Higher education plays a significant role in shaping the culture of societies. As globalization becomes more prominent in all aspects of civilization, higher education must respond and lead in this endeavor. It is incumbent upon postsecondary institutions to train the leaders of tomorrow to lead in a world without boundaries, and to be able to embrace and promote the diversity of this new world stage. As such, higher education administration graduate programs must rise to the challenge of training educators in a new “global” way to prepare them for the possibilities that will emerge.
Introduction
Higher education in the United States is on the cusp of yet another period of transformation. How universities and colleges respond to the current and future changes that accompany the tremendous impact of globalization on the world, will determine their prosperity, viability, and success for years to come. The decisions of leaders in policy-making, curriculum design, governance, and management of more than 3,600 institutions in this country will have an immense impact on the future of American higher education. Producing leaders capable of functioning in this era of unprecedented global interaction and connection requires a new focus on multicultural competence, world-wide awareness, and an understanding of complex relationships and new ways of managing networks in a knowledge based society.
The relationships between governments and higher education are changing around the world. Consequently, methods for administering and leading in higher education are being transformed as new responsibilities and expectations arise (Goedegebuure & Vught, 1994). Leaders of American colleges and universities need to be able to build new understandings of global relationships and propel their individual institutions into the mix of newly formed international organizations and partnerships in the knowledge producing community. This emerging task requires prospective leaders to garner new skills and knowledge through graduate preparatory programs for higher education administrators and policy makers. Globalization and its effects on higher education is an essential theme, which should underlie or become a core component of masters and doctoral programs for future leaders.
At the present time we may not realize what changes will materialize with regard to globalization, however, we can no longer exist in the ivory tower, or in the relative isolation of traditional American higher education. In some respects, higher education has always been a part of the global information and knowledge society; yet, in ensuing years relationships among people, economies, and universities around the world will integrate in ways not yet imagined. From the graduate student perspective, in order for higher education in the United States to remain a global influence, new methods of leadership and management with an emphasis on a working understanding of the global market is essential.
Defining Globalization
The task of defining globalization is difficult due to the complexity of the phenomenon, hence the array of definitions offered by scholars tend to be lengthy and intricate. For the purposes of this paper, however, a more straightforward definition will be employed, “…globalization has multiple dimensions – economic, technological, and political – all of which spill into the culture and affect in all-encompassing ways the kinds of knowledge that are created, assigned merit and distributed” (Stromquist, 2002, p. 3). This compact characterization serves to open the dimensions of globalization for discussion as we attempt to examine the impact that globalization has had and will have on the world, the landscape of higher education, and graduate programs in higher education administration.
Globalization and Higher Education
In recent decades higher education has been at the head of many governmental agendas and has been central to the economic prosperity of numerous nations (Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor, 2001). To date, higher education has existed largely within national borders; hence, within various countries institutions have retained their unique characteristics. However, Philip Altbach, a leading scholar in higher education, has agreed that change is afoot “We are at the beginning of the era of transnational higher education, in which academic institutions from one country operate in another, academic programs are jointly offered by universities from different countries, and higher education is delivered through distance technologies” (Altbach, 2004, p. 22). In addition trends such as the international cooperation in research, migration of students to universities outside their native lands, internationalization of the curriculum, and development of study abroad programs have gained prominence in discussions concerning the globalization of higher education.
Although these trends have attracted the attention of leaders in higher education, they have been slow to change the overall landscape and are disputably just the tip of the iceberg. Given the tiny percentage (0.2%) of American undergraduates in four-year institutions that study abroad (Altbach, 2004), the interest in truly global education from the point of view of the American undergraduate population might not yet be a system-wide phenomenon. However, a greater number of American students may come to realize that their employers will expect a new level of personal cultural competence in order to compete in the global marketplace. Consequently, the curricula of degree programs in American higher education will rapidly transform as entrepreneurial and market- driven universities receive intensified pressure to provide graduates who are mulitculturally competent, able to work in diverse settings, and knowledgeable of the global community (Stromquist, 2002).
Toward Understanding the World
New fields of study such as multicultural education, women’s studies, ethnic studies, cultural studies, and human rights education to name a few, all rely on global frames of reference (Williams, 2000). As a result, today’s students are starting to receive a less ethnocentric and far less limited view of the world in their college years. Students are becoming more cross-culturally competent and increasingly aware of how their specific cultural lenses affect their beliefs, values, and behaviors. Higher education is already reacting to the need for a workforce that is culturally savvy and able to function in the global market.
Not only is the nature of education changing, measures of educational attainment are also being altered as shifts toward standardization of credentials and curricula occur in order to accommodate international norms (Fallen & Ash, 1999). Providing higher education in isolation is no longer an option in this global environment. A systemic change of universities is necessary to achieve this goal (Morey, 2000).
Leadership Development
The preparation of higher education leaders in doctoral and masters degree programs will directly influence their ability to successfully create the change needed to ensure that colleges and universities are equipped to teach students to be culturally competent. Leaders in higher education must know how to construct the curricula to incorporate a global focus. This change is not limited to adding specific courses; it also includes changing pedagogy and infusing diversity into the institutional community. Henry and associates (2001) stated that diversity was an essential characteristic of a dynamic society, so too is it essential for a higher education system that aspires to engage effectively in the global landscape. Leaders in higher education need to be able to embrace and utilize this diversity to its full potential.
Worldwide Development
Theorists have described the university as the spearhead of globalization, and the influence of higher education in this characterization is not far removed from reality. Higher education is seen as the developing force for many industrialized nations, and is an important element in national economies. Throughout much of its history, higher education has played an important, if not decisive role, in shaping the culture and civilization of present day societies (Burgen, 1996). Universities are producers of innovative practices through research, transmitters of knowledge through education, and developers of the workforce. These are vital contributions to society that cross borders and help to build relationships with other organizations on a global level.
Additionally, universities are creating opportunities for linkages to private organizations and businesses as governmental funding declines. Partnerships such as the e-Universities consortium, an online collaborative venture initiated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, are connecting higher education to the private sector in increasingly concrete ways (UKeU, 2004). These new relationships will prompt more communication between businesses and institutions of higher education, which may shape a college education based on the needs of private businesses and organizations. Furthermore, innovations in distance learning and communicati\on technology have prompted many new forms of higher education and new cooperative ventures among vested parties.
Globalization and the Emergence of Supranational Organizations
With new global partnerships, less national governmental control, more relationships with global businesses, and reliance on funds provided by international private sources, institutions of higher education are seemingly in a state of flux. Groups referred to as supranational organizations have emerged in recent years to conduct research on global trends. Some of these organizations are increasingly influential in policy making and global communication in higher education. These are referred to as supranational or Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) due to their ability to cross borders and focus on global issues without the control of one nation or government.
“Globalization represents a new shift in the relationship between state and supranational forces and it has affected education profoundly and in a range of ways” (Dale, 2000. p. 90). Many colleges and universities have slowly moved toward privatization in recent decades as governmental support has been reduced and private donations and endowments have become vital to financial stability. An example of the decline in government funding and influence in higher education at the state level is evident in the state of Virginia. This trend has recently prompted three of the top institutions in the state to request an altered affiliation with the state government. A less stringent relationship with the state will allow universities to make some funding and policy decisions autonomously thereby making it easier to develop new programs appropriate for the transformation to truly global institutions. Relationships between higher education and governments characterized as “steering at a distance” have become more numerous as governments in many countries have increasingly relied on performance indicators and research profiles to determine funding (Henry et al., 2001, p. 34).
The breakdown of the historically established order of state and national governments largely controlling education, economic systems, and other aspects of individual societies, has ushered in a new and renewed interest in different models of higher education (Henry et al., 2001). Leaders in higher education are beginning to appreciate the importance of studying higher education systems in other countries, and building alliances with those systems. Collaborative partnerships such as The International Space University (ISU) are emerging on the world stage and proving the abilities of cooperation in assembling innovative communities of knowledge production and dissemination. The ISU is a cooperative venture of almost thirty interactive or satellite campuses electronically connected around the world. Students and faculty members of ISU work across national borders in teams conducting interdisciplinary design studies (Pelton, 1996). These alliances are relatively new and efficient ways of organizing higher education in the global knowledge-based society.
Another example of a new partnership is the coalition of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Theater, Film and Television; the Australian Film, Television, and Radio School; and the National Film and Television School of Great Britain. These organizations have formed a cross-continental relationship to offer a three-year certificate focusing on movie production. The coalition will offer on-line courses for a variety of student populations such as the history of filmmaking and professional training in integrating audio and video for business purposes (Schevitz, 2001). The funding for this collaborative partnership will largely be provided through private industry sources.
Yet another example of the new global partnerships appearing in higher education is the International University of Bremen (IUB). This independent private University is the product of a joint venture between the city-state of Bremen, Germany and Rice University of Texas. In an article in The Economist, Fritz Schaumann, the director of the IUB commented “We wanted to be able to select students, to charge tuition fees, to have excellent and competent professors, to teach in small groups and in decent working conditions” (The Economist, 2004, p.25). In this departure from the governmentally funded and controlled university model, the IUB is not only charging tuition, it is also able to raise a considerable amount of money each year from endowment income and donations. Other universities in Germany initially regarded the new University with suspicion. However, those universities are now co-operating with the University in joint research programs and Schaumann predicts that other German universities will eventually have to reinvent their institutions using the IUB as a model (The Economist, 2004).
Many supranational organizations that influence higher education are also involved with many aspects of the global economy and community. A few examples of these supranational organizations include the following: the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Unit for Education Statistics and Indicators (INES), the European Union (EU), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), The UNESCO Institute for Statistics. These are a few of the major IGOs at work in the global environment. They are gaining in influence as they provide not only statistics and indicators of trends in globalization, but increasingly recommend policies and advise other organizations.
Universitas 21, a network of leading research institutions, was established in 1997 and currently boasts 17 member institutions in 9 countries. This organization endeavors to “facilitate collaboration and cooperation between member universities and to create entrepreneurial opportunities for them on a scale that none of them would be able to achieve operating independently or through bilateral alliances” (Universitas 21, 2004). Universitas 21 publishes monthly newsletters, annual reports, and a Learning Resource Catalog to increase communication and sharing among its members. Additionally, Universitas 21 Global, an online institution, has been offering courses to students around the world since 2001.
The International Association of Universities (IAU), founded in 1950, is another worldwide organization that seeks to increase knowledge and cooperation between leaders in higher education (IAU, 2004). The IAU hosts conferences, publishes information, and tracks developments in the various higher education systems around the world. The IAU brings together institutions and organizations from over 150 countries for collaboration, reflection, and action on common concerns. This organization offers benefits to its membership group, but also acts on the global stage in information flow and research. IAU services are available to organizations, institutions and authorities concerned with higher education, individual policy and decision-makers, specialists, administrators, teachers, researchers and students (IAU, 2004).
Global online or virtual education, influential supranational organizations and global partnerships between institutions are changing higher education in the global market place and creating a borderless community of educators. These new developments in higher education are changing the rules and altering the roles of leaders in higher education. Institutions of higher education need leaders who are able to communicate with leaders of businesses, supranational organizations, and higher education institutions around the world to build strong partnerships. This communication requires a working knowledge of other cultures and an understanding of the structure of higher education systems in other countries. An ability to operate in this new global and information-technology based environment is similarly vital. For these reasons, graduate programs in higher education administration should ensure that students are culturally competent by requiring courses in multicultural awareness, cross-cultural communication, international systems of higher education and globalization issues and trends in higher education.
Graduate Programs – A Broadened Mission
The mission statement of a school or department can often provide a picture of the priorities and values of that organization. An analysis of the mission statements of a few top graduate programs in higher education administration in the United States should then reveal the emphasis these programs place on teaching their students about issues related to globalization and higher education. A brief look at these programs indicated that in fact very few of the mission statements sampled contained any mention of a global or international focus on higher education. Furthermore, many programs were admittedly focused almost entirely on American higher education. This analysis seems to illustrate a lack of attention to the emerging issues of globalization in higher education. An exhaustive study of the degree requirements, course syllabi, readings, and other academic related educational means in each program would give a complete picture of how much these programs teach their students about the effects and issues of globalization in higher education. Future research is needed to determine effective ways to infuse the study of globalization into graduate preparation programs in higher education administration.
The approach to this research should be both quantitative and qualitative. A quantitative examination should occur of core course materials and requirements. A qualitative examination should assess what is really taught through practicum experiences, extra seminars, electives, and core courses in the program. To provide the truly globalized view of higher education that will b\e necessary for leaders in institutions of higher education around the world, graduate programs should take the following steps:
1. Infuse concepts and related issues of globalization throughout the curriculum of doctoral and masters degree programs in higher education administration.
2. Require a specific core course designed to address the history and influence of IGOs and changing relationships between the state and national governments, and institutions of higher education.
3. Offer courses in comparative higher education to increase student understanding of how various systems in higher education around the world operate and collaborate.
4. Create a community of learning that embraces diversity and teaches students the skills of intercultural communication and appreciation of different cultures.
5. Encourage original research in the area of globalization and its effects on higher education.
6. Create innovative faculty and student exchange programs that promote and support globalization.
Some degree programs are doing a better job of infusing globalization into the higher education administration curriculum than others. Many programs already offer a few courses similar to the aforementioned courses, and in some programs, current trends related to globalization underlie the entire curriculum. However, the commitment to this topic needs to be stronger and more universal among these graduate programs. Globalization should be a top priority in the curriculum and a focus in the required core courses of every program, to adequately prepare the higher education leaders of the future. Inclusion of issues related to globalization merely in elective courses or other forms are not sufficient and will not ensure that all graduates of these programs are well versed in this increasingly important and omnipresent trend in higher education.
References
Altbach, P.O. (2004). Higher Education Crosses Borders: Can the United States Remain the Top Destination for Foreign Students? Change, 36(2), 19-24.
Andersen, H. (2001). France finds more time for the good life. The Weekend Australian, January, 27-28, 20.
Burgen, A. (ed). (1996). Goals and purposes of higher education in the 21″ century. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.
Currie, J., DeAngelis, R., de Boer, H., Huisman, J., & Lacotte, C. (2002). Globalizing practices and university responses. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Currie, J., Thiele, B., & Harris, P. (2002). Gendered universities in globalized economies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Dale, R. (2000). Globalization: A new world for comparative education. In Schriewer, J. (d.), Discourse formation in comparative education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Fallon, D. & Ash, M. (1999). Higher education in an era of globalization. In C. Lankowski (ed.), Responses to globalization in Germany and the United States. Washington D.C.: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, p. 67-78.
Florini, A. (2003). The coming democracy. Washington: Island Press.
Friedman, T.L. (2002). Globalization, alive and well. New York Times, September 27, 2002.
Goedegebuure, L. & Vught, F. van (1994). Alternative models of government steering in higher education. In L. Goedegebuure & F. van Vught (Eds.), Comparative policy studies in higher education (1- 34). Utrecht: Lemma.
Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalization and education policy. Amsterdam: IAU Press.
International Association of Universities (IAU). (2004). Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.unesco.org/iau/.
Lucas, CJ. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Mooney, P. ( 1986). A development education agenda on North- South food issues. Development Education, 25: 19 – 30.
Morey, A. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and multicultural world. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 25-39.
Pelton, J. (1996). Cyber learning vs. the university: An irresistible force meets an immovable object. The Futurist, 30, 17- 20.
Schevitz, T. (2001). UCLA among schools on the 3 continents joining in net venture. San Francisco Chronicle, January 19, p. C9.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
United Kingdom e-Universities (UKeU). (2004). Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.ukeu.com/.
Universitas 21. (2004). Retrieved April 14, 2004, from http :// www.universitas21 .com/about/
Williams, C. (2000) Education and human survival: The relevance of the global security framework to international education. International Review of Education, 46(3/4), 183-203.
Who pays to study? (2004, January 22). The Economist, 23-25.
ALYSON W. KIENLE
Ph.D. Candidate
University of Virginia
NICOLE L. LOYD
Ph.D. Candidate
University of Virginia
Copyright Project Innovation, Inc. Sep 2005
Comments