Abstract
This article is written from the perspective of a faculty member in a professional graduate degree program who is committed to internationalization, but also notes its challenges given the context in which higher education finds itself. First, the article outlines the ways in which higher education is thinking about internationalization, in particular with a focus on faculty-led short-term study abroad programs. Second, the article juxtaposes internationalization with the current conversation and debates about academic capitalism. Finally, it ends with overarching topics that deserve further exploration and include: (a) that internationalization is often tailored to faculty interests but that this might make systemic assessment challenging; (b) that there are shifting relations among the university central offices related to internationalization processes and academic departments; and (c) given the academic capitalism debates, the article asks whether we can implement and assess our internationalization processes while still adhering to academic quality and credibility.
Introduction
In April 2018, a group of faculty members, university administrators, and higher education professionals was convened by Binghamton University to explore the objectives and measurement of how universities can best promote students’ intercultural competencies. The premise of the meeting was that current assessment standards and processes for higher education “do not effectively evaluate the quality of internationalization efforts or their contribution to the goals of enhancing students’ global mindedness and intercultural competencies” (N Rubaii, personal communication, 2017). This is all the while colleges and universities are seeking to be globally engaged and articulating a responsibility “to prepare people for a globalized world, including developing the ability to . . . operate other cultures and settings” (ACE, 2011). This article explores further these tensions in higher education’s internationalization efforts.
The article is written from the perspective of a faculty member in a professional graduate degree program who is committed to internationalization, but also notes the challenges given the context in which higher education finds itself. Specifically, this article poses questions about the implementation and assessment of internationalization efforts. First, the article outlines some of the ways in which we are thinking about internationalization, particularly in professional graduate degree programs and the use of faculty-led short-term study abroad programs. Second, the article juxtaposes internationalization efforts with the conversations and debates about academic capitalism. Finally, it ends with overarching questions that deserve further exploration.
Internationalization in higher education
Internationalization has been linked to building global, international, and intercultural (GII) competencies among our students. GII competencies “include knowledge about several dimensions of global and international cultures; appreciation of cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity; understanding of the complexities of issues in a global context; and comfort in working with people from other cultures” (Soria and Troisi, 2014: 262). Internationalization in higher education takes many forms. For example, Internationalization at Home (IaH) pedagogic activities are slated to expose students to international experiences through formal and informal interactions with international students and community members, working with faculty members on international research, and taking classes that integrate comparative and international topics (Soria and Troisi, 2014). IaH strategies such as Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum (CLAC) are argued to be “a means of exposing [graduate students] to diverse perspectives, fostering reflection, and practicing communication skills in order to tackle the complex issues that face our societies” without having to travel and spend time abroad (Capobianco et al., 2018: 196).
Other internationalization efforts include getting students off campus, particularly out of the country, through programming such as student study abroad. Scholars have asserted that undergraduate students from the USA, who participate in study abroad programs, return being more reflective about their own identities and even appreciative of their role as global citizens (Dolby, 2007). Study abroad programs can advance students’ building of cultural intelligence (Crowne, 2008) and of intercultural competencies (Deardorff, 2006; Rubaii et al., 2015). While traditional direct-enrollment semester-long study abroad programs continue to play an important role in advancing international experiences for students in US higher education institutions, their limitations in increasing the number and diversity of student participants are well documented (Murray Brux and Fry, 2010). The challenges are related to cost, disruption or delay of completion of degree requirements, and uneasiness about traveling alone to another country for an extended period of time. Universities see opportunities for growth in the development of shorter-term faculty-led study abroad programs which address these concerns. Additionally, within this model, scholars have found that those which include a service component appeal to the current generation of college students (Appe et al., 2016).
Based on our research about study abroad options in 44 public affairs graduate programs (Rubaii et al., 2015; Appe et al., 2015, 2016), we have found that these opportunities seem to be largely motivated by individual faculty interests and faculty members have created them with high levels of discretion. We explain: The single most important factor in determining whether to launch a study abroad program is faculty initiative, with 27 programs (61%) of the 44 programs interviewed, identifying this as the reason for starting at least one of their programs. Faculty rationales ranged from being a native of the country to having a strong personal relationship with someone in a university, government agency, or nongovernmental organization (NGO) in the country; to having research interests in the country; or sometimes simply to having travel interests in the country. (Rubaii et al., 2015: 187–188)
The high level of discretion allows faculty to develop program specific academic objectives but presents a challenge for the systematic assessment of these programs, as the program objectives are often not developed taking into account larger department or programmatic-level academic objectives.
In addition, while faculty discretion was present in the creation of programs, we identified a shifting relationship with the central university office responsible for study abroad. This type of office has gradually begun to assume more responsibility in the implementation of study abroad programs within academic departments. We found that some faculty generally saw this as a positive trend, while others reported being frustrated with declining autonomy. We quote a faculty member in our 2015 Journal of Public Affairs Education article, “10 years ago everything was done within the college, but increased concerns about liability have led to a shift of more responsibilities to the central office” (Rubaii et al., 2015: 187).
These issues are important in our conversation about the implementation of internationalization efforts (in particular, study abroad) and their assessment. When coupled with trends and debates about academic capitalism, internationalization presents several concerns and questions. The following section provides a brief overview of academic capitalism and the article ends with suggestions for further research avenues.
Academic capitalism
Some of the discussions about internationalization can also be situated within the literature about academic capitalism. The global debates and criticisms about the university as a capitalistic organization are plenty (Slaughter and Leslie, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004a, 2004b), even as universities increasingly use the language of community outreach and global engagement. Universities use new products, methods, markets, sources of supply and forms of organization under the pressures of academic capitalism (Jessop, 2017, 2018). Coined and used by Slaughter and Rhoades, academic capitalism is defined as “a regime that entails colleges and universities engaging in market and market-like behaviors” (2004b: 37). This is a result of several factors. For example, public universities in particular have loss significant state funding and “are seeking to generate revenue from their core educational, research and service functions, ranging from the production of knowledge (such as research leading to patents) created by the faculty to the faculty’s curriculum and instruction (teaching materials that can be copyrighted and marketed)” (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b: 37). Slaughter and Rhoades have explained academic capitalism as a regime due to its systematic revision and creation that developed a new understanding and function of the university. This regime prioritizes short-term economic gains while fundamentally shifting or even disregarding the other functions of higher education institutions. The academic capitalism framework and its implications have been explored across a wide scope of universities. The Western contexts come from Europe, North America (Deem, 2001) as well as Australia (Welch, 2002) and there is also information on universities in so-called developing economies (Johnson and Hirt, 2011).
Curriculum building under academic capitalism has three characteristics that are particularly relevant to internationalization (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b). First, decisions about curriculum emphasize the short term and involve no shared governance processes. Top-down decision making is the new normal informed by frameworks of corporate governance. Second, there is an emphasis on learning, not teaching, and this is being restructured to involve a clad of university professionals (in teaching centers for example). This, as Slaughter and Rhoades (2004b) argue, takes the teacher out of the center and “debundles” teaching. That is, classes are divided up and not fully developed by the instructor. It results in faculty losing control of curriculum and academic decision making (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b: 49). Third, there is a commercialization of the curriculum which takes shape in many forms. For example, online education is the “it thing” but does not often take into account equity issues, that is, it has not really proven to serve low-income rather ends up serving those who already have access and would be served under traditional higher education models (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b). Many of these concerns of academic capitalism, I assert, have serious implications for internationalization efforts and the development of GII competencies in our academic programs.
Scholars have argued that academic capitalism is intertwined with neoliberalism and even neoconservatism (Brackmann, 2015; Kauppinen, 2012; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b) as it prioritizes revenue generation and cost savings more so than core educational activities. These objectives have changed even the language we use in higher education. For example, university presidents are increasingly called Chief Executive Officers (or CEOs). The term “educational entrepreneurialism” has been popularized and pushes departments to tap into new markets for revenue (in fact, many internationalization efforts broadly defined have been framed as a focused market to expand). Universities adopt new means of doing business—often in the name of being entrepreneurial to raise revenues, reputation, and/or rankings (Jessop, 2018). Additionally, cutting costs under academic capitalism includes the expansion of course offerings, filling these classes, and having them taught by graduate students. Indeed, as a cost-saving measure this allows universities to offer more courses, cheaply. The focus is on “credit hour production” not “educational quality” (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b: 42). Something that I have witnessed as a faculty member is that professional degrees in particular are proliferating under the model of academic capitalism. They are deemed “cost-effective” as they are thesis-free and fast, aligning with short-term goals (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b).
Academic capitalism involves not only universities, policymakers and at times industry/private sector but also accreditation bodies are showing evidence of being involved in these shifts, of particular interest to the topic of assessment. Accreditation bodies are moving to an outcomes-based model, and scholars criticize such a focus and note its limitations (Johnson, 2019; Mirabella and Eikenberry (2017); Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004b) argue that inputs (such as institutional structures, processes to foster quality education, etc.) are at times not considered for accreditation nor as necessary for educational quality. That is, accreditation bodies have shown not to be interested in the number of tenure track faculty and the presence of solid shared governance processes, but rather want quantitative measures like graduation rates and test scores. Again, evidence of prioritizing cost reduction for greater efficiencies even at the cost of education quality (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b).
In recent work, Rhoades (2015) identifies three structural patterns that have been changing academia and constrain much of what faculty members can pursue for the public good. Rhoades explains: “Amid the search for disruptive innovation; reduced per capita state support; and demands for greater efficiency, productivity, and revenue generation—‘the new normal’—there is reduced structural room, and even disincentive, for public interest-oriented behavior” (2015: 109). The structural patterns include: (a) an increased demand for accountability and measured productivity which are tied to resource allocation and a reduction in faculty discretionary time—this also is related to the stratification of academia identified in the literature, where some departments are “productive” while others are “subsidized” (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004b); (b) the growing shifts of the academic workforce—two-thirds of the workforce are outside of tenure track positions; and (c) higher education is experiencing a management revolution which leads to less discretion and decision-making power for professors and less tolerance for dissent.
This article suggests what we cannot consider without recognizing the unfolding backdrop of academic capitalism. It seeks to identify the gaps in the research about internationalization efforts and the development of GII competencies and how we measure effective internationalization. Internationalization efforts and their measurement must be considered while also taking stock of the trends (or pressures) of academic capitalism. How might the backdrop of academic capitalism aid and/or hinder internationalization, its implementation, and its assessment?
Conclusion
In addition to preparing students, engaged universities generate learning and knowledge to solve public problems. This version of the university is in contrast to academic capitalism. That is, an engaged university provides “a reciprocal, collaborative relationship” among the university and community stakeholders (local and global) through practices that produce learning and knowledge (Barker, 2004: 124). Emphasizing deeper global engagement frames the university as addressing public problems and situating it as a public good, not a privatized venture (Barker, 2004). Indeed, in the case of universities, if they are not engaging in public problem solving they are at risk of becoming “socially irrelevant” (Ostrander, 2004: 76). While universities need to respond to the needs of the market, they too need to avoid the positioning of higher education as simply a commodity (Ostrander, 2004).
Given what has been briefly outlined above, I propose the following topics of interest when exploring research which has found that faculty members believe internationalization to be a means to advance the charge of an engaged university, as well as develop students’ cultural competence. However, my colleagues and I have also identified that internationalization efforts, such as study abroad programs, are more tailored to faculty interests than having clear programmatic academic objectives (Appe et al., 2015). Indeed, internationalization efforts and the development of GII competencies are often driven more by faculty members’ interests. This might prohibit systematic assessment at the programmatic level, particularly in evaluating their contributions to GII competencies.
Second, there are shifting relations among the university central offices related to internationalization and academic departments and this warrants further consideration as it relates to trends of academic capitalism identified in the literature, including a loss of autonomy by academic departments and faculty members. According to previous research, options for fulfilling core service responsibilities in academic departments include developing international exchanges and relationships, and there are some incentives for faculty members to do so (Appe et al., 2015). However, we also found that central offices at universities’ institutional levels were taking more of a role in internationalization processes, which pose further questions and suggests potential tensions among professional staff and faculty responsibilities in roles within internationalization.
Third, will academic capitalism play an increasingly role in the realm of internationalization efforts? Our conversations should consider that internationalization efforts and the development of GII competencies—for better or worse—might be threatened by continued trends of academic capitalism. How can we implement and assess internationalization processes while maintaining academic quality and credibility? Are we internationalizing because of individual faculty members only, or are we advancing a globally engaged university, quality education and the building of GII competencies? How might we disentangle internationalization efforts and the pressures for further revenue streams in order to be competitive in the university market? Indeed, we need to take into account the changing structures in the academy and its influence on our thinking of internationalization efforts and the development and assessment of GII competencies.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.