Point:Counterpoint

Internationalization

Dynamics, Demographics, and Directions for Study Abroad

By Brenda J. Ellingboe

Any attempt to understand the differences in study abroad programming across institutions requires a conceptual framework or strategic model such as the one provided by John Davies in Charles Klasek's Internationalizing U.S. Universities.

Analyzing the key differences in dynamics (what), demographics (who), and directions (where, when, how) is important to administrators, faculty, study abroad advisers, and students alike and raises important questions:

• Why is study abroad important in the curriculum at one college and not another?
• How does the context (institutional type, administrative structure, calendar system, leadership commitment and institutional priority, and campus location) affect the supply side of study abroad programming?
• What accounts for the great range of country offerings, length and cost of programs, and organizational variations for study abroad among universities and colleges?
• Why does study, travel, intern, work, or service abroad mean different things in different contexts?
• Why are cultural immersion experiences highly regarded at some colleges and not at others?
• Finally, how does a college's study abroad programming fit into total campus internationalization?

Internal Factors

Each institution has its own set of dynamics that determine its international strategies. Davies' framework includes an analysis of the following: Mission Statement; Strengths and Weaknesses in Programs, Personnel, and Finance; Institutional Organization; Externally Perceived Image and Identity; Trends and Opportunities in the Marketplace.

Also included in the analysis of the dynamics of a campus are its institutional climate, leadership commitment, stakeholder involvement, financial picture, and curricular structure.

The demographics (who) are the human resources involved in the design, promotion, advising, administration, and funding of study abroad programs. The most important factors in campus demographics include composition of the student body; faculty diversity, including the presence of international faculty members and fellows; international alumni; faculty involvement in teaching and research abroad; and university linkages and partnerships.

The combination of dynamics and demographics determines an institution's directions with respect to internationalization.

Administrative decisions determine the strategic direction for study abroad. Some of these directions may be determined by faculty-governed committees; however, most decisions described in internationalization literature are made by academic affairs deans, directors of study abroad units, and the president. An individual college may score well attitudinally for campus dynamics and demographics, but poorly in terms of direction (leadership commitment and strategic planning and funding for study abroad from the supply side). An institution's priorities (or directions) for internationalization affect programming (what it offers its students), how it advertises and promotes its programs, how study abroad relates to the general studies curriculum and the design of individual majors and minors, and the extent of inclusion of international courses and electives in the curriculum throughout each college.

Supply Side of Study Abroad

Administrators, deans, and faculty determine the supply side of study abroad. As Kauffmann, Martin, Weaver, and Weaver (see sidebar) argue, an internationalized campus incorporates its study abroad program offerings with other complementary goals. These include offering a wide range of languages, adapting its curriculum to make a study abroad possible for all students, enriching major disciplines with study abroad programs, maintaining high-quality academic programs in all study abroad offerings, and integrating study abroad into the campus culture upon students' reentry into the home campus department.

Successful study abroad programming efforts depend not only upon the many campus (internal) variables but also on several external or environmental factors. An analysis of the organizational encouragement and resistance factors will inform leaders about the obstacles to successful study abroad programming and how these barriers might be removed.

A model college or university will have an internationalized mission statement--publicized internally and externally--that makes study abroad a priority. The commitment must be widely known by administrative leaders, faculty, staff, alumni, and students. It is repeated in brochures, college bulletins, on web sites, and on course planning worksheets. Top-level planning documents address all the elements in Davies' conceptual framework, including offering a vision and rationale for study abroad; linking the vision to the mission statement; explaining the institution's own study abroad program models, along with alternative models; making program, personnel, and curricular recommendations; and proposing financial benchmark figures along with measurable goals for study abroad participation and ways to increase student participation through scholarships from alumni donations and other funding avenues. Administrators who take study abroad seriously meet with the wide variety of stakeholders and see that study abroad is integrated within the large umbrella of campus internationalization.

Unfortunately, study abroad is not a high-reaching, system-wide priority on many campuses. At others, a leadership-driven mission is firmly in place along with measurable goals and benchmark figures to make the supply side of study abroad take high priority. Davies' model starts with the vision; moves to mission/goals/strategies; then evaluates programs, personnel, and finances, and finally addresses the impact of the organizational culture.

Demand Side of Study Abroad

Much has been written about students' attitudinal, life, and career changes during and after study abroad experiences--changes which often lead to their questioning their academic, vocational, and personal priorities. (A number of articles on this subject have appeared in the most recent issues of Transitions Abroad.) Returned students often act as peer advisers to promote study abroad. One-on-one conversations and informative slide shows or videotapes in residence halls and at club meetings can promote a particular program or showcase a university's study abroad portfolio. While these activities promote an increase in the student demand for study abroad, the demand, like the supply, depends on the composition of the student body, the institutional type, the flexibility of the curriculum, the availability of scholarships and travel grants for qualified students, and the degree of faculty involvement.

There are administrative solutions to many reasons why students do not go abroad.

Study abroad and internationalization have a better opportunity to succeed if some of the more-common resistance factors (blockades) can be removed. These include everything from penalizing departments when their students leave the home campus to making it impossible for students to study abroad and participate in campus recruiting.

Identifying the resistance factors is the first step toward internationalization. And these differ, as Davies' model shows, according to the institutional context: the dynamics, demographics, and directions of that college. Once this analysis is accomplished, institutions may be ready to incorporate many more international options into their curricular and co-curricular programs.

All three Ds must be investigated at the highest administrative levels. In order to internationalize, it is necessary to make purposeful changes in every campus office. Models and conceptual frameworks like Davies' provide the basis for dissecting both the internal and external campus variables which will enable international educators to provide more purposeful future planning efforts for both the supply and demand sides of study abroad.

References

Davies, J.L. (1992). "Developing a Strategy for Internationalization in Universities: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Chapter II. This is an adaptation of G. Keller's framework in Klasek, C.B., ed., Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education. Washington State Univ./AIEA Secretariat.

Kauffmann, N.L., Martin, J.N., Weaver, H.D., and Weaver, J. (1992). "Study Abroad and Internationalization of the University: Recommendations for Action," Chapter 6 in Kauffmann, N.L., et al., Students Abroad: Strangers at Home: Education for a Global Society. Intercultural Press.

Keller, G. (1983). Academic Strategy. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

BRENDA J. ELLINGBOE is a Ph.D. student in the higher education concentration in the department of Educational Policy and Administration at the Univ. of Minnesota, Twin Cities. She is co-editor of a forthcoming book by Oryx Press entitled Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. This paper was originally submitted for a one-credit graduate-level international education class called "Searching for Conceptual Frameworks for Study Abroad Programs for Students and Faculty" taught by Dr. R. Michael Paige, Educational Policy and Administration, Univ. of Minnesota, Twin Cities.