Internationalization Plans for Higher Education ... - SAGE Journals

Internationalization Plans for Higher Education Institutions

Journal of Studies in International Education Volume 13 Number 3 Fall 2009 289-309 © 2009 Nuffic 10.1177/1028315308329804 http://jsie.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Lisa K. Childress The George Washington University, Alexandria, VA

Many studies have been conducted on the internationalization of higher education. Yet little is known about institutional plans for internationalization. This article presents the results of a study conducted with the American Council on Education’s Center for International Initiatives on the types, prevalence, development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans at 31 Association of International Education Administrator institutions. Internationalization plans are found in existence at 71% of the institutions. The article discusses the development of an internationalization plan typology, developed based on analysis of these internationalization plans, and can be used by higher education administrators and scholars in designing and evaluating internationalization plans to address specific institutional needs. Moreover, the study identifies five overarching benefits and functions of internationalization plans: An internationalization plan serves as a (a) roadmap for internationalization, (b) vehicle to develop buy-in, (c) mechanism for explaining the meaning and goals of internationalization, (d) medium for interdisciplinary collaboration, and (e) tool for fund-raising. Keywords: internationalization; internationalization plan; strategic plan; higher education; university

D

uring the past several decades, internationalization has emerged as a frequently heralded goal of higher education. Internationalization is the process of integrating an international or intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of a higher education institution (Knight, 1994, 1999, 2004). In response to a myriad of studies that found students’ lack of global awareness, multiple-language fluency, and international knowledge of their major disciplines (e.g., American Council on Education [ACE], 2000; Council on International Educational Exchange, 1988; Lambert, 1990; Siaya & Hayward, 2001), higher education leaders

Author’s Note: The author would like to thank Drs. Madeleine F. Green, Sharon A. McDade, Christa L. Olson, and James H. Williams for their support in this research and insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Please address correspondence to Dr. Lisa K. Childress, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University, 531 North Columbus Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; e-mail: [email protected]. 289

290 Journal of Studies in International Education

have called for the internationalization of their institutions to prepare students to succeed in the 21st century. Despite institutional leaders’ rhetoric in support of internationalization, many of their articulated goals have not been operationalized (Knight, 1994; Schoorman, 1999). According to Knight’s internationalization cycle, institutions must develop plans for internationalization before operationalization can occur. The purpose of this study was to understand the types, prevalence, development, and monitoring of internationalization plans at 31 institutions.

Context Higher education leaders have increasingly strived to internationalize their institutions for economic, political, academic, and sociocultural rationales (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 1999). Economic rationales have included the desire to prepare students for domestic and international careers, generate income for the institution, and contribute to economic development and competitiveness (e.g., Goodwin & Nacht, 1988; Green, 2003). Political rationales, particularly post-September 11, have emphasized the need to equip students with an awareness of world cultures and skills necessary to address national security and foreign policy concerns (e.g., Government Accountability Office, 2007). Academic rationales have underscored that, to strengthen liberal education, it is critical to provide opportunities for students to (a) gain a knowledgeable and diversified worldview; (b) comprehend international dimensions of their major fields of study; and (c) develop global, critical thinking skills (e.g., Lim, 2003; Reichard, 1983). Finally, sociocultural rationales have highlighted the need to develop students’ intercultural communication skills, which are necessary to address the increasing cultural and ethnic diversity within and between countries (e.g., Deardorff, 2006; National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 2004). In essence, economic, political, academic, and sociocultural reasons have served as motivating forces for higher education leaders to internationalize their institutions. An understanding of these rationales is important for this study because it lays the foundation for why institutions may develop internationalization plans. Although internationalization is a prevalent goal of contemporary higher education institutions, significant barriers to its institutionalization exist. In particular, as internationalization is a process of institutional transformation, it requires a paradigm shift to alter institutional stakeholders’ assumptions, values, and practices from a myopic, inward focus to a broader international perspective (Knight, 1994; Schoorman, 1999). A significant obstacle to internationalization, however, is the “normal structure of the university itself, which neither lends itself to sweeping reform nor centralized coordination” (Aigner, Nelson, & Stimpfl, 1992, p. 9). Because higher education institutions are comprised of organizational structures with diverse academic and cocurricular units operating independently under a large institutional umbrella, developing

Childress / Internationalization Plans 291

consensus for internationalization is challenging. As a process of institutional transformation, internationalization requires leaders not only to “access all levels up and down the institutional hierarchy but also up and down the vertical silos in which many units are located” (Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 2005, p. 43). Consequently, the complexities embedded in the management of institutional transformation serve as substantial barriers to internationalization. To address these complexities and advance an institution’s internationalization agenda, the development of an internationalization plan is one of several critical points of leverage (Scott, 1992). Internationalization plans are higher education institutions’ written commitments to internationalization. These plans can include goal statements, mission statements, vision statements, implementation initiatives, allocated resources, timelines, and performance indicators (Moats-Gallagher, 2004; Olson, Green, & Hill, 2006; Paige, 2005). The development of concrete, comprehensive internationalization plans is important, as this process stimulates and informs stakeholders’ participation in internationalization initiatives (Knight, 1994; Olson et al., 2006). An internationalization plan “provides direction, expresses institutional commitment, and may define the particular goals of internationalization for an institution” (Knight, 1994, p. 8). In so doing, internationalization plans take account of the complexity of internationalization by focusing institutional energies on overcoming endogenous barriers to institutional change. Further, the process of creating internationalization plans facilitates the engagement of stakeholders throughout the institution, which is a key factor in implementation (Audas, 1990; Green & Olson, 2003; Harari, 1989; Knight, 1994). Thus, such plans advance institutional goals for internationalization by expressing institutional commitment, defining institutional goals, informing stakeholders’ participation, as well as informing and stimulating stakeholder involvement in internationalization initiatives. Despite the importance of written commitments in undergirding a process of institutional transformation, little is known about the prevalence and types of written internationalization plans in existence in higher education institutions. There is an even greater lack of knowledge about how universities and colleges develop and monitor internationalization plans. Such knowledge is particularly important because the scholarly and practitioner literature to date indicate that internationalization plans provide a valuable foundation from which to develop institutional support for internationalization (e.g., Aigner et al., 1992; Harari, 1989; Knight, 1994; Paige, 2005; Scott, 1992). Therefore, this study sought to contribute empirical knowledge on internationalization plans, and in so doing, fill this gap in the literature.

Theoretical Framework and Research Questions From a theoretical perspective, Knight’s internationalization cycle grounded this study. This cycle indicates that institutions proceed through six phases of developing


and implementing an internationalization strategy. These phases include (a) awareness, (b) commitment, (c) planning, (d) operationalization, (e) review, and (f) reinforcement (Knight, 1994). Knight’s framework, however, is not without limitations. This framework presumes that institutions proceed through the six phases in sequence. Yet it is plausible that some institutions may not follow this exact path. For example, as recommended by ACE (Olson et al., 2006), institutions may start with a review process to take stock of their resources that contribute to internationalization and as a result of that review, then develop an internationalization plan. Thus, it was critical for the researcher be aware that the internationalization cycle may not be reflexive and that institutions may not necessarily proceed sequentially through the internationalization phases as indicated by Knight. With this limitation in mind, Knight’s (1994) framework presented a significant benefit for this study. As numerous scholars (e.g., Backman, 1984; Ellingboe, 1998; Green & Olson, 2003) have indicated that there is a gap between the higher education institutions’ development and implementation of internationalization plans, Knight’s framework provided a useful lens through which to understand why institutions develop, implement, and monitor internationalization plans and how they transition from the planning to operationalization phases. Specifically, this study examined the following research questions: Research question 1: How prevalent are internationalization plans in selected Assoc iation of International Education Administrator (AIEA)-member institutions? Research question 2: What types of internationalization plans exist? Research question 3: How and by whom are internationalization plans developed? Research question 4: How and by whom are internationalization plans monitored?

Methodology In conjunction with the ACE’s Center for International Initiatives (ACE CII), the researcher conducted a qualitative, multiple-case study for this investigation. Internationalization plans served as the unit of analysis for this study. This unit of analysis remained constant among all institutions examined in the study, set the parameters for the study, and guided the researcher on where to search for information (Yin, 2003). Criterion-based, expert-driven sampling was used to select institutions for investigation in this study. In consultation with internationalization experts, Madeleine Green, ACE CII’s vice president/director, and Christa Olson, ACE CII’s associate director, AIEA was selected as the population for investigation, given these institutions’ demonstrated commitment to internationalization through their AIEA membership. All 194 AIEA institutional members (AIEA, 2006) comprised the sampling frame. In the sample selection process, the researcher consulted with Green to select


a small group for investigation from which to gain an in-depth understanding of internationalization plans. Accordingly, Green identified 32 out of 194 AIEA members as likely to respond based on their participation in ACE CII internationalization programs. The researcher subsequently made a concerted outreach effort to the 32 identified AIEA institutional representatives through targeted e-mails and phone calls. Although a courtesy e-mail was sent by Olson to all 194 AIEA institutional members none other than 31 of the 32 initially identified institutions, responded to a series of questions by e-mail or phone interview. Thus, the response rate was 97%. Of the 31 respondents, 19 institutions (61%) were doctorate-granting universities, 10 institutions (32%) were master’s colleges/universities, and 2 institutions (6%) were baccalaureate colleges.1 Twenty-two institutions (71%) were public and nine institutions (29%) were private. Data collection methods included document analysis and semistructured interviews—traditional qualitative research methods (Yin, 2003). During document analysis, the researcher reviewed internationalization plans and related documents from the 31 institutions participating in the study, such as institutional strategic plans (ISPs), institutional and departmental mission statements, internationalization taskforce meeting minutes, and annual reports. The researcher triangulated data obtained about internationalization plans in the document analysis with semistructured interviews conducted with institutions’ AIEA representatives. Through the interviews, the researcher gained insights into the plan development, implementation, and monitoring processes, as well as some institutions’ decisions not to develop plans. Overall, by triangulating emergent themes through two methods of data collection— document analysis and interviews—and conducting within-case and cross-case analysis, the researcher developed converging lines of inquiry, and in so doing, strengthened the dependability and trustworthiness of the findings (Yin, 2003).

Findings Data analysis revealed several major findings that illuminate the types, prevalence, development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans at the 31 AIEA institutions examined. These findings will be discussed in turn in this section.

Types of Internationalization Plans To answer the first research question (What types of internationalization plans exist?), the researcher developed an internationalization plan typology to categorize and understand the similarities and differences among the documents. Three general types of plans emerged, including ISPs, distinct documents (DDs), and unit plans (UPs). Plans that were part of an institution-wide strategic plan were categorized as ISP. Plans


Figure 1 Internationalization Plan Typology

Institutional Strategic Plans (ISP)

ISP-infused

Distinct Documents (DD)

ISP-bullet

DD-general DD-specific

ISP-section

DD-under development

Unit Plans (UP)

UP-academic affairs UP-international education

ISP-under development

that were documents solely devoted to internationalization were categorized as DD. Plans that were connected with particular colleges or departments were categorized as UP. Through within-category comparison (Miles & Huberman, 1994), nine subcategories were created, which were developed into an internationalization plan typology (see Figure 1). For ISPs, there were four types: (a) infused, (b) bullet, (c) section, and (d) under development. First, ISPs that were infused with international references throughout the document, without a distinct section devoted to internationalization or international/global education were categorized as ISP infused. Second, ISPs that had one or two bullets devoted to internationalization or international/global education, without a distinct section of the document devoted to internationalization or international and global education, were placed under the category of ISP bullet. Third, ISPs that had a distinct section devoted to internationalization or international and global education were categorized as ISP section. Fourth, ISPs that included a focus on internationalization but were in the process of being developed, these plans were placed under the category of ISP under development. For institutions with ISPs under development, drafts of the plans or related documents were reviewed for this study. As a whole, ISPs provided a centralized focus for the institution’s internationalization efforts and integrated internationalization with other institution-wide initiatives For DDs, three categories emerged: (a) general, (b) specific, and (c) under development. DDs devoted to internationalization with general goals or mission statements were categorized as DD general. DDs devoted to internationalization that included goal statements, as well as detailed implementation plans, resources allocated, or timelines were placed under the category of DD specific. DDs that were in the process of being developed were placed under the category of DD under development. For institutions with DDs under development, drafts of the plans or


related documents were reviewed for this study. Overall, DDs enabled institutions to thoroughly define and detail not only their goals for internationalization, but also to outline the financial, programmatic, and human resources with which these goals would be implemented. Finally, under UPs, two types emerged: (a) academic affairs and (b) international education. UPs for the Office of Academic Affairs and Office of International Education that included a focus on internationalization or international and global education were categorized as UP academic affairs and UP international education, respectively.2 UPs enabled specific institutional subunits to align their unique goals with overarching institutional priorities for internationalization. At institutions with more than one type of internationalization plan, DDs appeared to be most influential in integrating international initiatives into multiple units on campus and into the ethos of the institution. This could be explained by the fact that ISPs tended to be exceedingly general without details to guide implementation, whereas UPs tended to be limited to integrating international initiatives into one or two specific units. These findings suggest that the more specifically internationalization plans articulated the process, resources, costs, and responsible parties for implementation across the institution, the more useful those plans were in advancing institution-wide goals for internationalization. At institutions with DDs, internationalization was frequently found to be the purview of a campuswide internationalization taskforce. This finding suggests that the more detailed an institution’s plan was for implementation across units, the more important it was for an institution to employ a centralized organizational mechanism, such as a campuswide taskforce, to create communication channels for stakeholders to share resources and ideas for internationalization throughout the campus.

Prevalence of Internationalization Plans In answer to the second research question (How prevalent are internationalization plans in selected AIEA-member institutions?), internationalization plans were found in existence at 22 institutions (71%) and not in existence at 9 institutions (29%) in total. As more than two thirds indicated the presence of an internationalization plan at their institutions, this finding suggests that leaders at many of the institutions examined in this study perceived a written commitment as an important point of leverage in achieving an institution’s goals for internationalization. Conversely and equally as noteworthy, nearly 30% of the AIEA member institutions studied were not responding to calls for internationalization through written plans. Emergent from the interviews and document analysis was evidence that institutions’ leadership, organizational structure, funding, and priorities affected decisions about whether and how to develop internationalization plans. The findings indicate that the most common type of internationalization plan was ISP, which was followed by DD and UP, respectively (see Figure 2). For institutions


Figure 2 Prevalence of Internationalization Plans by Plan Type Unit Plan (19%)

Distinct Document (32%)

Institutional Strategic Plan (61%)

with ISPs and DDs, internationalization was found to be part of an institution-wide planning process. However, analysis of interview and document data revealed that institutions with only UPs tended to be more decentralized in their internationalization, as the focus of internationalization was confined within specific units. These findings suggest that ISPs and DDs require centralized planning efforts that are not as crucial for UPs. Moreover, as institutions proceed through Knight’s (1994) internationalization cycle, centralized internationalization plans that define what the institution’s internationalization goals are (ISPs) may be a logical first entrée into internationalization planning, followed by more definitive outlines of how to operationalize those goals (DDs). Finally, it may follow that a logical third step is for institutions to encourage subunits to align the centralized internationalization plans (ISPs and DDs) with their unique disciplinary and departmental priorities (UPs) to encourage faculty engagement and integrate the internationalization plans into classrooms and research agendas across campus. Although public and private institutions demonstrated similar preferences for internationalization plan types, analysis by Carnegie classification (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2005) revealed a significant implication on internationalization plan type: The clustering of ISPs and DDs at doctorategranting universities suggests that the complex organizational structures of these institutions, which have numerous, diverse subunits operating independently, requires the incorporation of internationalization into institution-wide strategic plans to reach the decentralized stakeholders.


Figure 3 Prevalence of Each Internationalization Plan Type by Institutional Type 45 40 Institutional Strategic Plan Distinct Document Unit Plan

Percentage of Institutions

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Doctorate- Master’s Baccalaureate Public Granting College/ College University University

Private

Development of Internationalization Plans For the third research question (How and by whom are internationalization plans developed?), through a vigorous analysis of the interview and document data collected, enabling factors, hindering factors, and key participants in the development of internationalization plans emerged and are discussed subsequently.

Enabling Factors in the Development of Internationalization Plans This section focuses on the factors that enabled 71% of the institutions examined to develop plans. First, support from top institutional leaders, that is, president, chancellor, provost, and board of trustees, emerged as a critical facilitator of the development of internationalization plans. At some institutions, participants expressed that their trustees committed to leading the fund-raising efforts for internationalization and had formed an ad hoc committee on internationalization. At other institutions, participants commented that their provosts spearheaded the internationalization efforts out of concern that the university was falling behind peer institutions. Yet at other institutions participants


expressed that because senior institutional leaders had college-age children who were currently participating in study abroad, these leaders felt a personal connection to increasing the internationalization of their institutions. Thus, with the support of top institutional leaders came (a) fund-raising support for the implementation of an internationalization plan and (b) credibility to implement curricular components of an internationalization plan. More important, when a senior leader had a personal investment in internationalization, that leader was more likely to support the development of an internationalization plan at his or her institution. Second, a campuswide internationalization taskforce emerged as instrumental in the development of the plans. In essence, these taskforces served as organizational mechanisms that facilitated the involvement of faculty and administrators throughout the institutions in the development of internationalization plans. Participants explained their provosts charged a taskforce, which was comprised of faculty, administrators, students, and in some cases trustees, with the explicit task of developing a distinct internationalization plan or developing an internationalization section of the ISP. As such, an internationalization taskforce convened by a top institutional leader and comprised of key institutional constituencies provided an important organizational structure to enable the development of internationalization plans at these institutions. Yet it was not only internal factors that facilitated the development of internationalization plans; external stimuli were also influential. For example, participation in one or more of ACE CII’s programs, for example, Promising Practices (Engberg & Green, 2002), the Internationalization Collaborative and Internationalization Laboratory (ACE, 2008),3 emerged as an important avenue through which institutions’ internationalization leaders received critical support for the development of their internationalization plans. Further, external international education reviews also served to reveal the need and support for internationalization plans. Finally, upcoming institutional accreditations were also recognized as stimuli for institutional leaders to request departments to detail their goals and contributions to internationalization, so that departmental goals could be synthesized into an institution-wide internationalization plan.

Hindering Factors in the Development of Internationalization Plans Though enabling factors are useful to consider, it is also important to recognize factors that hindered the development of internationalization plans. This section refers to factors that affected the 29% of institutions examined that did not have plans, as well as factors that impeded the development of plans at the 71% of institutions examined that did have plans. First, a decentralized organizational structure emerged as an obstacle to the development of internationalization plans. To illustrate this point, some respondents reflected that their internationalization goals and measurements were located in a motley of disconnected plans throughout the institution. Significantly, such institutions cited the necessity of promoting the grassroots management of internationalization


within individual schools and departments, as the decentralized nature of the institution precluded the development of an institution-wide internationalization plan. In addition, lack of time or the slow movement of institutional decision-making impeded the development of internationalization plans. For example, respondents recounted that time constraints and the slow nature of institutional change in academia have presented major challenges to the development of internationalization: We move like a glacier here. We need to do consensus building, [form] ad hoc committees, [and] take people to lunch [in order to create institutional change]” (Private, doctorate-granting university). “It takes time to get a document approved. The university is slow” (Public, master’s college/university). Thus, the extended time period required to receive the multiple levels of approval necessary for an institutional document to become official may impede the development of internationalization plans. Interestingly, findings indicate that institutions advanced in internationalization may not continue to perceive plans as useful. In illustration, some respondents expressed that internationalization plans were most appropriate for institutions that are (a) in the initial phases of internationalization and (b) do not yet have faculty on board with internationalization. As such, internationalization plans were explained as irrelevant for some institutions in which internationalization has already been integrated into the fabric of the institution. Yet research indicates that as internationalization is a continual cyclical process, a written articulation of an institution’s goals, performance indicators, and review procedures can help to ensure that even institutions advanced in internationalization achieve their goals and maximize their resources (Knight, 1994; Olson et al., 2006). Just as senior institutional leaders’ support was found as an enabling factor in the development of internationalization plans, lack of presidential support for internationalization prevented the development of internationalization plans at other institutions. At these institutions, participants noted that their current and former presidents did not view internationalization as a top institutional priority. A common theme among these respondents was that a lack of senior leadership support for internationalization deters departments from making internationalization a priority. Participants explained that without internationalization as an institutional priority, departments were unlikely to receive financial support for international initiatives; therefore, leadership from the middle and the periphery was essential. The findings suggest, however, that without the support of senior institutional leaders, peripheral or midlevel leadership may lack long-term, sustainable impact. Not only was lack of presidential support for internationalization an obstacle to developing internationalization plans, but lack of presidential support for detailed planning initiatives was, likewise, an obstacle. In particular, some participants noted that their presidents’ disregarded detailed plans, as they felt such written commitments do not allow for flexibility in institutional decision-making. This lack of presidential support for detailed planning initiatives could be attributed to a concern about accountability and resources. Hence, if institutional leaders were not certain they could


allocate the resources to carry out particular goals for internationalization, then written commitments to those goals in internationalization plans were neither in their best interest nor in the best interest of the institution. In addition, vacant, key positions emerged as obstacles in the development of internationalization plans. For example, at some institutions the hiring process for a provost or vice president for international affairs was underway. As these positions bear great influence on the implementation of internationalization plans, respondents expressed the importance of waiting until the new administrator was brought on board and could contribute to the development of the internationalization plan because his or her approval would be critical to its implementation. These findings suggest that vacant, critical positions can impede the development of internationalization plans. Finally, financial constraints served as impediments to the development of internationalization plans. Without necessary financial resources to implement internationalization initiatives, respondents at some institutions expressed that the articulation of a written commitment to these goals was antithetical to the institution’s best interest. One respondent captured this financial constraint with the following illustrative comment: If you can supply a substantial amount of resources that are needed to implement internationalization, then a detailed plan makes sense. If you can’t do that, then a specific internationalization plan is not necessarily beneficial, and might, in fact, fence in the institution. . . . There is a balance point of not being too prescriptive in the plan, in order to allow the university to internationalize in unanticipated ways. (Public, doctorategranting university)

Thus, these findings suggest that a decentralized organizational structure, slow movement of institutional decision-making, advanced stage of internationalization, lack of presidential support for internationalization or detailed planning initiatives, key vacant positions, and financial constraints can impede the development of internationalization plans. Notwithstanding these hindering factors, this study revealed critical participants who helped institutions to overcome these barriers and develop internationalization plans.

Key Participants in the Development of Internationalization Plans Respondents indicated that influential participants in the development of internationalization plans were (a) campuswide internationalization taskforces, (b) chief international education administrators, and (c) presidents and chancellors. These findings support the notion that the senior institutional leaders’ support and organizational mechanisms to structure the involvement of faculty and administrators throughout the institution are critical to the development of internationalization plans.


Implementation of Internationalization Plans Although the research and interview questions did not directly address the implementation of internationalization plans, through robust interview and document analysis enabling and hindering factors in the implementation of internationalization plans emerged. These data were categorized and coded, and are subsequently discussed.

Enabling Factors in the Implementation of Internationalization Plans This section refers to factors that enabled the implementation of internationalization plans at the 71% of institutions examined that had plans. Analysis of the interview data and internationalization plan documents indicated that the development of widespread faculty engagement was an overarching enabling factor in implementation. Faculty engagement was developed through campuswide faculty forums and conferences on internationalization, the support of the academic senate, and central internationalization leaders working one on one with faculty. First, campuswide faculty forums and conferences served as opportunities for faculty to engage in the implementation of internationalization plans. In illustration of the positive impact of institution-wide conferences on facilitating faculty engagement in internationalization plans, one respondent from a public, doctorate-granting university expressed how the chancellor’s decision to dedicate his annual conference to discussing the internationalization of the institution-enabled faculty with a forum in which to express their perspectives, concerns, and ideas for the internationalization at both institutional and departmental levels. Second, the support of the academic senate emerged as a facilitator of faculty involvement in the implementation of internationalization plans. As indicated by a respondent from public, doctorate-granting university, “In universities with strong faculty governance . . . the academic senate has complete authority . . . to implement any curricular initiatives [including internationalization].” Therefore, in order for faculty at large to internationalize their curricula, the academic senate must support such activities. Finally, internationalization leaders’ work with faculty members on a one-on-one basis, particularly at smaller institutions, enabled the development of faculty involvement in the implementation of internationalization plans. Through helping faculty to establish useful connections based on their disciplinary and regional interests, some participants explained they were able to engage faculty in the implementation of their internationalization plans. Thus, smaller institutions may capitalize on their size and connect faculty with research, teaching, and consulting engagements that directly align with their areas of expertise. Overall, considering the positive effects of campuswide faculty forums, development of support from the academic


senate, and working one on one with faculty, intentional efforts to develop faculty engagement are critical to the implementation of internationalization plans.

Hindering Factors in the Implementation of Internationalization Plans Factors that hindered the implementation of internationalization plans were aligned with the factors that limited the development of the plans. First, limited funding emerged as an obstacle to the implementation of internationalization plans. Respondents expressed that they lacked the financial resources necessary to implement their internationalization goals. Thus, these findings suggest that financial resources are critical in both the development and implementation stages of internationalization plans. Second, lack of campuswide understanding of international education prevented and also served as an obstacle to the implementation of internationalization plans. Some respondents expressed that many of their key campus constituents in internationalization, including faculty, administrators, and students, did not understand what international education or internationalization meant; consequently, it became difficult to develop the support necessary to carry out the goals of an internationalization plan. Third, faculty members’ desire for autonomy served as an additional barrier to the implementation of internationalization plans. As faculty do not like to be told what to do (Clark, 1963; Miller, 2001), emerging from the data is a picture that faculty members’ desire to operate autonomously impeded the implementation of internationalization plans. Accordingly, this faculty preference toward working independently served as an obstacle to their participation in an institution-wide initiative that they may not have perceived as directly furthering their own professional or personal agendas. Fourth, lack of top-level support for internationalization other than through rhetoric prevented the implementation of internationalization plans. Some respondents indicated that although senior institutional leaders may state the importance of internationalization in their rhetoric, they do not provide financial support and other resources necessary for the implementation of an institutional plan. Finally, unforeseen crises emerged as obstacles to the implementation of internationalization plans. Specifically, the crisis of September 11 forced some institutions to divert resources to the immediate response needs post-September 11, which were originally intended to carry out internationalization plans. Although the factors that impede the implementation of internationalization plans vary, a common thread is the importance of commitment from senior institutional leaders and an organizational infrastructure to support internationalization. The data from this study suggest that with such support and infrastructure, internationalization may become more fully integrated into an institution’s activities and ethos, such that the potential of unforeseen crises to derail the implementation of internationalization plans may be minimized.


Monitoring of Internationalization Plans Although data analysis revealed that numerous institutions spent less time focusing on the monitoring of internationalization plans than on their development and implementation, for the fourth research question (How and by whom are internationalization plans monitored?), an in-depth review of interview and document data revealed enabling factors, hindering factors, and key participants in the monitoring of internationalization plans.

Enabling Factors in the Monitoring of Internationalization Plans Support from the office of institutional research surfaced as an enabling factor in the monitoring of internationalization plans. Some participants expressed that their institutional research staff have served as valuable partners to track assessment indicators and monitor the institutions’ internationalization progress, which has helped to rally support for improvement. As institutional research administrators have expertise in the evaluation of institutional programs, these findings suggest that their expertise can inform the monitoring of internationalization plans. Interestingly, assigning the monitoring responsibility to individual departments, as opposed to central institutional groups, was discovered as an enabling factor in monitoring internationalization plans. In illustration, one respondent stated, “Each of the units will be asked to develop annual goals to help move the institution in the direction of the [institution’s internationalization] plan” (Private, master’s college/ university). Such respondents expressed not only their recognition of the importance of monitoring the implementation of plans, but the importance of placing the responsibility for monitoring at the individual departmental levels. Surprisingly, budgetary concerns were revealed as facilitators of the monitoring process. In particular, some respondents expressed that their budget for implementing the internationalization plan is directly linked to their demonstration of accomplishing their stated goals. Thus, to receive their annual budgets, some departments were required to demonstrate evidence that they were monitoring and implementing their stated goals. Overall, the findings suggest that support from the office of institutional research, responsibility for monitoring placed at the departmental levels, and budgetary policies that require the monitoring of stated plans, all enable the monitoring of internationalization plans.

Hindering Factor in the Monitoring of Internationalization Plans From this study there emerged only one hindering factor in the monitoring of internationalization plans: lack of clarity regarding the monitoring process and monitoring expectations. This obstacle is succinctly explained through the comment of one participant from a public, doctorate-granting university: “Monitoring? It’s


still a mystery to me.” Analysis of the interview and document data collected for this study suggest that many of the institutions have neither considered the importance of monitoring nor what is impeding this process from taking place at their institutions.

Key Participants in the Monitoring of Internationalization Plans At those institutions with a monitoring process in place for their internationalization plans, respondents indicated that key participants in the development and management of the monitoring were (a) chief international education administrators, (b) campuswide internationalization taskforces, and (c) office of international education staff. Thus, although the evaluation expertise provided by the office of institutional research is useful, the impetus for and follow through of monitoring often comes from those stakeholders who are tasked with an international agenda.

Implications Emerging from the analysis of the internationalization plan documents and interviews are numerous insights that can help institutions transition from the planning to operationalization phases of Knight’s (1994) internationalization cycle. As Knight’s model suggests, colleges and universities that incorporate the importance of international education into their institutions’ mission statements and strategic plans create a strong foundation for operationalizing this commitment and intent. Several findings from this study affirm Knight’s (1994) theory that written plans are part of the supportive culture needed to springboard institutions into the operationalization phase of internationalization. First, an internationalization plan can serve as a roadmap for internationalization. Considering the diversity of internal and external stakeholders in internationalization, an internationalization plan can help to provide a coherent direction for institutional priorities, which may be placed on an institution’s Web site and distributed to institutional stakeholders for their reference. Yet even after an internationalization plan is developed critical questions remain: Is the plan used? How is it used? Does it align with institutional and departmental objectives other than internationalization? Second, the process of developing an internationalization plan, as well as the plan itself, can serve as vehicles to stimulate the engagement of key stakeholders. To encourage the participation of faculty, administrators, students, alumni, and other external constituents (including foundations and governments to seek funding support), the presence of a written document that articulates an institution’s goals for internationalization can demonstrate institutional commitment to internationalization. Knight (1994) is instructive here, as she explained that by delineating practical steps, institutional stakeholders are able to understand how they can participate. Through this understanding fostered through written documents, the development


of stakeholder engagement is initiated. Nevertheless, after the stakeholder engagement in internationalization plans is initiated, how is it sustained and encouraged? Third, an internationalization plan can be used as a mechanism for explaining and clarifying the meaning and goals of internationalization. As lack of understanding of internationalization was indicated in this study as a hindering factor in the implementation of internationalization plans, to develop support for internationalization it is critical that key internal and external constituents are part of defining and fostering what is meant by internationalization. Fourth, an internationalization plan can be used as a medium for developing interdisciplinary collaboration. To support the cross-fertilization of ideas and programs among institutional departments, the availability of clearly articulated internationalization goals and implementation strategies for all departments to reference can enable subunits with the groundwork for collaboration. Fifth, an internationalization plan can be used as a tool for fund-raising. To demonstrate to internal and external funding sources, e.g. alumni, foundations, government agencies, international not-for-profit agencies, that a higher education institution or subunit is serious about internationalization, it is useful to have its general commitment, as well as specific goals and objectives delineated in a written document. These points are well articulated in one respondent’s statement: A few years ago, I might have just said that a detailed written document might be of value . . . for the director of international education as a roadmap. But now, I can see that by having a more detailed statement of how we will integrate study abroad into majors, we will be in a position to convince others that we know what we’re doing, and that we are pursuing a well-designed plan that is designed to meet a specific university strategic plan item. A detailed plan [gives] us more support for receiving new monies for our internationalization. (Public, doctorate-granting university)

As illustrated by this participant in particular and in this study overall, through understanding these benefits of internationalization plans, institutional leaders may find useful mechanisms through which to build support for internationalization from internal and external stakeholders. In so doing, they may help their institutions to transition from the planning to operationalization phases of Knight’s (1994) internationalization cycle.

Further Research Given the findings of this study, five recommendations for research emerge. First, it is important to examine how college and university leaders can be encouraged to support the development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans. As indicated by this study and the literature to date (e.g., Harari, 1989; Knight, 1994; Paige, 2005), internationalization plans are important. A prevalent impediment to the development, implementation, and monitoring of these plans is institutional


leaders’ lack of focus or prioritization on internationalization or detailing planning documents to advance internationalization goals. Second, this study indicated that a common feature of institutions’ development of internationalization plans is the presence and activity of a campuswide internationalization taskforce. Yet little is known about what activities and processes these taskforces are undertaking to develop their institutions’ internationalization goals. Therefore, it is important to investigate internationalization taskforce activities to shed light on how these processes can be improved. Third, the importance of campuswide faculty forums, support of the academic senate, and internationalization leaders working one on one with faculty illustrate that a common thread in the development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans is the development of faculty engagement. Hence, future research should address in-depth how faculty involvement in internationalization plans is developed and sustained to achieve institutions’ internationalization goals. Fourth, as this study focused on institutional members of AIEA, which largely represent doctorate-granting universities and master’s colleges/universities, it would be useful for this study to be replicated with a larger sampling of these institutional types. Replication also with classifications of institutions not well represented or not represented at all in this study, such as baccalaureate and associate’s colleges, would advance understanding of internationalization plans in those institutions and lead to further understanding of any differences in internationalization plans that may exist by institutional type. Furthermore, as this study examined U.S. higher education institutions, it would be useful for future research to replicate this study in different countries and world regions, such as by using the European Association for International Education or Asia-Pacific Association for International Education as populations. Through such studies, implications for various cultures and education systems could be illuminated. Fifth, as this study evinced a typology of internationalization plans (ISPs, DDs, and UPs), it is important for future research to examine how the development of stakeholder engagement differs based on the type of internationalization plan an institution employs. Does the type of internationalization plan an institution develops affect the processes a campuswide taskforce undertakes to develop, implement, and monitor the plan? The examination of these five issues in future research would lead to greater understanding of how to operationalize internationalization plans in higher education institutions.

Conclusion In essence, the development of internationalization plans is critical to the operationalization of institutions’ internationalization goals. However, significant, endogenous


obstacles to this development exist. Even after an institution has overcome such obstacles and created an internationalization plan, determining the type of internationalization plan that best suits an institution’s culture is key. Some institutions may find the integration of internationalization into an ISP useful, as it allows for a coherent vision and flexibility for individual stakeholders to adapt internationalization to meet their unique needs. Other institutions may find DDs for internationalization advantageous if they value precise, centralized planning. Yet some institutions may find that a combination of plans may best help them to address their competing centralized and decentralized tendencies. For instance, institutions may decide that in addition to an ISP and a DD, a UP may help direct individual departments and schools draw explicit links between centralized internationalization plan goals and specific disciplinary priorities. Once an internationalization plan has been created, it is vital for centralized mechanisms, that is, internationalization taskforces, to be created to facilitate the operationalization of the plan. Such organizational mechanisms can ensure that internationalization plan goals and opportunities for participation are communicated to stakeholders throughout the institution. Although all the institutions examined were U.S.-based and most were doctorategranting or master’s colleges/universities, it is possible to speculate that the development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans may vary based on national and institutional cultures. In cultures in which precision and detailed planning are paramount, DDs and UPs may be most advantageous for the operationalization of an institution’s internationalization goals. In cultures in which flexibility is paramount, ISPs may be most effective. Likewise, in centralized institutional cultures, ISPs and DDs may be most appropriate, whereas UPs may be most effective in implementing internationalization goals in decentralized cultures. Despite this study’s focus on U.S. doctorate-granting universities and master’s colleges/universities, it is possible for institutions outside the United States to use these findings by understanding the Carnegie classifications. To aid in that endeavor, it may be useful to keep in mind the following: Doctorate-granting universities include institutions that award at least 20 doctoral degrees per year; master’s colleges/universities include institutions that award at least 50 master’s degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees per year; and baccalaureate colleges include institutions that emphasize undergraduate education and award fewer than 50 master’s degrees or 20 doctoral degrees per year (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2005). Although the Carnegie classifications are based on U.S. institutions, with such an understanding, it may be possible to use the Carnegie framework on a worldwide scale to further analyze the relationship between internationalization plan types and institutional types. Above all, to support colleges and universities in moving plans from institutional shelves and Web sites into their classrooms and beyond, it will be important for future research to examine the relationship between the development of internationalization plans and the communication of these plans to key institutional stakeholders.


Notes 1. Institutional types are based on the 2005 Carnegie classifications (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2005). 2. Although the two types of unit plans (UPs) that emerged from this study were academic affairs and international education, the UP type may apply to disciplinary departments or individual colleges within a university. 3. Promising Practices (Engberg & Green, 2002) was a case study conducted by American Council on Education’s Center for International Initiative (ACE CII) of eight colleges’ and universities’ internationalization goals, programs, activities, challenges, and future plans. The Internationalization Collaborative is a learning community of 85 institutions sponsored by ACE CII, which provides a forum for institutions to share ideas to further their internationalization. The Internationalization Laboratory is a small cluster of institutions that work closely with ACE CII over a 12- to 16-month period to advance their comprehensive internationalization (ACE, 2008).

References Aigner, J. S., Nelson, P., & Stimpfl, J. (1992). Internationalizing the university: Making it work. Springfield, VA: CBIS Federal. American Council on Education. (2000). ACE survey of international attitudes and knowledge. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. American Council on Education. (2008). Campus internationalization: Institutional networks. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/International/ Campus/InstitutionalNetworks/Inst_Ntwks.htm Association of International Education Administrators. (2006). Association of International Education Administrators. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from https://aieaworld.american-data.net/index.php Audas, M. C. (1990). Comparing policy statements and practices in the international dimension of selected institutions of higher education: Part I. International Education Forum, 10(2), 59-73. Backman, E. L. (Ed.). (1984). Approaches to international education. New York: Macmillan. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2005). 2005 Carnegie classifications. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp Clark, B. R. (1963). Faculty organization and authority. In J. L. Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASHE reader on organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 119-127). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Council on International Educational Exchange. (1988). Education for global competence: Report of the advisory council for international educational exchange. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 191-193. Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait. In J. A. Mestenhauser & B. A. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp. 198-228). Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press. Engberg, D., & Green, M. F. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1988). Abroad and beyond: Patterns in American overseas education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Global competitiveness: Implications for the nation’s higher education system. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07135sp.pdf


Green, M. F. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A strategic approach. International Educator, 7(1), 13-26. Green, M. F., & Olson, C. L. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Harari, M. (1989). Internationalization of higher education: Effecting institutional change in the curriculum and campus. Long Beach, CA: Center for International Education, California State University. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. Canadian Bureau for International Education Research, 7, 1-15. Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31. Lambert, R. (1990). International studies and education: The current state of affairs. International Education Forum, 10(1), 1-8. Lim, G. C. (2003). The rationale for globalization. In G. C. Lim (Ed.), Strategy for a global university (2nd ed., pp. 3-20). East Lansing: Michigan State University. Mestenhauser, J. A., & Ellingboe, B. J. (2005). Leadership knowledge and international education. International Educator, 14(6), 36-43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, M. A. (2001). Faculty as a renewable resource. Change, 33(4), 4. Moats-Gallagher, C. (2004). Leading the internationalization of land grant institutions: Crafting a strategic approach. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://www.nasulgc.org/CIP/Task%20Force/ UnivLeadership.pdf National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (2004). A call to leadership: The presidential role in internationalizing the university. Retrieved September 28, 2005, from http://www. nasulgc.org/CIP/Task%20Force/Call_to_leadership.pdf Olson, C. L., Green, M. F., & Hill, B. A. (2006). A handbook for advancing comprehensive internationalization: What institutions can do and what students should learn. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Paige, R. M. (2005). Internationalization of higher education: Performance assessment and indicators. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 5, 99-122. Reichard, J. F. (1983). Summary and agenda for future interchanges. In H. M. Jenkins (Ed.), Educating students from other nations: American colleges and universities in international educational interchange (pp. 295-318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schoorman, D. (1999). The pedagogical implications of diverse conceptualizations of internationalization: A U.S.-based case study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 3, 19-46. Scott, R. A. (1992). Campus developments in response to the challenges of internationalization: The case of Ramapo College of New Jersey. Springfield, VA: CBIS Federal. Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. (2001). Public experience, attitudes, and knowledge: A report on two national surveys about international education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lisa K. Childress conducts research on the internationalization of higher education. She has served as an international education administrator at numerous universities in the United States and as an education consultant in Japan. She received an EdD in higher education administration from the George Washington University and an EdM in international education from Harvard University.