Similar Goals and Dueling Agendas: Perceptions of Campus Internationalization and Equity Policies Dr. Kati Bell Director, Global Education Dominican University.

Similar Goals and Dueling Agendas: Perceptions of Campus

Internationalization and Equity Policies

Dr. Kati BellDirector, Global Education

Dominican University of California

Growth of Internationalization Policy

Background to the Problem

Demonstrated growth of internationalization policy in U.S. higher education

93 percent of doctoral institutions, 84 percent of master’s institutions and 78 percent of baccalaureate intuitions surveyed, perceived that

internationalization has accelerated on their campuses in the past three years (Green, 2012, p. 6).

Critical research of internationalization policy is lacking

Internationalization has become a synonym of “doing good” and people are less into questioning its effectiveness and essential nature an instrument to improve the quality of education or research. (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011, p. 16)

Key Terminology

Globalization vs. Internationalization:

Internationalization is a series of agreed upon practices around the common campus goal of creating a more globally connected student and faculty body (Knight, 2007).

Globalization is understood as an economic phenomenon involving the increasing the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values and ideas across borders (Knight & de Wit, 1997)

Equity vs. Diversity:

Educational equity is the understood as the provision of equal access, opportunity, and outcome for all students and faculty (Bensimon, Dowd, & Harris, 2007).

Diversity is the inclusion of a compositional difference of people as defined by ethnic, cultural and socio-economic criteria (McGee-Banks & Banks,

1995).

Typology of Internationalization

Ideology IdealInternationalization policy as

an ideal state

Economic Internationalization policy as economic

priority

CurricularInternationalization policy as

educational priority

Focus Vision

The moral world

To create a better world

The global marketplace

To develop global revenue streams

The individual learner

To facilitate personal and educational transformation

Goals Mutual understanding across cultures, tolerance of diversity, and social change

Economic growth; exchange of knowledge for profits

Learning enrichment, new perspectives, personal transformation and growth

Strategies Provide global knowledge, facilitate insight, generate empathy and compassion

Recruitment of international fee paying students and professional training programs

Stimulate self-awareness, and self-reflections (study abroad), foster intercultural competence

Measures Increased international mobility and exchange

Increased revenue from new markets Increase in culturalCompetency for students/faculty

Critiques Arrogance, victimization, Ethnocentrism

Brain drain, wealth disparity, cultural imperialism

Academic arrogance, chauvinism, individualism

Organizational group

Staff administrators Senior level administrators Faculty members

Typology of Understandings of Equity in Higher Education

Key Concept Access Opportunity Outcome Social Justice

Focus Incoming freshman and transfer students

Continuing students Graduating students and alumni

Historically marginalized populations

Goals Racially and socio-economically diverse student body

Inclusive and active student body; increased diversity in majors

Increased graduation rates for diverse students, improved employment opportunities, positive campus recognition

Overcoming the hegemonic structures to increase educational equity

Strategies Affirmative action, Increased need-based funding opportunities

Increased participation in student activities, improved pedagogy and programming, inclusive excellence

Outreach, tutoring and advising services for at-risk students. Structural and curriculum changes to facilitate graduation

Awareness and empowerment building

Measures Acceptance rates for racially and economically diverse students

Higher participation in student activities by racially and economically diverse students

Increased completion of underrepresented students

Equality of access, opportunity and outcomes in education

Critique Stops short, admission is no guarantee of success

Potential for exclusivity, and decreasing campus integration

Preservation of prevailing ideology without true transformation.

Sustaining change and transformation

Components of International and Diversity/Multi-cultural Offices

Shared Challenges Shared Values

Perceived disconnect from core university goals

Commitment to cultural diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness

Offices are silo’ed and narrowly defined

Desire to transform institutional structures

Mission and goals not always well understand by greater campus community

Promotion of understanding and tolerance of culturally different and marginalized people

High risk to budget and staff cuts during resources allocation

Interdisciplinary approach with a strong focus on experiential learning

RQ 1. How do the reported practices of the international and diversity offices relate to the stated

campus goals of internationalization and equity?

Stated goals for internationalization •Provide for global perspective to student body •Promote globally diverse community (ex. International students & faculty)

Congruent with reported practices•Increase the diversity of study abroad program participation•Enrollment support for international students (additional advisors)•Collaboration of diversity programming to enhance cross cultural awareness

Incongruence with practices•Divergent understandings of diversity – term reserved for domestic students •Global community is segregated and lacking inclusion

RQ 2. How does organizational structure influence the perception of campus

internationalization and equity initiatives?

Reported and observed organizational structures: loose-coupling, collaborative efforts , and top-down support

•decentralized structure (loosely-coupled & silo-ed units) created divergent narratives and understandings of diversity & equity, collaboration was reliant on personal relationships

•centralized structure –shared space and common goal of serving students ; ex. “one-stop” advising center; centrally administered, all students served

•governance: top down & shared goals reported to be important

Conclusion : Supporting Educational Equity through Leadership

Findings and Implications

EquityInternationalization policy may negatively impact campus equity by: a) introducing a diverging definition of diversity at the campus

b) implementing a practice that is different from the original policy

c) failing to evaluate or establish evaluative measures for campus diversification due to internationalization policy

Leadership Understanding how internationalization impacts the campus diversity initiatives serves to inform campus leaders how to address potential inequities when developing, implementing and evaluating international policy.

Integrating Equity into Internationalization Strategy

Equality Is Not Always Equity

This Is Equality This Is Equity

Similar Goals and Dueling Agendas: Perceptions of Campus Internationalization

and Equity Policy

Contact Information:Dr. Kati BellDirector, Global EducationDominican University of [email protected]

Dissertation:https://diva.sfsu.edu/bundles/218069

Dominican Global Learning Environment

GEO Mission:GEO’s mission is to support campus comprehensive internationalization through the lens of the Dominican Global Learning environment by promoting equity of access and demonstrated academic outcomes in three key areas: International Student/Scholar Services, Dominican Study Abroad and Global Faculty Engagement.

GEO Vision: Advancing the Global Learning Environment:GEO’s vision is to provide all students access to a global experience that reflects the values of the Dominican Global Learning environment. The DU Global Learning environment supports transformational opportunities for the DU community to engage with cultural difference and to foster global citizenship, ethical leadership and social responsibility at home and abroad. Achievement outcomes will be measured in three learning domains: intercultural competency, global inter-connectivity, and global social responsibility.