose work dealt mainly with international
education projects. Overall, he was academically professional, mainly guided by his
years of experience as an administrative leader in higher education.
The Research Questions
The interviews, document and artifact analysis were based around the
following research questions:
1. How does UW’s senior leadership define globalization?
2. How does UW’s senior leadership define itself as a global research
university?
3. How does the senior leadership at UW integrate concepts of globalization
into their institutional mission and initiatives?
62
4. What opportunities and challenges have UW leaders faced when
integrating concepts of globalization into their initiatives?
The remainder of this chapter will be organized around the findings from the
three interviews, document and artifact analysis pertaining to this study’s main
research questions.
Findings: Question 1
How does UW’s senior leadership define globalization?
After analyzing the data, I found that each leader defined the term
globalization differently. EVC Alletrawa’s response emphasized intellectual capital
and the exchange of knowledge between borderless countries. She stated that
globalization is when, “intellectual capital travels the world and no one location has
a corner on the intellectual”. In describing this definition she spoke of her personal
experience traveling to China in 2006 with Chancellor Heart to form the UAC
partnership with UW. She said that the importance of this global partnership was to
create an exchange of ideas and knowledge, intellectual capital, amongst the two
institutions to perform scientific research on topics that affect both societies. The
definition provided by EVC Alletrawa is similar to Spring’s (2008) discourse topics
on globalization in higher education – the knowledge economy and technology -
where economies depend on human capital, both on the skills and knowledge of all
people. EVC Alletrawa’s definition suggests that the skills and knowledge learned
by students in higher education today are not restricted to one part of the world or
one institution rather intellectual capital is shared worldwide.
63
The interview with Dr. Larry revealed a different dimension to the term
globalization. Dr. Larry was an essential part in forming the partnership with UAC in
2006 when Chancellor Heart and EVC Alletrawa were present. Dr. Larry’s
background is different from the others. He was the only individual from UW of
Chinese decent, who spoke fluent Chinese and English, and who understood both the
Chinese and American cultures, having lived in both countries. Focusing more on the
concept of culture in his definition, Dr. Larry described globalization from another
perspective. He stated that:
From an economic stance, globalization deals with trading,
manufacturing goods, and exchange of ideas and goods. From an
academic perspective it is like hybridization…you have breeding and
sooner or later you have more commonality than individualism.
Globalization is good in academia but I also think that we need to
preserve the uniqueness between cultures.

Dr. Larry’s conceptualization of globalization is similar to Beerkens (2003) cultural
concept of globalization where Beerkens states that globalization equals the mixing
of cultures creating either uniformity or friction amongst people of different
ethnicities. Applied to the context of higher education, Beerkens suggests that this
cultural mixing between institutions may be a threat to diversity as societies merge
culturally and fears of McDonaldization of higher education exist. Dr. Larry’s
definition clearly points to the concept of culture in his definition of globalization, as
defined by Beerkens.
A different approach was taken by Dr. Gregg in defining the term
globalization. Instead of focusing on globalization and the direct effects on students,
64
Dr. Gregg described globalization in terms of resource allocation towards global
efforts. Dr. Gregg has worked as a higher education administrator for global
institutions in the U.S. and on international education projects. Before defining the
term globalization Dr. Gregg mentioned that the term involves a lot of different
things and alluded to the notion that “most people would tell you that globalization
means that your students have experience abroad or that you’ve got a lot of graduate
students who are studying at your university”. Confident in his answer, Dr. Gregg
suggested:
Globalization in higher education is not as student orientated as you
might think. I think that globalization means that all of the resources
that you have at the university are being applied to globalizing your
university. And I think that once an institution reaches a point that
everything it does has an outreach focus with an international
component, then an institution has become globalized.

Dr. Gregg’s definition of globalization is related directly to higher education.
Specifically, he discussed the importance of resource allocation to international
programs and that global outreach must be campus wide in order for a campus to be
globalized. Dr. Gregg’s definition relates back to the importance of institutional
leadership and their ability to allocate resources to such international initiatives in
making their university more global.
Finally, the International Committee comprised of UW faculty, staff, and
advisors involved in international programs and activities across campus submitted
their definition in the final report. The report used Knight’s (1996) definition of
globalization which was defined as “the process of integrating an international,
65
intercultural, and global perspective into all three major functions of the university:
teaching, research, and service” (Final Report, 2006, p.3). This is a comprehensive
definition of globalization in higher education. First, this definition suggests that
globalization is a process as defined by authors previously noted in this study
(Armstrong, 2007; Beerkens, 2003; Spring, 2008). The definition also touches upon
different conceptualizations of globalization such as locale, cultural, and institutional
(Beerkens, 2003). And finally, the definition highlights the three functions of land-
grant institutions - teaching, research, and service. Leadership plays an important
role when integrating globalization into these three functions of a university
(NASULGC, 2004).
Findings: Question 2
How does UW’s senior leadership define itself as a global research university?
In 2005, UW’s Chancellor Heart said that in order to become a global
research university it will require that UW would need to embark on an international
mission over the next few years to accomplish the following goals: 1) achieve the
international profile of an American Association of Universities (AAU) for all
students, 2) expand international opportunities for all students, 3) internationalize the
UW curriculum, 4) diversity the faculty, staff, and graduate population, 5) forge
closer ties with the international community, 6) provide leadership and an
organizational structure to accomplish an international mission (Final Report, 2006,
p.1). What occurred after the Chancellor stated these goals resulted in the conception
66
of the China Initiative (2005) and Initiative for International Cooperation (2006) and
the partnership with UAC in Beijing, China forming an overseas program with UW.
The participants in this study, EVC Alletrawa, Dr. Larry, and Dr. Gregg, are
leaders who worked directly with Chancellor Heart in advocating these initiatives.
When I asked EVC Alletrawa about UW’s current position in supporting the
initiatives of becoming a top-ranked global research university, she responded:
We are not as well developed as some of the other statewide
campuses in the international arena but UW is the 4
th
diverse in the
nation and our goal would be to become an AAU university and the
most diverse institution in the AAU.

Both EVC Alletrawa and Chancellor Heart emphasized that their number one goal
was to become an AAU university. To clarify, she explained what it meant to be an
AAU institution. The American Association of Universities (AAU) is nonprofit
organization consisting of 62 leading public and private research universities in the
United States and Canada which focus on issues important to research-intensive
universities (AAU Website, 2008). Dr. Gregg explained to me the Chancellor and
EVC’s motives behind belonging to AAU:
Chancellor Heart’s main goal wasn’t just to become a global research
university, but rather her goal was to become an AAU university. This
meant that as an institution, UW’s international programs must be
strong…so UW wasn’t meant to become a global university. The
Chancellor and EVC would probably deny this claim and say they
want to be an international university because of the visibility and
reputation but if it did not lead to AAU they probably would not have
done it.

Dr. Gregg’s response agrees with Chancellor Heart’s first goal of becoming a global
research university which was to achieve the international profile of an AAU (Final
67
Report, 2006). Dr. Gregg’s insights, along with EVC Alletrawa’s interview, and
Chancellor Heart’s first goal stated in the final report, led me to believe that UW’s
mission should read that UW would like to become a top-ranked AAU institution
more than a top-ranked global research university.
Dr. Larry also expressed that he did not perceive UW as a global research
university. He said:
I don’t know if we are global university. I would say that the UC
system as a whole projects this idea as they see China and other
countries emerging, but UW has not developed some kind of
international program yet.

Dr. Larry talked about his involvement with the overseas program and mentioned
that most of his efforts were done on an individual basis. He mentioned that UW had
not supported him with any financial funding or resources towards his efforts with
the overseas program. Dr. Larry said that:
The Center right now has received all of its funding from the Chinese
Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Economics.
From the perspective of the Chinese government, the funding is
enough to sustain the Center in China, which is currently five million
in Chinese dollars. This money is used to pay for my job as Director
of the Center and we use the money to bring in professors from UW
which is funded by Chinese to bring them to UAC.

Dr. Larry said that the program exists today because of his close relationship with the
Chinese Ministry of Education and their full financial support. Without the resources
provided from the Chinese government his research and programmatic studies at
UAC would not exist.
68
Similarly, Dr. Gregg emphasized that UW has not become a global research
university:
Most of what has been going on at UW over the last ten years has
been research collaborations on an individual basis by faculty
members…these faculty members across campus are involved in
international research projects with colleagues, but none of these
efforts has been centralized or coordinated.

This statement supports Dr. Larry’s individual efforts whose partnership with UAC
is not supported by a centralized office or administrative person at UW. When
examining UAC’s website for more information on UAC’s international office or
administrative leadership, the website mentions that there is a proposed Office of
International Affairs but does not provide an active link with further information on
the status of this office or personnel (UW’s EVC Website, 2009). In addition, the
final report (2006) suggests that a major hurdle that stands in the way of UW
becoming a global university is that “there is no single person or unit recognized
across campus as the chief advocate, leader, and promoter of international programs
and activities across campus”(p.10). Overall, the pattern in these findings regarding
this research question is that UW has not met its mission of becoming a top-ranked
global research university, nor has it met its goal of becoming a member of the AAU.
Findings: Question 3
How does the senior leadership at UW integrate concepts of globalization into their
institutional mission and initiatives?
As the NASULGC task force report noted, the role of campus senior
leadership is very important in globalizing land-grant research institutions. The task
69
force report emphasized “3 A’s of Leadership” which called for leaders to articulate,
advocate, and act when integrating global initiatives into their institutions
(NASULGC, 2004). UW’s final report submitted to the EVC in 2006 serves as a
roadmap for its senior leaders to use for purposes of articulating, advocating, and
acting on their global initiatives. First, the report articulated a clear vision for UW,
as stated by Chancellor Heart in 2005:
UW will be a top-ranked, global research university that creates a
nurturing and learning environment for our students, provides a
welcoming and stimulating environment for our friends and
supporters, and serves as both a source of pride for our region and a
leader in its economic and cultural development. To do this requires
attracting a diverse, world-class faculty.

The International Committee who submitted the final report felt that Chancellor
Heart’s vision could not be reached until the following occurred: 1) faculty were
involved in high-profile international research and projects, 2) UW had significant
international partnerships with highly-regarding universities worldwide, 3) UW was
involved in highly-visible activities and programs throughout the world, 4) UW had
an internationalized curriculum, 5) UW had a large number of visiting international
faculty, 6) UW had a large contingent of international student attending UW and
studying abroad, and 7) UW had an active group of international alumni and friends
around the world (Final Report, 2006). In order to execute this vision and resolve
these issues, the report provided a solution - a clearly articulated course of action for
UW senior leaders, administrators and faculty to use throughout the campus.
70
UW’s final report presented senior leaders with a recommended course of
action so that they were better equipped to advocate globalization across campus and
the community. Suggestions in the report call for UW senior leaders to: 1) make
globalization a major goal at UW, 2) encourage UW leaders to coordinate
administratively across campus, 3) provide staff and financial support of a new
senior international administrative position, 4) establish a body of faculty, staff, and
students to work and assist with the new senior administrator, 5) increase the number
of globalization conferences, workshops, and seminars on campus and in the
community, 6) recognize faculty international programs and initiatives and reward in
promotion, tenure and merit during review processes, and 7) put together a strong
development plan for international programs and activities (Final Report, 2006).
These suggestions were important for UW leaders so that they could better
understand how to support globalization on campus. The report stressed the need for
buy-in at all levels within and outside the institution. An intention of the report was
not only to stimulate deep change but to also increase the likelihood for sustainability
of global initiatives as they were implemented.
In order to fully implement the seven recommendations, the International
Committee outlined three implementation steps for senior leaders to act on. Step one
was for UW senior leaders to publically commit to the international programs and
initiatives. Step two was to create a new senior administrative position titled Vice
Provost for International Programs and Initiatives. And step three was to form a new
advisory body titled the UW International Council. My interview with Dr. Gregg
71
revealed that none of these recommendations were ever addressed by UW senior
leaders. There was never a push by UW leaders to enumerate to the local and
international community. Nor was the new position for international programs filled
as confirmed by Dr. Gregg in our interview and through my artifact analysis of
UW’s website which revealed the absence of such an international administrative
position noted on the EVC’s website today (UW’s EVC Website, 2009). And Dr.
Gregg confirmed during our interview that the advisory board was never formed. Dr.
Gregg said that:
The Vice Provost of International Programs position never started.
They were going to do it a year ago, but they ran out of money and
decided to do it as a half time position rather than a full time and then
that fell apart. And to be honest, nothing has happened since
submitting the report three years ago with my suggested
implementation steps. Which does not surprise me, I was never
shocked when they put it on the shelf and let is sit for three years.

Dr. Gregg pointed out that without the support from senior leaders to articulate,
advocate and act on campus-wide, as illustrated by the final report, it is nearly
impossible for an institution to become a global research university, as exemplified
by UW and its senior leaders.
Findings: Question 4
What opportunities and challenges have UW leaders faced when integrating
concepts of globalization into their initiatives?
Findings from this study suggest that several opportunities were gained from
UW’s involvement in international programs. The final report submitted by the
International Committee describes such opportunities. First, UW faculty,
72
departments and research centers are involved with teaching, research and
partnerships with China, Mexico, Korea, and other countries worldwide. In
particular, senior leaders at UW have visited China and signed MOU’s with Chinese
institutions (Final Report, 2006). Second, UW has over sixty international
cooperation agreements in nineteen countries and many international scholars visit
UW departments each year to teach or perform research (Final Report, 2006). And
UW academic units are involved internationally in that UW faculty members have
ongoing relations with dozens of universities globally (Final Report, 2006). Finally,
there are fifteen area study units identified across campus involved in programs and
activities with an international focus (Final Report, 2006). Yet, because there is no
centralized administrative office or personnel for international affairs at UW, these
international opportunities on campus tend to go unnoticed without a collected effort
in collaborating and communicating these activities campus wide to faculty, staff and
students (Final Report, 2006).
Although UW does demonstrate international strengths as describe above, the
International Committee in its final report suggested that there are more challenges
than opportunities which currently stand in the way of UW becoming a truly global
research university. These challenges include UW’s lack of international focus,
senior administrative support, coordination and communication, international
curriculum, funding and staffing, and international partnerships (Final Report, 2006).
First, the final report suggests that UW’s current international focus is limited. It
states that “UW does not have a campus-wide international vision, mission, strategy,
73
resource plan to guide faculty and staff in international programs and activities”
(Final Report, 2006, p. 9). And even though UW has numerous international
programs ongoing throughout the campus, in general UW is not widely known as a
“global research university of excellence” (Final Report, 2006, p. 9).
Second, the final report states that UW is challenged by the lack of support
by senior administrators. Senior administrators have not made a public statement that
globalization is one of UW’s major goals nor have they publicly announced
international programs and initiatives as strengths of the university (Final Report,
2006). Thus, the international programs and initiatives do not have maximum
visibility, either within or outside the university. And although China was a main
concern for Chancellor Heart, many opportunities in other countries have not
received the same emphasis (Final Report, 2006). And finally, there has been a major
change in leadership since the UW’s global initiatives were put into place.
Chancellor Heart who left in 2007 was responsible for incorporating globalization
into UW’s mission, creating the global initiatives and partnership with UAC.
Neither of the Chancellor’s global initiatives can be found on UW’s website today.
Another challenge that UW faces is the coordination and communication of
its international programs and global initiatives across campus, as stated in the final
report. The report revealed that there is minimum coordination and communication
amongst different programs involved in international activities ongoing across the
campus. To this day, faculty, departments and research centers have not been
brought together across the campus (Final Report, 2006). There are hundreds of
74
faculty-initiated international research projects going on across campus, but not one
common list exists to keep track of such programs or initiatives (Final Report, 2006).
And although there are many senior administrators who work on international
projects, there is no single person or unit recognized across campus acting as the
principal leader or go-to-person for international programs and activities across
campus (Final Report, 2006). This agrees with the earlier statement by Dr. Gregg
that there is not a centralized person or office at UW that coordinates international
activities or programs at UW. As a result from this lack of centralized infrastructure,
faculty are left uninformed of campus wide international projects and do not know
where to turn for international support or guidance.
Another challenge is that UW’s education programs and international
curriculum are not as strong as desired (Final Report, 2006). Although UW is part of
a system-wide structure which allows students to select from more than 140
universities in 35 countries, historically there has not been enough participation by
UW students to study-abroad (Final Report, 2006). One way to enhance this interest
is to develop more international curricular initiatives into campus-wide curriculum.
Examples include the need to globalize across the entire curriculum or offer dual-
degree programs with other institutions. Yet, in order to do this, UW faculty needs
encouragement by senior administrators to offer programs and initiatives in core
strength areas by senior leaders.
UW is also challenged in its ability to form stronger international
partnerships and make sure that these partnerships are better known across campus
75
(Final Report, 2006). In the report, it states that UW has entered into many
collaborations and partnerships with universities worldwide, but many of these are
not being fully exploited across the campus. Also, the report identifies that there are
not enough opportunities for international faculty to come to UW for short terms to
teach, do research, or engage in scholarly activities. Thus, the report suggests that
more substantial partnerships should be formed in order to accommodate the needs
of these visiting faculty members from other countries and increase the visibility of
UW in becoming a global research university.
Finally, another major challenge is that UW lacks the funding and staffing
needed to become a global university (Final Report, 2006). Findings from the 2006
final report suggest that not enough money and staff were made available for faculty
to pursue meaningful international programs and initiatives. Both the final report and
interviews from this study revealed that UW has not given sufficient staff or
financial resources, such as an international programs office, to provide the services
necessary to support global initiatives. In recent events, the statewide budget cuts
were announced to institutions in the U.S. which will have a profound effect on all
public research schools, including UW, as per my interview with EVC Alletrawa. In
my November 21, 2009 interview with EVC Alletrawa which had been delayed due
to an emergency meeting with the Chancellor, she said:
I just found out that $100 million dollars will be cut from the
statewide budget. UW is affected by this cut and I am spending all my
time looking at financial problems. My plan is to eventually have a
position of Vice Provost for International Affairs but right now I
cannot do this with the budget issues that have recently come up.
76
Currently, UW is on a soft hiring freeze of staff and the EVC said during our
interview that she has reduced her number of searches for faculty replacements from
forty-five to twenty-four. In response to the announcement of the recent budget cuts,
Chancellor Stark held a Town Hall Meeting on November 24, 2008, to address UW’s
campus and acknowledge how the cuts would affect the campus (UW Town Hall
Meeting, 2008). UW’s Chancellor stated that:
We either have to lower costs, raise revenues, or eat up some of our
reserve money, which exists in little puddles around this campus. The
truth of the matter is that we will end up doing all three of those
things. One way we will respond is by reviewing academic programs
to determine which programs are on the highest order, whether there
could be additional efficiency through consolidation, or whether the
campus should disinvest in some programs in the future.

Findings from both my interviews and information gathered from the Chancellor’s
town hall meeting suggests that UW’s international programs and initiatives will be
placed on hold. As the EVC alluded to during our talk, she was uncertain of the fate
of UW’s international programs and initiatives as it does not look promising with the
current status of the economy.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate how senior leaders at a land-
grant research university integrated globalization into its institutional initiatives and
programs. The four research questions framing this study addressed leadership roles
as they relate to the globalization process. Table 2 summarizes the findings relating
to each research question. Findings from the study will be discussed further in this
section.
77
Table 2: Summary of Findings by Research Question
Research Questions Findings Data Source
How does UW’s
senior leadership
define
globalization?
- Knowledge economy and technology
- Cultural concept of globalization
- All resources are being applied to
internationalizing the university
- The process of integrating an
international, intercultural, and global
perspective into all three major functions
of the university: teaching, research, and
service
- Interviews with EVC
Alletrwa, Dr. Larry, and
Dr. Gregg
- Final Report (2006)
How does UW’s
senior leadership
define itself as a
global research
university?
UW global goals: 1) Achieve the
international profile of an AAU for all
students, 2) Expand international
opportunities for all students, 3)
Internationalize the UW curriculum 4)
Diversity the faculty, staff, and graduate
population, 5) Forge closer ties with the
international community, and 6) Provide
leadership and an organizational
structure to accomplish an international
mission
- Interviews with EVC
Alletrawa, Dr. Gregg,
and Dr. Larry
- Final Report (2006)
- UW’s EVC Website
(2009)
- China Initiative (2005)
- Initiative for
International
Cooperation (2006)
- Interview with EVC
How does the senior
leadership at UW
integrate concepts
of globalization into
their institutional
mission and
initiatives?
Defined by “3 A’s of Leadership” the
final report called for leaders to
articulate, advocate, and act on global
initiatives and programs by providing a
strategic plan
Alletrawa and Dr.Gregg
- Final Report (2006)
- UW’s EVC Website
(2009)
What opportunities
and challenges have
UW leaders faced
when integrating
concepts of
globalization into
their initiatives?
Opportunities: International faculty
involvement, numerous international
agreements, and fifteen area studies units
across campus involved internationally
Challenges: Lack of international focus,
senior administrative support,
coordination and communication,
international curriculum, funding and
staffing, and international partnerships
- Interview with EVC
Alletrawa and Dr.
Gregg
- Final Report (2006)
- Chancellor Stark’s
UW Town Hall Meeting
excerpt from UW’s
website (2008)
78
Defining Globalization in Higher Education
Findings from this study are consistent with previous literature that has
suggested different interpretations and applications of the term globalization in the
field of higher education (Beerkens, 2003; Chan, 2004; Knight, 1997; Spring, 2008).
Data collection and analysis from this study reveal that senior leaders at UW defined
the term globalization differently. Recall that EVC Alletrawa’s definition was similar
to Spring’s (2008) discourse on globalization regarding the knowledge economy and
technology where intellectual capital is unrestricted by territorial borders. Dr. Larry’s
definition was similar to Beerkens (2003) cultural concept of globalization where
globalization was compared to hybridization, or in this case, the mixing of cultures.
Dr. Gregg’s definition touches on the importance of institutional leadership and
resource allocation when implementing global initiatives. Findings related to this
research question are important to this study because it illuminates individual
differences in the way leaders define and perceive globalization at UW.
Findings conclude that there were no supporting documents or senior
administrators at UW who could provide a common understanding of what it means
to become a global research institution or what an international mission at UW
means to the institution. These differences in responses by senior leaders and the
lack of defined terms and meaning may be a direct reflection that UW does not have
a comprehensive strategy for becoming a global research university. Without a clear
understanding of what UW is trying to accomplish globally, leaders cannot articulate
common goals or define terms like globalization in a synergistic manner. For
79
institutions to become global, senior leaders must first begin by presenting clearer,
well-defined terms of what it means to become global, both conceptually and
operationally, before designing and implementing a global strategic mission and plan
at their institution.
Without clearly articulated global terms by UW senior leaders it is difficult to
become a global research university because there is not a common understanding of
what this means amongst faculty, administrators and students across campus.
Findings from all three interviews and the final report (2006) suggest that UW has
not identified such terms revealing a lack in global strategy and overall that UW is
not yet a top-ranked global research university. Although efforts were made to ignite
the process, there was never a concerted effort by leadership to sustain such
strategies. For example, in 2005, Chancellor Heart announced UW’s six goals of
becoming a global research university. These goals were orated during an Academic
Senate Divisional meeting but never formally referred to until the final report was
submitted in 2006. In October 2005, EVC Alletrawa appointed Dr. Gregg to Chair
the International Advisory Committee to identify a common vision, mission, strategy
and resource plan for UW with the submission of the final report (2006). However,
as expressed by Dr. Gregg in our interview, this report was never utilized by the
EVC or any other senior leaders at UW; rather this report ‘sat on the shelf for the
past three years’ without any acknowledgement or utilization.
Findings from the interviews also suggest a blurred line between what leaders
mean when aspiring to become a global research university as opposed to an AAU
80
university. Leaders seemed more motivated to become an AAU institution than a
global research university as identified by EVC’s and Dr. Gregg’s interview.
Distinguishing the differences between these two concepts may help leaders at UW
to define clearer terms for the institution and what they are trying to achieve, whether
to become a more global institution, an AAU institution, or both. Understanding the
specific differences and similarities between the two would help guide leaders during
their design and global implementation plan.
The Role of Leadership in Globalizing the University
Recent attempts by UW leaders to become global appear to originate from
discussions of the importance of incorporating global concepts into institutional
missions (NASULGC, 2004). The NASULGC task force report stated that if leaders
are to incorporate globalization into their missions they should stress not only
services to students within the local community but also worldwide. In UW’s case,
Chancellor Heart did incorporate globalization into UW’s mission in 2005 by adding
the terminology of wanting to become a “top-ranked global research university” but
what findings suggest was that UW senior leaders were unsuccessful in reaching out
to the global community (UW’s Vision Statement). Reasons could be attributed to
UW’s senior leadership’s inability to articulate, advocate and act on the global
initiatives. Even with the guidance from the final report which attempted to define a
global vision, mission, strategy and resource plan at UW, institutional leaders had
not yet considered its recommendations as Dr. Gregg noted. Because universities are
complex organizations (Birnbaum, 1988) and implementing global initiatives proves
81
difficult in such an environment, as demonstrated from the findings in this study, it is
important to consider UW leadership perspectives and their role in the global
implementation process.
This study uses Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames as a comprehensive
approach to better understand UW leadership perspectives when leading complex
organizations like UW in becoming more global. In leadership, each frame
(structural, human resource, political and symbolic) is unique, logical, and influential
and when viewed together they can help captivate a comprehensive representation of
an organization. Using Bolman and Deal’s (2003) questions from Table 1 along with
the findings from this study I was able to discern which type of leadership frame
EVC Alletrawa, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Larry used in their global efforts at UW.
Findings from this study suggest that EVC Alletrawa viewed globalizing UW
from the political and symbolic frames. EVC Alletrawa’s main responsibilities at
UW are to work closely with the Chancellor in formulating UW’s vision,
implementing programs and policies, and managing the daily operations of the UW
campus including the oversight of global initiatives and programs. First, political
leaders are characteristically realists in that they clarify what they want and what
they can get, they asses the distribution of power and interests, they build linkage to
key stakeholders, and finally, they persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce if
necessary (Bolman & Deal, 2003). There is a high level of ambiguity and uncertainty
in EVC Alletrawa’s role, especially with the recent leadership change and budget
cuts. Both conflict and resource allocations are normal functions in her position as an
82
overseer of international programs and global initiatives at UW. As a political leader,
EVC Alletrawa is a realist in that she clearly states what she wants assertively, as
demonstrated in our interview. Second, characteristics of a symbolic leader are that
they lead by example, they capture attention and frame experiences, they
communicate a vision and tell stories, and finally they respect and use history
(Bolman & Deal, 2003) As a symbolic leader EVC Alletrawa leads by example as a
leader, the EVC at UW, who uses story telling and symbols in her stories. For
example, during our interview she told the story of her trip to China, her
preconceived notions, the reality of her experiences, and what she learned and gained
from the formation of the UAC-UW partnership. This partnership built, in her eyes,
was a symbolic representation of UW’s efforts to become a global research
institution. Both these characteristics described represent features of a political and
symbolic leader.
Dr. Gregg, Chair of the International Committee appears to use a structural
lens in the development of UW’s global vision, mission, strategy, and resource plan.
Characteristics of a structural leader is one who does their homework before acting,
they rethink the relationship of structure, strategy and environment, they focus on
implementation, and they experiment, evaluate and adapt (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Dr. Gregg’s role at UW concentrated on the technical quality of the final report
which provided a detailed, well-defined, structured road map for global strategies for
UW’s leaders to use when integrating global concepts into the university. From a
structural perspective, Dr. Gregg did his homework before submitting the final
83
report. He benchmarked several other statewide institutions compared to UW and
meet with senior leaders in and around UW’s campus to gain better insight on the
status of UW’s international programs (Final Report, 2006). From an outsider’s point
of view, with prior experience in higher education, Dr. Gregg was able rethink the
relationship of structure, strategy and environment at UW with the submission of the
final report. He stated during our interview that his previous jobs as Vice Provost and
Associate Dean at other institutions in the US, whose focus was primarily on
international projects, provided him with the background to apply his knowledge and
experience in recommending a global vision, mission, strategy and resource plan for
UW leaders.
And finally, Dr. Larry’s role as Director of the UAC-UW Center at UW is to
coordinate and collaborate with the Chinese Ministry of Education and UAC which
deals with persons at all levels – administration, faculty and students. Dr. Larry’s
perspective on globalizing UW, particularly with his efforts in partnership building
with UAC and UW, are mainly connected to the human resource frame. Typically, a
human resources leader believes in people and communicates at belief, is visible and
accessible, empowers others, and often promotes openness, mutuality, listening,
coaching, and participation (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Being the glue that holds the
UAC-UW partnership together, Dr. Larry relies heavily on individual commitment
and networking with Chinese officials which is essential to the success of his
overseas Center in China today. Dr. Larry stated the importance of networking
during our interview:
84
Networking is very critical. Many US companies or institutions are
unsuccessful because of the lack of networking with China. From
August 2007 to now [November 2008], one year later, I have finally
reached a point where the Chinese will fund the Center and support
all of our operations. This required a lot of time networking and
traveling to China meeting with people at the University and Ministry
level for support. I think I traveled to China more than ten times over
the last year and a half regarding Center involvement.

Furthermore, Dr. Larry referred to the importance of relationship building as a skill
when making global partnerships. He touched on how building relationships and
trust with the Chinese is essential for success. He said during our interview:
There is a lot of personal skill – you have to go through to the
President [of the University] in multiple ways to let him fully
understand what you are doing and how it will affect him and the
institution as well. I have a lot of face-to-face conversations not just to
him but also his assistants to make them aware that I am committed
and that this Center is very important.

In all, Dr. Larry, has made himself visible and accessible in forming the UAC-UW
Center overseas. He works with senior administrators, faculty, and graduate students
both at UAC and UW. And his ability to communicate and network with the Chinese
institution and government has allowed for a trusting relationship between the two
institutions and the persons involved. Today, because of his dedication to forming
such relationships, Dr. Larry is able to perform research both as a UW professor and
UAC Center Director in Beijing, China.
Overall, findings suggest that EVC’s Alletrawa was a political and symbolic
leader, Dr. Gregg a structural leader, and Dr. Larry a human resources leader. The
effectiveness of these frames when viewed together provides a comprehensive
representation of UW’s leaders and their views on globalization within their
85
organization. Understanding these differences amongst the UW leaders interviewed
and who were involved in the global initiatives at UW is important to this study
because it gives insight to the fact that each individual leader may have approached
globalization differently. The findings can help us make sense of the roles leaders
take in globalization initiatives as they operate from different leadership frames.
Knowing this information during the planning and implementation of such initiatives
may have allowed individual leaders to communicate and collaborate more
effectively together, with each contributing individual differences in perspective.
Such a scenario may have allowed UW’s global effort to be stronger in the end.
Opportunities and Challenges in Globalizing Higher Education
UW does not have a well-defined international strategy for becoming a global
research university but UW has been involved in many international programs and
initiatives of global importance. Such global opportunities not only create new
knowledge through research, teaching and service but also contributes to important
societal problems worldwide (Armstrong, 2004). For example, Dr. Larry’s Center for
Ecology and Sustainability brings UAC and UW researchers together to study
ecology and sustainability issues that both China and the US are currently facing.
This practice demonstrates Armstrong’s (2007) model of a globalization in higher
education, a multinational framework, where students and faculty earn degrees from
offshore sites through global partnerships. As the UW final report concludes there
are hidden global strengths, like Dr. Larry’s Center and partnership, throughout
UW’s campus. Individual faculty, departments, and research centers are involved in
86
a wide variety of teaching, research, and programs with other countries (Final
Report, 2006). UW has been able to formally sign international agreements with over
sixty institutions and nineteen countries as a result of faculty and department
involvement internationally (Final Report, 2006). And finally, the findings from this
study suggest that fifteen areas of studies have been identified at UW that are
involved in programs and activities with an international focus (Final Report, 2006).
Literature reviewed suggested that one motivation for research universities to
globalize is because it provides access to students worldwide and to increase
prestige, enhance competitiveness and strategic alliances of an institution (Altbach
and Knight’s, 2007). Thus, the involvement by individual faculty and departments at
UW internationally cannot hurt but only help increase the visibility of the institution
globally.
Although there are many international programs and activities at UW there
are also many challenges that stand in the way of UW becoming a global research
university. This study’s findings highlight UW’s main challenges which include the
lack of international focus, minimal senior administrative support, little coordination
and communication, lack of international curriculum, limited funding and staffing,
and minimal exploitation of international partnerships across campus (Final Report,
2006). Scott’s (2000) three main challenges affecting the research university in the
twenty-first century is applicable to the findings in this study. First, UW’s lack of
international focus can be connected to its mission to serve the local community.
Breaking away from this relationship is difficult because the culture of serving the
87
local community is deeply embedded in UW’s organization. Second, UW’s
international curriculum is limited both in content and context. There are a large
number of courses, for example UW offers a new Global Studies Major, taught on
UW’s campus that have international content but many more curricula need to be
developed (Final Report, 2006). And internationalizing curriculum across campus
should include the emergence of global research cultures, networks and the presence
of information technology. Only then will UW’s curriculum and pedagogy be truly
global. And finally, UW does not have enough money or staff available for faculty to
pursue meaningful international programs. This is consistent with Scott’s (2000)
assessment that public research universities rely on state and federal funding that is
typically targeted towards local student success and institutional needs within the
bordering community. And the present status of public research universities is costly
for institutions to provide research, education and social growth for students in
undergraduate, master, and doctoral programs serving mostly traditional students
(Armstrong and Becker, 2004). Funding and resource allocation is a major challenge
for leaders in the statewide system and at UW to deal with implementing successful
globalization programs in the future.
Overall, there are global opportunities taking place at UW which include
international faculty and department involvement, numerous international
agreements, and fifteen area studies units across campus involved internationally
(Final Report, 2006). However, UW is faced with many challenges that stand in the
way of it becoming a global research university. Highlighting the opportunities and
88
challenges may help illustrate to senior leaders what has been accomplished and
what needs to be worked on. The insights noted in these findings may help guide
leaders in the right direction for future international programs and initiatives in
laying a strong foundation of becoming a top-ranked global research university.
89
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS
The literature reviewed in this study include topics on globalization in higher
education, the role of leadership in globalizing the university, and the identification
of motivations, realities and challenges in globalizing higher education provided a
constructive foundation for this study. First, literature in this study defined the term
globalization which is the process of transnational movement of capital, goods,
services, and ideas creating borderless nations (Mapping the Global Future, 2004).
Specifically, the literature defined globalization as it relates to research institutions in
higher education. Research globalization is compared to Armstrong’s (2007) multi-
national framework on globalization emphasizing that government, students, faculty,
and administrator’s are often absent from their home campus and much time is spent
at offshore research facilities designed through the formation of global partnerships
for the purpose of research advancement. With this in mind, within the ramifications
of this study, UW is limited in its transnational movement of individuals (students,
staff, faculty, administration), services (curriculum, dual degree programs, overseas
centers), intellectual capital (curriculum, research, teaching), and resources
(personnel, physical structures, funding) and thus keeping UW’s teaching, research
and services within the locale of the university. And although UW does have an
offshore research center overseas through the UAC-UW partnership, the level of
research globalization as described by Armstrong’s (2007) framework is minimal.
By minimal, this means that UW has not created deep change within the institution
where global research is prominent on campus.
90
Second, literature on the role of leadership in globalizing the university
touched on the importance of leadership when incorporating globalization into land-
grant research universities mission (NASULGC, 2004). Literature also suggested
that leaders should present a clear, well-defined strategic plan with the integration of
a global mission and support the mission and strategy by committing to the “3 A’s of
Leadership” which is to articulate, advocate, and act (Armstrong, 2007; NASULGC,
2004). Also, literature discussed leadership roles and perspectives in relationship to
the globalization process within an institution (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Senior
leadership efforts to globalize UW did not meet the standards presented in the
literature. As mentioned in the findings, globalization was formally integrated into
UW’s mission statement and initiatives by senior administration. Yet, leaders were
unsuccessful in globalizing the functions of a land-grants mission (teach, research,
and service) because they were focused on the needs of the local community. Senior
leaders were provided with written documentation from the final report that
articulated, advocated, and a detailed course of action, but senior leaders never
utilized the well-defined guidelines. And finally, findings suggested that leaders at
UW possessed different types of leadership frames when dealing with global issues
at the institution. This finding is a direct reflection of the status that its institutions
international programs and activities stand which is not centralized or coordinated in
its efforts.
Third, literature in this study identified motivations, realities and challenges
in globalizing higher education. The literature suggested that research universities
91
are motivated to globalize because it provides access to students worldwide and can
increase prestige, enhance competitiveness and strategic alliances of an institution
(Altbach and Knight’s, 2007). The reality is that to become a global research
institution, as Armstrong’s (2007) multi-national model suggests, institutions must
commit themselves to the process of setting up offshore degree-granting programs by
building of global partnerships using modularization and outsourcing between
offshore sites sharing resources between students, faculty, and administrators in
higher education. This concept is difficult because institutions are complex
organizations and are challenged by locale, the advancement of informational
technology and communication, and funding (Birnbaum, 1988; Scott, 2000).
Relating the findings of this study to the literature, data revealed that UW leaders
were motivated to become a global research university because they wanted to be an
AAU university, which to them, meant having increased visibility and prestige. The
reality is that the process of becoming global, as defined by Armstrong (2007),
requires senior leaders to support and change the mentality of the institution from
deep within which proved difficult at UW. And finally, as exemplified by UW and
its leaders, they were challenged both by its global mission to teach, perform
research and serve students worldwide, their ability to incorporate technology and
internationalize its curricular, and their availability to fund and staff international
programs and initiatives.
92
Summary
Globalization has impacted the world’s economy and has thus affected
students, faculty and administrators living in a post-modern society who are exposed
to global forces in their daily lives; which in the end changes the way they view
issues in and outside of the classroom (Armstrong, 2007; Armstrong & Becker,
2004; Scott 2000; Suarez-Orozco, 2004). The purpose of this study was to
investigate how senior leaders at a land-grant research university integrated
globalization into its institutional initiatives and programs. First, this study examined
how senior leaders at the University of Waterside, defined globalization and in
particular, how they defined themselves as a global research university. Second, this
study examined how UW senior leaders integrated global initiatives and programs at
their institution. And third, this study highlighted opportunities and challenges that
UW senior leaders faced during this process.
The data collected was based on interviews, document and artifact analysis.
The researchers interviewed UW’s Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) and Provost
Alletrawa, the Chair of the International Committee on International Programs, Dr.
Gregg, and the Director of the UAC-UW International Center for Ecology and
Sustainability, Dr. Larry. Several documents and artifacts were analyzed. The main
document of interest for this study was the final report of the International Advisory
Committee submitted to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. Other
documents reviewed by the researcher during fieldwork was UW’s Mission
93
Statement, the China Initiative (2005), and the Initiative for International
Cooperation (2006). The artifact examined was UW’s website.
At this point, UW has not yet become a top-ranked global research
university, as projected in the institution’s mission. Senior leaders at UW currently
have unique interpretations of the term globalization and apply it differently to the
field of higher education. One explanation for this difference is that each leader at
UW has a unique role and frame (human resource, structural, symbolic, and political)
in which they view globalization and its applicability. Another explanation is that the
leaders did not follow a well-defined global strategic plan which calls for
collaborative and centralized efforts which could potentially unify their perceptions
of what it means to be a global institution. Presently, senior leaders have not
demonstrated support for its international programs and activities across campus.
They have failed to use recommendations from the final report submitted three years
ago which laid out a detailed roadmap on how to globalize its institution providing
leaders with a clear, articulated vision, mission, strategy, and resource plan. UW
faculty, departments and centers are involved as individual units internationally with
many opportunities having been gained from these experiences but there is no
centralized office or personnel in charge of coordinating these efforts. UW is faced
with many challenges that stand in the way of it becoming a global research
university. Furthermore, recent events with senior leadership changes and system-
wide budget cuts have left the fate of UW’s international programs unknown.
Overall, this study’s findings may help guide other leaders in the future to learn from
94
UW’s inactions when incorporating globalization into institutional missions,
initiatives and programs.
Implications for Practice
There are several implications that practitioners, policymakers, and
researchers may employ from this study. First, one of the difficulties in
understanding globalization in higher education is that the term globalization is hard
to define in respect to the field of higher education. This study has identified
important societal, cultural, and political concepts of globalization and how it relates
to higher education as defined by literature and findings from the data collected
(Armstrong, 2007; Beerkens, 2003; Spring, 2008). Specifically, practitioners can
utilize definitions in this study as expressed through literature and by UW senior
leaders to understand that differences do exist when defining global terms in higher
education. Policymakers may exercise this information as it relates to four year land-
grant research institutions when writing and applying global education policies and
reforms that affect institutions involved the globalization process. And researchers
may wish to analyze terminology, definitions, and discourses presented in this study
with a clearer insight on how globalization is perceived and applied to higher
education.
Second, for land-grant research universities, like UW, the difficulty of
integrating the concepts of globalization into mission statements, making it a global
research university, is that they have been historically tied to locale (NASULGC,
2004). And since the concept of globalization extends beyond borders changing a
95
mission to be more global may be difficult. Findings from this study illustrate the
significance of leadership roles when globalizing four year land-grant research
institutions. With this knowledge, practitioners (senior administrative level,
presidents, vice presidents, provosts, academic deans, and program directors) may
learn from UW leader’s experiences and recognize that in order to become a global
institution, well-defined terms and strategies are needed to support global initiatives
or programs. Furthermore, this study may help practitioners better understand the
purpose and use of the “3 A’s of Leadership” (NASULGC, 2004) and Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames in globalizing an institution. Also, practitioners
may recognize the role of leadership change, such as the case with Chancellor Heart,
and the effects this change has on an institution when trying to become more global.
Policymakers can use the findings from this study on leadership roles when creating
institutional change, in this case, making an institution more global. Policymakers
may consider the inclusion of senior leaders when formalizing, submitting, and
implementing global policies affecting higher education after reading this study. And
lastly, this qualitative study provides researchers with an enriched description of UW
leadership efforts in globalizing their institution. In particular, it brings to light how
senior leaders approached the globalization process at UW and emphasized
specifically what they did to make their institution more global.
Finally, this study examined opportunities and challenges that UW leaders
faced when implementing global initiatives into their institution. Findings from this
study provide practitioners with a detailed description of what these opportunities
96
and challenges at UW entailed and may better equip them with the knowledge base
so they do not go into the globalization process blind. Also, if policymakers better
understand the experiences and challenges faced by UW’s leadership when
implementing globalization then they may feel the need to sway federal or state
policies, reforms, or funding programs towards a more effective system of
supporting the implementation of globalization for future leaders in higher education.
Lastly, researchers studying the globalization process in higher education may gain
better insight into what UW leaders did not do to create change and recognize the
many hurdles that UW leaders faced during the multifaceted globalization and
integration process.
Future Research
This qualitative study examined how senior leaders at a four year land-grant
research university in the United States integrated globalization into its institutional
initiatives and programs. Although findings from this study are not generalizable,
they could lead researchers to investigate leaders at other types of institutions in
higher education, such as community colleges, private institutions, or universities
outside the United States. Future research could compare and contrast how leaders at
different types of institutions define globalization differently or similarity than
leaders at UW.
In addition, this study explored leaders at an institution which was not a part
of the Association of American Universities (AAU). Periodically, the AAU
organization reviews non-member universities to examine if they should be invited
97
to participate in the organization based on membership indicators as expressed on
their website (AAU Website, 2008). At UW, its senior leader’s main goal for
globalizing its mission was to become an AAU university. It would be interesting if
future research explored what it means for leaders to become a global research
university versus what it means to become an AAU university. Also, future research
could be performed on an AAU university and investigate whether global efforts by
leaders and institutional environment are different than at UW, which is not an AAU
institution.
In this study, due to time constraints, the researcher chose to use Bolman and
Deal (2003) leadership frames to study leadership at UW which essentially captured
a snapshot in time of the current leaders at UW and their perspectives on
globalization. Future research should investigate transformational leadership and
conduct a longitudinal study of five to seven years. This approach would be useful to
understand leadership in transforming institutional change when globalizing
universities.
Lastly, UW experienced a major change in leadership when Chancellor Heart
left the university in 2007. Also, in 2008 a major economic downturn in the global
economy occurred which has affected UW and its funding in recent months. Future
research may wish to consider studying the effects of leadership change and the
status of an institution after major budget cuts and how this affects senior leader
globalization efforts in higher education.
98
REFERENCES
“10 + 10 Alliance” (2005). A New Model for Strengthening Sino-U.S. Research and
Educational Collaborations retrieved on February 28
th
, 2008:
http://internationalcenter.UW.edu/NR/rdonlyres/B1EE9B75-0FF1-4EDE-
B26B-F687E66B3269/3433/1010_overview_latest5.pdf

AAU Website (2008). About AAU retrieved on November 20, 2008:
http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=58

Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education:
Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol
11, No ¾ pp 290-305.

Armstrong, L. (2007). Competing in the Global Higher Education Marketplace. New
Directions for Higher Education. Wiley Productions, Inc.

Armstrong, L. & Becker, D. (2004). Higher Education and the Global Marketplace:
Entrepreneurial Activity in a Dynamic Environment. Twenty-Seventh Annual
Earl V. Pullias Lecture Series in Higher Education. Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis. University of Southern California. Rossier School
of Education.

Beerkens, E. (2003). Globalisation and Higher Education Research. Journal of
Studies in International Education. Vol 7, No. 2, pp 128-148.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic
Organization and Leadership. Wiley Productions, Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.

Chan, W.W.Y. (2004). International Cooperation in Higher Education: Theory and
Practice. Journal Studies in International Education. Vol 8, No 1, pp 32-55.

Final Report (2006). A Vision, Mission, Strategy, and Resource Plan for
International Programs and Initiatives at the University of Waterside.

Knight, J. & De Wit, H. (Eds) (1997). Internationalization of Higher Education in
Asia Pacific Countries (Pp. 5-19) Amsterdam: European Association for
International Education.

99
Knight, J. & Sandys, J. (1996). Towards an Internationalization Strategy. Ryerson
Polytechnic University Internationalization Action Group.

Land-grant Model Speech (2005). The Land-grant Model: A Lesson From the Past,
And Investment in the Future. University of Agriculture, China retrieved on
February 28
th
, 2008: www.chancellor.UW.edu/messages/20050916.doc

Lucas, C. (2006). Second Edition. American Higher Education, A History. Palgrave
MacMillian, NY.

Mapping the Global Future, (2004). Report of the National Intelligence Council’s
2020 Project. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from
http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

NASULGC, (2004). A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in
Internationalizing the University.Task Force Report on International
Education, October 2004.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Qiang, Zha (2003). Internationalization of Higher Education: towards a conceptual
framework. Policy Futures in Education. Vol 3, No 2, pp 248-270.

Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and Higher Education: Challenges for the 21
st

Century. Journal of Studies in International Education. Sage Publications.

Spring, J. (2008). Research on Globalization and Education. Review of Educational
Research. Vol 78, No. 2, pp 330-363.

Stadtlander, C.K.H. (2003). A Book Review on Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership retrieved on July 31, 2008:
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol12_no1_pages_48-49.pdf

Suarez-Orozco, M.M. & Qin-Hilliard, D.B. (2004). Globalization: Culture and
Education in the New Millennium. University of California Press, Ltd. The
Ross Institute.

UW About Us – Facts retrieved on July 20
th
, 2008:
http://www.UW.edu/about/facts.html
100
UW’s Chancellor’s China Initiative (September 2005) retrieved on February 28
th
,
2008: http://www.chancellor.UW.edu/documents/china.html

UW’s Chancellor’s Initiative for International Cooperation (September 2006)
retrieved on February 28
th
, 2008:
http://www.chancellor.UW.edu/documents/coop.html

UW’s EVC Website retrieved on February 7, 2009:
http://www.UW.edu/about/exec_vc.html

UW Town Hall Meeting (2008). UW Budget & Information: Excerpts from the
Chancellor’s Town Hall Meeting retrieved on December 2, 2008:
http://budget.UW.edu/UW_budget_news/cbu-24-nov-08townhall.html

UW’s Vision Statement retrieved on July 20
th
, 2008:
http://chancellor.UW.edu/initiatives/goals.html

Yin, R.K. (2006). Chapter 6 – Case Study Methods form Handbook of
Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by Green, Camille,
Elemore and Grace, pp 111-122.
101
APPENDIX: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR SENIOR LEADERS
1. In your mission statement, it states that UW will be a top-ranked, global
research university. Can you explain how UW is a global research
university?

2. What structures are currently in place that supports UW’s global initiatives?
(ex. physical, symbolic, administrative)

3. Can you describe specific measurable goals which hold people accountable
for the global initiatives at UW?

4. From your perspective, how have UW’s faculty, staff and students responded
to the global initiatives? (ex. do they approve, disapprove)

5. What system(s) are in place that recognizes global efforts by your faculty,
staff and students?

6. What resources are needed to sustain your global initiatives? (ex. funding,
staff, facilities, etc)

7. What is your role in sustaining UW’s global initiatives?

8. What is your role in communicating your mission and global initiatives?

9. What are UW’s motivations to become a global research university?

10. What opportunities have you encountered when implementing the global
initiatives?

11. What challenges have you faced with the implementation of the global
initiatives?

12. How would you describe UW’s future as a global research university?

13. What individuals at UW have been most involved in UW’s global
initiatives?

14. How would you define the term globalization?

15. How would you define globalization in higher education?

102
16. In your opinon, what are the major topics discussed on globalization in higher
education by senior administrators in higher education today?

17. How would you define a global research university?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Living in a post-modern era where globalization has impacted the world’s economy, students, faculty and administrators in higher education today are exposed to global forces in their daily lives which influence the way they express their views in and outside of the classroom (Suarez-Orozco, 2004). This study is important for practitioners, policymakers and researchers to gain a better understanding of how leadership plays a role in making an institution more global and meeting the needs of graduating students academically and professionally, a phenomenon not well understood in the field of higher education (Armstrong, 2007

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization

PDF

Leading while expanding: a case study examining the changing nature of an American land grant public research university in response to the forces of globalization

PDF

Globalization of a teacher education program at a comprehensive state university campus: a case study

PDF

Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program

PDF

Bringing the 21st century into California schools: a case study

PDF

A comparison of non-traditional capstone experiences in Ed.D. programs at three highly selective private research universities

PDF

How a Jesuit university president inspires and maintains a shared vision during a strategic planning process and its implementation

PDF

An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

Sensemaking of an identity change: a case study in higher education investigating the role of the academic vice president in facilitating change

PDF

Globalization, curricular elements, organizational practices and perceived student outcomes in California schools

PDF

Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

PDF

Globalization in curricular elements and instructional practices in California schools: A high school case study

PDF

Globalization in curricular elements and instructional practices in California schools: A case study

PDF

Preparing our nation’s youth for success in the 21st century: a case study on the implementation of globalization in educational practices and curriculum

PDF

The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management

PDF

Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap

PDF

A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement

PDF

The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university

PDF

The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China

Asset Metadata

Creator Knodel, Kathleen Barbara (author)

Core Title A case study examining how a land-grant research university integrated global initiatives into its mission and institutional program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/01/2009

Defense Date 03/26/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Globalization,Higher education,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Diamond, Michael A. (committee chair), Richmond, Frances (committee chair), Gallagher, Karen Symms (committee member)

Creator Email kbkuscalumni01@hotmail.com,knodel@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2162

Unique identifier UC1305511

Identifier etd-Knodel-2836 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-227143 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2162 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Knodel-2836.pdf

Dmrecord 227143

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Knodel, Kathleen Barbara

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu