Internationalization of Universities - A University Culture-Based Framework

Internationalization of Universities: A University Culture-Based Framework
Author(s): Marvin Bartell

Source: Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 43-70
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447513 .
Accessed: 06/04/2013 06:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.170.217.12 on Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:07:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Higher Education 45: 43-70,2003. 43
? 2003 KluwerAcademicPublishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based

framework
MARVINBARTELL
Departmentof BusinessAdministration,Asper School of Business, Universityof Manitoba,
Winnipeg,ManitobaR3T5V4, Canada.E-mail: bartell@ms.umanitoba.ca
Abstract. This paperemploys Spor's (1996) organizationalculturetypology in developinga

frameworkto assist in the understandingof the process of internationalizationof universities.
Both the collegial process and executive authorityare acknowledgedas necessaryto position
the university to bring about substantive,integrated,university-wide internationalizationin
response to pervasive and rapidlychanging global environmentaldemands.Internationaliza-
tion, viewed as an organizationaladaptation,requiresits articulationby the leadershipwhile
simultaneouslyinstitutionalizinga strategicplanningprocess thatis representativeandpartici-
pative in that it recognizes and utilizes the power of the culture within which it occurs. The
orientationand strengthof the universitycultureand the functioning structurecan be inhibit-
ing or facilitating of the strategiesemployed to advance internationalization.Two examples
arejuxtaposed to illustratethe range of circumstancesconfrontinguniversitiesin a complex
and dynamic external environmentand their responses with respect to internationalization.
Drawing from these examples, discussion centers on the alignment of internalculture with
the internationalizationobjectivesandstrategiesselected by the institutionin orderto enhance
effectiveness of outcomes. It is concludedthatthe frameworkprovidedhelps to understandthe
differentapproachesto internationalizationand may be helpful from both a managerialand
researchperspective.
Keywords: understandingprocess of internationalizationof universities, universityculture

frameworkand illustrativeexamples
Introduction
During the last two decades universities worldwide have come under
increasing pressures to adapt to rapidly changing social, technological,
economic and political forces emanating from the immediate as well as
from the broader postindustrialexternal environment.The unprecedented
growth, complexity and competitiveness of the global economy with its
attendantsocio-political and technological forces have been creatingrelent-
less and cumulative pressures on higher education institutions to respond
to the changing environmentrequiringfar-reachinginstitutionaladaptations
involving "... significant transformation in the organization of research,

44 MARVINBARTELL
training,andadministrationin highereducation"(Cohen 1997, p. 549). There

appearsto be a concurrenceof assessment that universitiesare experiencing
"... a profound shift: environmental forces have become so dynamic as to
lead to a basic shift in the structureof education as an industry"(Cameron
and Tschirhart1992 cited in Gumportand Sporn 1999, p. 105); that changes
takingplace are "revolutionary,ratherthanevolutionary"(Kerr1987; cited in
Gumportand Sporn 1999, p. 105); that"... the demandsof global capitalism
hinderthe university'sability to fulfill its culturalmission" (Readings 1996
cited in Gumportand Sporn 1999, p. 105); and that in the changed circum-
stances universitiesare called upon to "... equip studentswith the necessary
knowledge and skills in preparationfor the job market"(Sporn 1999, p. 70),
which is increasinglyglobal in character.
Specific calls for the adaptationof the universitythroughan international-
ization process come from various sources (e.g., Backman 1984; Goodwin
1991; Harari 1989; Marsella 2001; Merkur'ev 1991; Mestenhauser and
Ellingboe 1998; Mittelman1996; Skolnikoff 1994; Sporn 1999). Adaptation
is viewed here as an aspect of a process of organizationalchange and innova-
tion involving openness and responsivenessto changing demandsemanating
from the external environment.Interationalization requires organizational
adaptation, that is, a process involving "... modifications and alterations in
the organizationor its componentsin orderto adjustto changes in the external
environment"(Cameron1984, p. 123).
Cameron(1984) draws a distinctionbetween adaptationand organization
development(OD). "Adaptationfocuses on changes motivatedby the external
environment;OD focuses on changes motivatedfrom within the organiza-
tion" (p. 123). While both kinds of organizationalchange are germane to
internationalization,the strategicchoice approachand, more specifically,the
"strategy-structure" model (Hardyet al. 1983; Keller 1997; Petersonand Dill
1997; Porter in
1980) combinationwith a "plannedchange"process, focusing
on the organization'sculture, provides an underpinningfor the conceptual
frameworkthatis proposedto assist in the understandingand implementation
of a process of internationalizationof universities.
Until recently, structure and strategy were the fundamental variables
considered with respect to organizational change and innovation (e.g.,
Cameronand Freeman 1991; Peterson and Spencer 1990). While not a new
concept, organizationalculturehas been emergingin the organizationalliter-
atureduringthe past two decades as significantlyimpactingon organizational
effectiveness (Whetten and Cameron 1994) and has the capacity to foster
or inhibit renewal and innovation(e.g., Cameronand Freeman 1991; Tichy
1982). According to Peterson and Spencer (1990), "Organizationalculture
is a holistic perspective.""It focuses on the deeply embedded patternsof

OF UNIVERSITIES
INTERNATIONALIZATION 45
organizationalbehaviorandthe sharedvalues, assumptions,beliefs or ideolo-

gies thatmembershave about their organizationor its work"(p. 6). Chaffee
and Jacobson(1997) assertthat those in chargeof plannedchange, as a part
of the adaptation process, need to provide "... adequate recognition to the
power of the cultures in which planning occurs." "... if they (planners) help
to establish an institutionalculture with a shared vision, a willingness to
understandthe organizationandits environment,andtrust,they gain access to
the efforts and enthusiasmof all participantsin transformingthe institution"
(p. 244).
The purpose of this article is to adapt a typology of organizational
culture as a frameworkfor analyzing and understandingthe interational-
ization process of universities.The paper begins with an explication of the
concepts of internationalizationand globalizationfollowed by a brief review
of the need for the internationalizationof universities.Unique characteristics
of universities are described and the concept of organizationalculture is
discussed in relation to the process of interationalization of universities.
Several examples of measurement indicators of the process of interna-
tionalizationare provided as a backgroundfor an illustrativetwo-example
comparison.
Internationalization and globalization
Internationalizationof universities is far from a clearly defined and under-

stood concept.Mestenhauser(1998) contraststhe observationthat
... Much of what I see in internationaleducationin the United States is
minimalist,instrumental,introductory,conceptuallysimple, disciplinary-
reductionist,and static;
with the exhortationthat

There is an urgent need to study internationaleducation on the highest
level of sophisticationas a multidimensional,multiplex,interdisciplinary,
intercultural,research, and policy-driven system of global scope at all
levels of education(p. 7).
Ellingboe's (1998) research findings on the internationalizationof

the curriculumat the University of Minnesota, reflect the "multidimen-
sional", "multiplex","global scope" and "policy-drivensystem" aspects of
Mestenhauser'sdefinition of internationalizationof the university.Accord-
ingly, Ellingboe (1998) defines internationalization "... as the process
of integrating an international perspective into a college or university

46 MARVINBARTELL
system. It is an ongoing, future-oriented,multidimensional,interdisciplinary,

leadership-drivenvision thatinvolves many stakeholdersworkingto change
the internaldynamics of an institutionto respond and adapt appropriately
to an increasinglydiverse, globally focused, ever-changingexternalenviron-
ment"(p. 199). Ellingboe's findingsspell out more specificallyfive additional
componentswhich are integralto more completely understandingthe process
appliedin internationalizingthe university.These componentsare as follows:
(1) college leadership;
(2) faculty members'internationalinvolvementin activities with colleagues,
researchsites, and institutionsworldwide;
(3) the availability,affordability,accessibility, and transferabilityof study
abroadprogramsfor students;
(4) the presence and integration of international students, scholars and
visiting faculty into campuslife; and
(5) internationalco-curricularunits (residence halls, conference planning
centers, studentunions, careercenters, culturalimmersionand language
houses, studentactivitiesand studentorganizations)(p. 205).
Dobbert (1998), on the other hand, employing an anthropological
perspective, focuses on the individual student outcomes rather than the
process of organizational interationalization, expecting that "... a globalized
person must (1) speak two to three languages in addition to English at the
level of 7 or above on a 10 pointscale, wherezero means no knowledgeof the
languageand 10 refersto nativeknowledgeof the language,and (2) must have
residedin at least two non-Englishspeakingcountries,in non-Americanized
environments,for at least one year each" (Dobbert,p. 65). While Dobbert's
expectationsof internationalizationare highly desirable,it is doubtfulif they
can be achievedon a largescale andsustainedbasis withoutinternationalizing
the institutionand all its stakeholders.
The reality, then, is that interationalization conveys a variety of under-
standings, interpretationsand applications, anywhere from a minimalist,
instrumentaland static view, such as securing external funding for study
abroad programs, through internationalexchange of students, conducting
researchinternationally,to a view of internationalizationas a complex, all
encompassingand policy-drivenprocess, integralto and permeatingthe life,
culture,curriculumand instructionas well as researchactivitiesof the univer-
sity and its members.The latterconceptionof internationalization,consistent
with the Mestenhauserand Ellingboe definitions,is employed herewith.
While internationalizationis used virtually interchangeablywith global-
ization (e.g., Dobbert 1998; Mestenhauser 1998), an explicitly helpful
distinction can be made between them (Adler 1997; Lapiner 1994), in
viewing globalizationas an advancedphase in the evolving process of inter-

OF UNIVERSITIES
nationalization.Applying the metaphorof the industrial/commercial worldto

highereducation,duringthe immediatepost WorldWarII period,firmsfunc-
tioned primarilyfrom a domestic North Americanethnocentricperspective
(Phase I). Fortune500 companiesoccupied a position of relativedominance
in world trade and commerce owing to favorableperceptionsof American
productsand limited internationalcompetition.This phase was succeededby
a multidomesticphase (Phase II), with firms finding it necessary to address
each external domestic market separatelyand differently.In the world of
higher education,the paralleldevelopmentwas the study abroadmovement,
"... largely originating in the United States, creating programs that brought
American undergraduatesto European,Asian and Latin American univer-
sities, basically to fulfill the requirementsof their home schools" (Lapiner
1994).
Anotherillustrationof the type of arrangementfoundin this multidomestic
phase are the researchcenterslocated in a particularcountryfor the require-
mentsof scholarselsewhere,such as those in Greeceor Italy,for the purposes
of classical or artistic study. Essentially,it is pointed out, the study abroad
movement structures were - and many remain - "... mission-like outposts of
'home' institutions"(Lapiner1994, p. 73).
Turningagain to the industrialmetaphor,the multinationalphase (Phase
III) begins in the 1980s (Gumportand Sporn 1999). This is a bilateralor
nearlyreciprocalmodel characterizedby global price-sensitivity."Firmscan
gain competitiveadvantageonly throughprocess engineering,sourcingcrit-
ical factors on a worldwide basis, and benefittingfrom economies of scale"
(Adler 1997, p. 9; Gumportand Spor 1999). In highereducation,the closest
parallel is, for example, the developmentof internationalbusiness schools
(such as, the GraduateSchool of Business of the University of Chicago
campuses in Barcelona, Spain and Singapore)as self-supportingenterprises
of a parentinstitution,using local adjunctfacultyfor non-Americanstudents.
Anotherexampleis the developmentof overseasprofessionaleducationinsti-
tutions by continuing educationunits of Americanand Europeaneducation
organizations.
The succeeding phase, the global or transnationalphase (Phase IV), has
emerged in the evolution of organizationsinvolved in transactionsbeyond
theirdomestic origin (Adler 1997; Gumportand Spor 1999; Lapiner1994).
This phase is characterizedby top quality,least-possible-costproductsthat
"... become the baseline, the minimally accepted standard" (Adler 1997,
p. 9). An automobile, for example, may be designed, manufactured,sub-
assembled, assembled, advertisedand sold by numerousenterpriseslocated
in different countries. The organization needs to be multicentric as "... a
critical componentof this marketsegmentationis nationalityand ethnicity"

48 MARVINBARTELL
(Adler 1997, p. 9). The orientationsof the previousphases disappearand are

replaced"with a culturallyresponsivedesign orientation,accompaniedby a
rapid, worldwide, least-cost production function." "... Similarly, the ability to
manage cross-culturalinteraction,multinationalteams, and global alliances
becomes fundamentalto business success" (Adler 1997, p. 9).
The parallelfor highereducationis exemplifiedby distance learningtech-
nologies, including interactiveteleconferencing, enabling students located
thousandsof miles aparton different continents to interact in real time in
a virtual classroom (Gumportand Sporn 1999). At the institutionallevel,
the challenge and the opportunityare to globalize the entire research and
scholarly enterprise, specifically, "... to address changes in the organization
and productionof expertiseglobally" (Cohen 1997, p. 559). Given the pace
of technological change and the requirementsfor lifelong learning across
professionalcareers, higher education institutionsare beginning to adaptto
the realitythatthe communityof students,like the communityof researchers
and scholars, increasingly has no single geographicallocus. The "student"
may be on an aircraftcarrier,in the convenienceor comfort of home, or, quite
simply, anywhere at anytime, receiving satellite transmissionsvia personal
computeror even down-loadedto palm-heldequipment.
The need for internationalization
The recent global, competitive environmentalforces have created unprece-

dented challenges for universities: "... the borders of universities have
opened in new ways for their services and products ..." (Gumport and
Sporn 1999, p. 103). Crossbordereducation,thatis, internationalization,with
consequentrequirementsfor structuraland culturaladaptations,is pervasive
andan inescapablerealitypresenton a world-widebasis (Gumportand Sporn
1999; Sporn 1999).
In the past, the developmentand fostering of internationalcompetenceof
studentscould be perceived as non-essential inasmuchas the United States
economy was largely self-contained and the Cold War polarized the world
into two competing blocs with the United States as the dominantpower in
the West. Canada, in a similar vein, felt relatively secure as a member of
the BritishCommonwealth,having a largelyresource-basedand branchplant
economy with strong commercialand culturalties to the United States. For
both countries and their institutions, changes in worldwide environmental
parameters(addressedbelow) have necessitated not merely a reactive but
a proactive response by adapting,innovating and internationalizinghigher
education.

OF UNIVERSITIES
The isolated, self-perpetuating,parochialenvironmentcan no longerserve

a functional purpose for the educating institution or any of its component
parts. The proximityand intertwiningof diverse culturalexperiences,polit-
ical systems, economic relationshipsand technological options requirethe
development and infusion of a world view and perspective in curriculum
formulationand implementation,and in the definitionof researchareas and
questions posed by researchersin the various disciplines. Historicalexper-
ience, custom, tradition,the nation-statepreoccupationand the evolution of
some disciplinestendto perpetuatea relativelynarrowfocus impoverishedby
an absence of interculturaland internationalperspectives,conceptualizations
and data.
As the twenty-firstcenturybegins to unfold, internationalizationof the
university has become a strategic high priority for numerous universities
across North America.While both Canadaand the United States have been
involved in internationaldevelopmenton a substantialscale duringthe last
half century, universitiesin these countries, with the possible exception of
schools of agricultureand engineering, have not generally been involved
to any considerableextent with internationalizingtheir curriculumor their
researchgoals and objectives.Government-to-government foreign assistance
projects as funneled through domestic universitieshave had a negligibleeffect
on the internationalizedcultureand structureof these universities.
Yet the compellingpressureto internationalize,owing to the instantaneity
in communicationand rapidadvances in transportation,which result in an
increased need for interculturaland internationalunderstandingand knowl-
edge, has become an urgentpriority.Internationalliteracyhas becomecritical
to our cultural, technological, economic and political health. International
competencein an open worldof permeablebordershas become a generalized
necessity ratherthan an optionfor the tier of societal elites as was truein the
past. It has become essential for Canadianand United States universitiesto
educate,thatis, to transform,on a scale unknownin humanexperience,all of
their stakeholdersand constituentsto functioneffectively and comfortablyin
a world characterizedby close; multi-facetedrelationships.
The clarioncall for internationalization
appearsto be loud andclear.Thus,
the American Council on Education'sCommission on InternationalEduca-
tion states thathighereducationinstitutionsmust become in a genuine sense
institutionswithoutboundariesif the nation and its people are to prosperin
the environmentof the new century(AmericanCouncil on Education1995).
The Commissionemphasizesthatall undergraduatesrequirecontactwith and
understandingof other nations, languages and cultures in order to develop
the appropriatelevel of competence to function effectively in the rapidly
emerging global environment.To accomplish this mission, the Commission

50 MARVIN BARTELL
exhorts leaders in universitiesand colleges to reconsiderall componentsof

teachingincludingthe curriculum,the means, the methodsandphysical loca-
tion of delivery as well as those who actually do the teaching. Similarly,in
Canada,institutionalchange in universitieshas been recommendedin order
to internationalizethe undergraduatecurriculum(Smith 1991). The required
changes for universitiesincluded:
(1) a curriculumreview to ensure emphasis on internationaldimensions of
issues;
(2) an increase of the proportionof students from abroad including both
developed and newly industrializingcountries;
(3) further development of the number and types of exchange programs,
study abroad programsand internships so that Canadianstudents can
experienceothercultures;
(4) enhanced utilization of diversity and international experience from
faculty,studentsand the wider community.
In Europe, the need to internationalize has resulted in establishing
ERASMUS, CAMETT and TEMPUS, for example, and high priority has
been given to academic international mobility of students and faculty
(Sporn 1999). The internationalizationof professional licensing and certifi-
cation, has occurred in Europe, in compliance with the requirementsof
the EuropeanUnion, and continuing professional education is necessary in
assuringuniformapplicationof standardsacrossthe membernations(Lapiner
1994). In many other countries,moreover,it is evident that universitiesare
recognizing the need to achieve global competence as institutions and on
the part of their graduates(Council on InternationalEducationalExchange
1994).
Thereappearsto be considerablevariationamong universities,and among
different units within a single university, with respect to internationaliza-
tion. This variation can be attributedto several factors, such as structure,
strategy,field of study and universityculture. Structurerefers to the formal
hierarchyof authority,patternsof communication,interactionsand coordina-
tion. Strategyinvolves actionplans, ways andmeansemployedfor interacting
with the environmentin orderto achieve the institutionalgoals. Some fields
of study, such as science and engineering,owing to the natureof these disci-
plines and the use of mathematicsas the universallanguage (Groenningsand
Wiley 1990), have been internationallyoriented, while in some other areas,
such as the social sciences, the humanities,education,public administration
and, somewhatless so, managementstudies, the tendencyhas been to a more
narrowly-definedfocus characterizedby a national,or at most, North Amer-
ican approachratherthan a substantiveinternationalapproach.As a result,
on a single given campus there can be strong differences in efforts made

OF UNIVERSITIES
and results obtained with respect to internationalization,depending on the

discipline.
A succinctjustificationfor internationalizingwithinand acrossdisciplines
and areasas well as in the content and design of curriculamay be advanced
by presentingthe following points:
(1) As a result of advances in communication and transportation,the
massive and voluminous flow of informationacross national borders
is without parallel. The explosion and rate of diffusion of knowl-
edge are compressed within ever shortertime spans as comparedwith
experience over human history.Higher educationcan no longer merely
espouse universalvalues at the rhetoricallevel but must promoteunder-
standing throughinterpersonal,cross-cultural,internationaland shared
experiences.
(2) The expanded internationalsystem of the media, television in partic-
ular, through satellite transmissionresults in the more rapid diffusion
of culture, especially popularculture. Previously remote countries and
communities are now intertwined with the rest of the world as the
diffusion of ideologies, notably those of democracyand modernization,
becomes reflectedin demandsfor resources,recognitionand independ-
ence.
(3) The last decades of the twentieth century have seen the growth of
common normsassociated with increasingeconomic and political inter-
dependence and the increasing flow of persons throughmigration and
tourism.Simultaneously,internationaleconomic competitionhas intensi-
fied as formerlyregulatedmonopolieswere deregulated,state enterprises
were privatizedand rationalizationproceeds throughmergers, acquisi-
tions, restructuringand downsizing. Free tradeagreementsin North and
South America,the continuingdevelopmentof the EuropeanUnion, and
the resultingeconomic integration,are manifestationsand responses to
stronginternationalforces. Internationalization,for the reasonsdescribed
above, is a summary concept that addresses on the institutionallevel
the array of proactive plans and transformativestrategies in response
to a world in flux exerting a likely enduring and pervasive impact on
universitiesand colleges.
It is proposedhere that internationalizationmay be viewed as occurring
on a continuum.At one end, internationalizationis limited and essentially
symbolic, for example, internationalizationmay be reflected,in this case, by
a relativehandfulof studentsfrom severaldistantcountrieshavinga presence
on a campus.At the other end of the continuum,the process of internation-
alizationis conceptualizedas a synergistic,transformativeprocess, involving
the curriculumand the researchprograms,that influences the role and activ-

52 MARVIN BARTELL
ities of all stakeholdersincluding faculty, students, administrators,and the

community-at-large.
Characteristics of universities: Beyond structure and strategy
Organizationalculture has been recognized as a key component in the

organizationalchange literature. "To be successful, a company's culture
needs to supportthe kind of business the organizationis in and its strategy
for handling this business" (Tichy 1982, p. 71). In order to understandthe
unique culture of academiathis section describes "the kind of business the
organizationis in" (p. 71), that is, the unique characteristicsof universities.
Universitiespresentan inherentlyuniqueculturalparadoxwhich requiresthe
ongoing reconciliationof the "accumulatedheritage",on one hand, and that
of the "modemimperatives"on the other (Kerr1987).
Recognition and acceptance of the "distinctivenature and unique char-
acter"of universitieshave been long standing"bothwithinandoutside higher
education"(Petersonand Spencer 1990, p. 5). Furthermore,universitiesare
complex organizationswith a distinctiveset of characteristics,which have a
strongimpacton the cultureof these institutions(Sporn 1996):
1. Compared to business organizations, goals of universities are fuzzy,
differentiated,unclear and difficult to measure (Baldridge et al. 1978;
Birnbaum1988; Kosko 1993; March 1984; Weick 1979, 1983).
2. Internalstakeholdersare numerous and varied, including domestic and
foreign undergraduates,graduate and professional students as well as
mid-careerindividualsseeking continuingeducationprograms.In addi-
tion, researcherstypically conduct basic, applied and contractresearch.
As a result,universitiesmay be characterizedby disciplinaryand cultural
diversity.Externalstakeholdersinclude the surroundingcommunity,the
political jurisdiction, grantingand accreditingagencies, unions and the
press. The work of professionals (the professors and researchers)in a
universitycan, therefore,be conceptualizedas a web whereinthe role of
the 'manager' is to link it altogether, that is, "energizingin the web"
(Mintzberg and Van der Heyden 1999, p. 94). Webs are essentially
grids with no center, which allow open communicationand continuous
movementof people and ideas.
3. As a highly labor-intensiveorganizationstaffed by a large proportion
of diverse professionals, the achievement of goals and objectives is
necessarily complicated by the need to develop and employ an array
of standardsin relation to the variety of outcomes, consequences and
outputsproduced,many of which cannotbe measuredvery well.

OF UNIVERSITIES
4. The conflict inherentin values andbelief systems in universitiesbetween

the professors, on the one hand, and administrators,on the other, mili-
tates againstthe efficient and effective resolutionof problemsand issues
that arise. Professors tend to place a high value on autonomy and
academic freedom, while administratorsare oriented to maintenanceof
the administrativesystem and the associated proceduralrequirements.
Change and innovationare, as a result, inhibitedand slowed. However,
Weick's (1976) and Orton and Weick's, (1990) conceptualizationof
"loosely coupled systems"could providean adaptationalperspectiveon
this apparentduality between professorsand administrators- a concep-
tion which bears an affinityto Rothenburg's(1979) concept of "Janusian
Thinking".It suggests thatadministrators could play an importantbalanc-
ing role in promoting "experimentation","collective judgement" and
"dissent"by means of "enhancedleadership","focused attention",or
"sharedvalues"ratherthanbeing at loggerheads.
5. The environmentwithin which universitiesoperateis currentlycomplex,
rapidlychanging and demanding.Mass education, state funding reduc-
tion, distance learning and capital equipment cost are some of the
environmentalcomponentsthat have a persistentand strong impact on
programs,delivery systems and internalrelationships.
In summary, universities are loosely-coupled systems (Weick 1976),
or more colorfully, "organizedanarchies"(Cohen and March 1986). The
collegial process and executive authorityare both requiredin managingthe
university.Bureaucracy,well-suited to a stable or slowly changing environ-
ment, is a component in the internal environment as is political (unit)
behavior, in the attempt to justify and obtain resources from the central
administration.The complexity, high degree of differentiation,multiplicity
of units and standards,autonomy of professors, control and management
philosophiesand mechanisms,which increasinglydo not operateeffectively
even in business organizations,are likely to be complicating and inhibiting
factors vis-a-vis pressuresfor institutionalchange, particularly,for interna-
tionalizationof the universityas an identifiedstrategichigh priority.Under
these circumstances,the cultureof the universityassumes greaterprominence
in mediatingand regulatingthe universityenvironment.An understandingof
the universityvia its culturecan facilitatethe analysis of managingstructure
and processes (Dill 1982; Masland 1985) in order to implement strategies
for internationalizationin an integratedapproachat a level broaderthan the
single, specialized unit or sub-unit.

54 MARVINBARTELL
Organizationalcultureof universities
The foregoing characteristicsof universitiessuggest that universitiesdisplay
a high frequencyof social interactionresultingin the developmentof a highly
specific organizationalculture(Becher 1981; Clark 1983). While definitions
of culturevary,patternsof behaviorandvalues that are transmittedover time
are components of culture that are included in these definitions (Peterson
and Spencer 1990). The process of problem-solvingis influencedby these
patternsof behavior and their associated values (Ouchi and Wilkins 1985;
Schein 1985; Tierney 1988). Cultureis viewed here as the values and beliefs
of those associated with the universities (including administrators,faculty,
students,boardmembersand supportstaff), developedin a historicalprocess
and conveyed by use of language and symbols (Deal and Kennedy 1982).
The effect of these values and beliefs on decision making at universitiesis
strong (Tierney 1988). Shared assumptionsand understandingslie beneath
the conscious level of individualsand generallyare identifiedthroughstories,
special language and norms that emerge from individualand organizational
behavior(Bartell 1984; Cameronand Freeman1991; Sporn 1996).
There is a general recognitionin the organizationalliteratureof "... the
inadequacyof specific quantitativemeasuresto reflect performance..." and
the increased "interestin developing alternativeframeworksfor evaluating
organizationalperformance.The concept of culture representsa paradigm
for providinga holistic (emphasismine) perspectiveon organizationalfunc-
tioning" (Peterson and Spencer 1990, p. 4) and the contributionof culture
change to organizationalchange. Cameronand Freeman(1991) go furtherin
assertingthat: "Withoutaccompanyingculture change, most organizational
changes fail or remaintemporary"(p. 24). However,the latterauthorsargued
cogently that therewas a need to identify and assess empiricallythe relevant
dimensions of organizationalculture linked to organizationaleffectiveness
which need to be changedto improveeffectiveness.
In an exploratorystudy using a nationalsample based on cross-sectional
data for 334 United States colleges and universities,Cameronand Freeman
(1991) investigated the relationshipamong three dimensions of organiza-
tionalculture- congruence,strength,and type - and organizationaleffective-
ness. In their study, Cameron and Freeman found that, contrary to the
"conventionalwisdom" of the organizationalliterature,type of culture -
clan, adhocracy,hierarchyor market- was more importantin accounting
for organizationaleffectiveness than were congruenceor strength.Notwith-
standing several limitationsof Cameronand Freeman'sstudy - the explor-
atory nature, noncausality, the use of prescribed scenario cultures, the
selective sample which was limited to the administrators'and top echelon
policymakers' "subculture"and excluded other members of the university

OF UNIVERSITIES
culture, e.g., regularfaculty members,the various disciplines, studentsand

supportstaff and the lack of preponderanceof additionalsupportiveevidence
- theirs is an importantcontributionto the empirical testing of almost
entrenchedconceptualizationsaboutcultureand organizationaleffectiveness.
The above seemingly counter-intuitivefindingsof Cameronand Freeman
need to be reconciledwith the two dimensionalculturaltypology of orienta-
tion and strength (i.e., Deal and Kennedy 1982; Kotter and Heskett 1992;
Sporn 1996) which has been adaptedhere to help explore the role of univer-
sity culture in facilitating the internationalizationof the institution. The
broaderquestion, namely,do the qualitativeand quantitativeapproachestell
us the same thing about academic culture (Peterson and Spencer 1993) is
beyond the scope of this article. More specifically though, the orientation-
strength typology is viewed here as more congruent with Cameron and
Freeman's(1991) analysis than may be apparentat first blush. The external
orientationis congruent with the "externalpositioning" of the adhocracy
culture which focuses on a "sharedcommitmentto entrepreneurship,flexi-
bility and risk" (Cameronand Freeman 1991, p. 30), and consequently,a
flat structuredominatedby professionalsand experts(Mintzberg1989). Both
are seen as representingorganic processes. Similarly, the internalorienta-
tion is consistentwith the hierarchyculturewhich emphasizescontrol,order,
rules and regulations,policy and procedures,uniformityand stability,both
reflecting mechanistic processes. The Cameron and Freeman findings are
pertinentto the process of internationalizationinasmuch as the orientation
of organizationalculture such as external adaptation,system openness and
community interaction- associated with the adhocracy culture type - is
the type likely to facilitatea successful internationalizationprocess, while a
culturetype emphasizinghierarchyand resourceallocationis likely the least
effective type of culturefor this purpose.
Regardingthe dimension of strengthof culture, Cameronand Freeman
definedit as the "dominanceof certainculturalattributeswithineachquadrant
(culturetype)"(1991, p. 30). In the context of this definitionthey reportedno
significantdifferencesin organizationaleffectiveness between strongversus
weak cultures.Sporn(1996), on the otherhand,as can be seen below,defined
strengthas the degreeof "fitbetweenculturalvalues, structuralarrangements,
and strategicplans within the whole university"(p. 50). The view here is
that strengthof culture does not necessarily reflect homogeneity of views
but rathersharedunderlyingvalues, assumptions,meaningsand understand-
ings. A strong culture is one that not only tolerates debate and discussion
of diverse and alternativeviews and strategies but ratheractively encour-
ages them for the sake of improvementof the quality of decision making
and problemsolutions. In that respect, a strong cultureis akin to a Janusian

56 MARVIN
BARTELL
one, which is consideredmost appropriateto adaptationin a complex, turbu-

lent and fast changing environment,such as the postindustrialenvironment
(Cameron 1984). Furthermore,the dimension of culture strength may be
viewed as nonlinear,thatis, too weak a culturecould inhibitadaptationwhile
an excessively strong culture may lead to "groupthink"phenomena (Janis
1972).
In the context of business firms, alterationsto the status quo are under-
taken in response to negative indications and outcomes, but in ways that
are consistent with establishedpatternsand rules of behavior(Thorntonand
Ocasio 1999). To develop an organizationalculture that can facilitate and
supportadaptationto environmentalchange and to a successful process of
innovation,such as, the internationalizationof the university,would require
that strategic planning be guided and supported by an acknowledgment
and understandingof the existing culture, the mission, the communication
patterns,the feasible outlooks and the world views.
The orientation and strength of the underlying university culture were
shown to be principalvariablesin influencing strategic managementof the
institution(Sporn 1996). Drawing on previousresearch(including Cameron
and Freeman 1991; Denison 1990; Dill and Sporn 1995; Kotterand Heskett
1992; Schein 1985; Tierey 1988), a typology of four different types of
universityculture (Figure 1) has been developed and found to facilitate the
assessment of a given universityregardingits capacities to adapt and cope
with environmentalchanges (Sporn 1996).
The dimensions of the typology are appropriatefor examining a culture's
capacity to support strategic managementand to secure sufficient consist-
ency between strategyandculture.Both strengthandorientationof university
cultureare germanefor the institution'sattemptingto adaptto environmental
changes (Cameron and Freeman 1991; Denison 1990; Kotter and Heskett
1992). The assumptionsthat Spornmakes are as follows:
* Strong cultures are more successful in adaptationthan weak cultures,
and
* Externally oriented cultures are more capable of adapting to environ-
mental changes than internally oriented cultures. Each cell of the
typology representsa differenttype of universityculture which reflects
itself in attempting to respond to the discontinuity between the
respective university and its environment.Accordingly, the four types
of universitycultureare as follows:
(1) weak and internallyorientedcultures(cell 1)
(2) weak and externallyorientedcultures(cell 2)
(3) strongand internallyorientedcultures(cell 3)
(4) strongand externallyorientedcultures(cell 4)

OFUNIVERSITIES
Strong 3 4
Strengthof UniversityCulture
Weak 1 2
Internal External
Orientationof UniversityCulture
Figure 1. Typology of universityculture(Spom 1996, p. 56).
This typology may also be applied beyond the bounds of the universityto
its externalenvironment,such as, the surroundingcommunity,the political
jurisdictionand the press. The degree of congruenceof the universityculture
with its external environmentcould assist in the assessment of the extent
of adaptabilityof the universityto innovation,as in the case of internation-
alization. The contrastingexamples below (cell 1 and cell 4) illustratethe
use of Spor's culturaltypology as a means of assessing adaptabilityof the
universityto the pressuresto internationalize.
On the measurement of university-wide internationalization
A variety of indicators may be employed in attemptingto operationalize

and measure the extent or level of the process of internationalizationof
universities,such as the numberof foreign recruitsand exchange students
on a given campus; the number and magnitude of interational research
grants;cooperativeinternationalresearchprojects;internationalpartnerships
involving assistanceto foreign universitiesand otherinstitutions;university-
privatesectorpartnershipswith internationalgoals; internationalcooperation
andcollaborationamongschools, colleges and facultiesin a given university;
the extentof internationalinfusion in curriculumcontent.Once relevantindi-

58 MARVIN BARTELL
cators have been identified,a set of criterianeeds to be developed to assign

relativeweights to these indicatorsin relationto the self-declaredmission of a
given university.For example,a universitywith a strongemphasison research
in its mission will ipsofacto place more weight on the numberandmagnitude
of internationalresearch grants and/or cooperative internationalresearch
projects as compared to the number of undergraduateforeign students. To
arrive at a comparative ranking of a university-wide internationalization
process, a weighted composite score would have to be calculated for a
given categoryof university(e.g., primarilyundergraduate, medical/doctoral,
comprehensive).In Canada,the following indicators have been used since
1997 by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the
Bank of Nova Scotia (AUCC 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999) in jointly
grantingAwardsfor Excellence in Internationalization:
(1) internationalstudentparticipation;
(2) curriculumchange;
(3) internationalpartnerships;
(4) mobilizing financial,humanand technologicalresourcesfor internation-
alization;
(5) university-privatesector partnerships;
(6) faculty contributionsto internationalization;
(7) contributionof researchto internationalization;
(8) contributionof university internationalizationdevelopment projects to
internationalization.
As an example, in the first and fourth categories, internationalstudent
participationand mobilizing resources for internationalization,respectively,
Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC) in Montreal,in its first 10
years of operation, reportedreceiving 140 incoming internationalstudents
and sending 180 outgoing Canadianstudentsto institutionsabroad,as a part
of theirstudentexchangeprogram.Financialresources,reflectedin assistance
to defraythe $4,000 to $6,000.cost of participation,dependingon the destina-
tion and length of term, was made available throughthe private sector and
government.In addition,participatingstudentscould apply to an $80,000 per
year student-administeredloan fund. HEC received the AUCC/ScotiaBank
Awardfor studentparticipationin 1997.
Anotherexample, in the second category,curriculumchange, is the inter-
nationalMBA programat the Schulich School of Business, YorkUniversity,
Toronto.Establishedin 1989, the programconsists of 11 monthsof business
courses at York, eight months abroad on a study and work placement and
culminatingagain in four months at York, where studentsare enrolled in a
seminar and elective courses. Students specialize in a major global trading
region and countryof focus. Throughthe MBA program,Yorkhas developed

OF UNIVERSITIES
links with companies and institutionsin some 45 countries. This program

contributesto internationalizationat Yorkby providing internationalexper-
ience and language skills for students, by reinforcing the university's ties
with firms and organizationsaroundthe world, by increasing the number
of foreign students on campus and by developing a venue for discussion
of issues concerningglobal business management.York has been a winner
or has received honorablemention in each year of the AUCC/ScotiaBank
Awardcompetition.
Simon FraserUniversity(SFU)in Vancouverwon the AUCC/ScotiaBank
Award in 1997 for mobilization of human and technological resources
(category 4, above). Over a period of some 25 years, this university has
held 35 'field schools' in other countries.These one-semesterprogramsfor
SFU students,which include trainingin the host-countrylanguage,are led by
SFU faculty and foreign counterpartsand have been offered in 12 different
disciplines in additionto a requiredcourse or courses in the host country's
languageandhistory.The impactof these internationalfield schools has been
diffused throughoutthe university,especially to the more than 600 students
and 52 faculty who have participated.This has been a successful and novel
approachto promotethe interationalization process.
Illustrative examples
The use of case studies is meant as instrumental, that is, "... to provide
insight into an issue or refinement of theory" (Stake 1994, p. 237).
Data includes observing patterns of behavior, listening to organizational
stories (Cameronand Freeman 1991; Masland 1985; Peterson and Spencer
1990) and examining organizationaldocuments,such as, mission statement,
strategicplan,job descriptionof highest official responsiblefor international
affairs,and any additionalinformationon the respectivewebsites of the insti-
tution. The two examples that follow were drawnfrom case study material
and presented as narrativesof institutional 'culture vignettes' integrating
the various criteria and indicatorsaddressedearlier.These examples were
chosen to illustrateand highlighttwo polar opposites of the typology (cell 1
and cell 4), juxtaposedwith theirrespectiveefforts and outcomes regarding
interationalization, as an indicationof the potentialuse of the typology in
advancing our understandingof the conditions that are likely to facilitate
interationalization processes and outcomes.

60 MARVIN BARTELL
ExampleI: Weakculture,internalorientation
The universityunderconsiderationis a large, urban,comprehensive,research
universityand is the senior institutionin its politicaljurisdiction.The partic-
ular environmentexternalto the universityhas reinforcedthe unmistakable
internallyoriented cultureof the university.The physical location in which
the university is situated, while historically characterizedby isolation with
respect to large urban centers, experienced a buoyancy and exuberancein
its formativegrowth duringthe early decades of the previous century.This
growth was based on two industries which have undergone severe long-
term decline owing to structuralchanges in the economy and technology.
The actors and institutionsin this external environmentdemonstratedover
the years a limited and insufficient willingness or capacity to respond and
cope with these massive changesin the broaderenvironmentand substantially
withdrewinto a defensive, passive posture.
This institution,a public universitylocated on the GreatPlains or Prairies,
has not experienced a strongly felt pressureto adapt to a rapidly changing
external global environment.Strategic choice or symbolic action, both of
which are characterizedby high managerialinfluence, have not been prom-
inent features of this institution during the second half of the twentieth
century.While a few units, without active encouragementfrom the upper
echelon of central administration,have exhibited sustained intrapreneurial
activity in the multidomestic phase, and more modestly, in the multina-
tionalphase of internationalization,the universityas an organizationmuddles
through.The majorfocus is on internationaldevelopmentactivities,including
the provision of informationon supportprogramsfor this purpose;providing
counsel and assistance in the preparationof international development
proposals; coordination and facilitation in the development of inter-unit
developmentactivities,as in the health sciences, agricultureand engineering;
a limited role in negotiating twinning and academic exchange agreements
with other institutions;and the coordinationof visits of internationaldelega-
tions.
Apart from the foregoing mandate, a campus bureau is responsible for
assisting incoming internationalstudentsand those going abroad.In a funda-
mental sense, the university has adopted the "internationalexpert model"
of assisting developing countries mainly in health related issues, farming
techniques and basic engineering projects. This entails the preparationof
applications to the federal internationalaid agencies and, occasionally, to
internationalagencies. As importantas these activities are by themselves,
they are not, in the context of internationalizationas defined here, part
of an overall organizationalprocess of planned change that integrates an
internationalperspective into the curriculum across the institution as a

OF UNIVERSITIES
coherent interactivesystem. Hence, while such activities may be viewed

as internationalin substance and in scope, they are nevertheless reactive
and opportunisticin characterand, even so, the universityhas missed some
substantial opportunitiesfor institutional,curricularand faculty alliances
and cooperativearrangementswith otherinstitutions.Except in very limited
instances, and on a sporadic basis, the curriculumremains unaffected by
the internationaldevelopmentactivities.Similarly,the latterare not effective
in increasing the availability,affordability,accessibility and transferability
of study abroadprograms.Moreover,internationalco-curricularunits are
limited in scope and the integrationof internationalstudents, scholars and
visiting facultyinto campuslife becomes particularlychallengingin an essen-
tially commutercampus. The website confirms the characterizationof the
internationalorientationof this university,presented above, in terms of its
own self declarationof objectives and the amount and type of information
provided on the internationaldomain. Overall, this universityappearsto be
functioningin the domestic(Phase I) and multidomestic(Phase II) phases of
internationalization.
As a living system (Miller 1979), Example I university is enculturated
in the environmentdescribed above and its complexities and shares in the
beliefs and patternsof behaviorof the externalcommunityto the extent that
the universityis regulatedby a public regulatoryauthority- albeit at arm's
length - but more subtly, the universityculture is shaped and regulatedby
expectations of, for example, who communicates with whom, with whom
does an individualor unit work, what is the sharedperspectiveof the group
or unit? Energyis focused on the internaldynamics of the institution.Chal-
lenges presentedby the environmentare: (1) reinterpretedto fit a narrow
and symbolic understandingof an issue, such as, internationalization;(2)
simply ignoredfor long periods;or (3) the challenge may be recognizedbut
the response is made with a time lag based on a paradigmthat may have
been abandonedor supersededby peer institutionselsewhere.The weakness
of the culture is reflected in the relatively loosely-linked units, subunitsor
groups with specific subculturesthat can be contradictoryto each other.To
the extent that the subculturesare poorly linked, it becomes problematicto
develop a unified internationalizationstrategy for the university to imple-
ment in a timely and coherentmanner.For example, one unit successfully
developedinternationallinkagesandpartnershipsfor studentsandfacultybut
furtherdevelopmentwas inhibitedby the lack of an overarchinginstitutional
objective and strategy.Similarly,owing to the weak institutionalinternation-
alization objective, the growthof distance education has not been extended
considerablybeyondthe jurisdictionboundaries.

62 MARVINBARTELL
A weak culturehas a low degreeof congruencebetween (1) the values and

goals espoused by the universitystakeholders;(2) the hierarchicalintegration
of the institution(for example, having a division of social sciences or phys-
ical sciences, or joint or dual-degreeprogramsinvolving more than a single
school, faculty or college); and (3) the degree of integrationand coherence
of the strategiesand their methods as well as timing of implementation.In
this university culture, control and the transactionalleadership style (Bass
1985; Burs 1978) promotea strongpreoccupationwith bureaucraticprocess
and procedureand the maintenanceof hierarchyand authority,even if this
means that the environmentalchallenge is poorly addressed.The weak and
internallyoriented culture of this institution is most suitable and effective
under conditions of high environmentalstability. However, where mean-
ingful integrateduniversity-wideinternationalizationas a goal and process
are requiredor desired, the limited but appropriateresponse set and chain
(Mintzbergand Van der Heyden 1999) are insufficientin terms of outcomes
and consequences. Thus, this analysis places example I in the lower left
quadrantand quite low on the continuumof internationalization.
ExampleII: Strongculture,externalorientation
This example relates to a large, urban, comprehensive research university
with a spirit of creative experimentation.The components of the external
environmentinclude one of the world's major seaports, a locus of national
andinternationalcommands,aeronauticsand space installationsin the imme-
diate area and a culturally diverse population. Based on the objectives of
planneddiversity,the universityseeks in its studentbody a diversity of age,
gender,ethnic, religious, social and nationalbackgrounds.It actively recruits
domestic minority students along with students from countries worldwide
in such numbers as to have their presence make a discernible impact on
the university's educational processes. The strength of the culture of this
university is considerably in tandem with its strong external orientation.
The university has defined itself as having a special mission in interna-
tional affairsand culturesfor its politicaljurisdiction.The universityculture
promotes and supports an integratedinternationalizationprocess involving
(1) curriculumdesign and development; (2) the internationalexchange of
students and faculty members;and (3) the sharing of internationalinterest
and expertise with the broaderexternalcommunity that the universityseeks
to serve. The lattermay include as an integralcomponentof the internation-
alization strategy visits and lecture presentationsby foreign diplomats and
scholarsas well as workshopsfor teachersand otherprofessionals.
The universityhas been successful in obtaining a substantialgrantfrom
the federal governmentto assist faculty members, irrespectiveof discipline,

OF UNIVERSITIES
in incorporatinginternationalperspectivesinto their teaching and research.

The new generaleducationcurriculumestablishescourseclustersat the upper
level of undergraduatestudies. These clusters consist of six courses from
differentdisciplinesbased on a commontheme, such as, humanjustice world-
wide, global integrationand regional autonomy,world cultures- competing
values and visions. These are examples of the global awarenessclustersthat
have an internationalfocus anddevelopissues thatcross disciplinary,national
and regional borders. The university's dual degree program curriculum,
which allows qualified students to graduate with a bachelor's degree in
engineering and a liberal arts discipline, includes twelve to fifteen hours of
study abroad.
The universityculturemanifests itself, in part, by its thrustin integrative
national and overseas distance learning initiatives and economic devel-
opment initiatives in cooperative partnershipswith business, science and
technology. The distance education network, based on interactivesatellite
classroom broadcasts, offers both credit (20 bachelor's and 10 master's
degree programs)and noncreditprogramsand the higher educationcenters
also serve as sites for university sponsored teleconferences, seminars and
professional meetings. Corporations,hospitals and social service agencies
in this university'sjurisdictionlook to the universityfor distance education
to provide their employees with workforce trainingat the job site. During
the last several years, the universitytransmittedgraduateMBA courses to
aircraftcarrierswhile each was deployed overseas. The cooperativepartner-
ships, for example, result in opportunitiesfor faculty to utilize external
facilities for academicresearchpurposes,basic and applied,and to promote
new ventures and undertakingsin numerousscience and technology-based
enterprisesresultingin sites for experientiallearningand the stimulationof
economic developmentin the region.In its strategicplanfor 2000 to 2005, the
universityhas identified,as a high strategicpriority,the objectiveof becoming
the premierinternationaluniversityin its jurisdiction.This overall strategic
initiative and objective summarizesthe integrationof the componentobjec-
tives relatingto (1) curriculumin all units of the university;(2) the support
and recognition of faculty for their efforts to internationalizeall facets of
the universityincluding the means to rewardfaculty efforts to internation-
alize teaching and researchthroughthe normal faculty review process; (3)
the planneddiversificationof the studentbody so as to provide all students
the opportunityto interactwith a culturally,linguisticallyand geographically
diverse population;(4) the expansion of opportunitiesand supportfor inter-
nationalstudy and internshipsfor both undergraduateand graduatestudents;
(5) the furtherdevelopment of the university's internationaloutreach and
public service activitiesacrossall units in the university;(6) the activepromo-

64 MARVIN BARTELL
tion of the university'sreputationas its jurisdiction'sinternationaluniversity.

Each component objective has been assigned specific detailed actions to
be undertakenby the responsible units including associated costs and time
frames.
This university may be seen as an illustrationof an institutionthat has
made a strategic choice and is implementing an overall system plan that
effectively satisfiesits explicit aspirationsto functionin a coherentmannerin
the multinational(Phase III) and even in the global or transnational(Phase
IV) phases of interationalization. This academic organizationis engaged
in a continuing,forward-looking,multifaceted,interdisciplinary,leadership-
driven vision that includes principal stakeholders working to change the
internaloperations so that the university can respond and adapt appropri-
ately to a heterogenous and diverse, globally-focused, dynamic external
environment.Its past history, as a largely undergraduatecollege serving a
narrowpopulation of students, has not proved to be an obstacle inhibiting
its advancementbut rather a springboardto its internationalizedpresent
and future.It actively pursues a wide-rangingpolicy of studentrecruitment
and humanresource acquisitionsthat encompasses all national and interna-
tional jurisdictionswhile simultaneouslyrelating and serving its immediate
external constituencies with its internationalizedcurriculumand globalized
perspective that involves faculty, students, administratorsand community
stakeholders.
Internationalization is also reflectedin the institution'sco-curricularunits,
which representa high degree of permeationof the broaderforces of the
external environment into the immediate environment of the institution.
This university's website in its self-presentationas having a policy-driven,
coherentsystem approachto internationalization,includingdetailedaims and
explicit attainments,is an indication, and to some extent confirmation,of its
substantialadvancementon the continuumof internationalization.
The cultureof this university,the surroundingexteral culture,the 'web'
structureas manifestedby the universityin its actualfunctioning(Mintzberg
and Van der Heyden 1999), and the strategies for meaningful, integrated,
university-wideinternationalizationwith respect to all facets of the univer-
sity, appearto be congruentwith each other.Specifically,the strengthof the
universitycultureand its pervasive outward-lookingorientationposition the
universityin cell 4 of the typology, previously discussed, and very high on
the continuumof internationalization.

OF UNIVERSITIES
Discussion
The following comparesExample I and ExampleII with respect to similari-

ties and differences in universityculture, external environment,university
structure,mission and strategies for internationalization.Example I is one
of the oldest universities in the region where it is located while Example
II became a university some thirty years ago as it evolved from a college
while expandingits researchfacilities andpreparedto offer doctoraldegrees.
The challenges presentedby the environmentin Example II were viewed as
opportunitiesratherthan threatsand the universitymanifests an externally-
orientedculture.This is demonstrated,in part,by the diversityof the student
body (all politicaljurisdictionsin the countryarerepresentedas well as more
than 100 countries);the cooperativeand productiverelationshipsthe univer-
sity has actively developed with numerousstakeholdersin the surrounding
community;andthe exploitationof its locationaladvantages,includingstrong
relationshipswith military,aeronauticand space organizations.
Example I depicts a university that is reluctant,unwilling or unable to
effectively transformthreatinto opportunity.It functionsas a traditional'set'
or chain (Mintzbergand Van der Heyden 1999) with managersthat focus
on traditional,narrowmissions that do not transcendtheir own immediate
self-interests.In Example I, extraordinarymissions are not articulatedby a
large, highly representativeuniversity-widestrategicplanningcommittee,as
in ExampleII, andthe managerialorientationin ExampleI is the achievement
of extrinsiclower-levelgoals, that is, teachingand researchleading to tenure
and promotion,ratherthan an overarchingand integratingintrinsichigher-
level goal (for example,internationalization).
Interationalization in Example I is a truncated, piecemeal process,
perfunctoryand merely token. It is not drivenby a well-understood,compre-
hensive and well-internalizedpurpose. Commitmentto internationalization
in Example I is low. This is manifested by the (1) mission statement
of the university; (2) the transactionalleadership selected for the highest
administrativeechelons;and (3) the extentof fundingallocatedto the interna-
tionalizationprocess. Stabilityof the bureaucraticstructureand maintenance
of the existing system generallyhave priorityover creativeinnovationor the
cultivationand nurturingof a spiritof entrepreneurship and change.
In Example II, the leadership has articulated various extraordinary
missions, such as, internationalization,regional, national and overseas
distanceeducationand integrative,cooperativearrangementswith numerous
organizationsin the surroundingarea. This suggests a strong and outward-
orientedculturewhich can be highly supportiveandfacilitativein implement-
ing the strategic initiatives and objectives concerning internationalization.
Example I, however, does not have the underpinningfor such a process,

66 MARVINBARTELL
owing to its overall institutionallyweak and inward-orientedculture. The

strategicmanagementof the universityis not likely to be particularlyeffective
in creativeinnovation,such as is necessaryfor integrated,substantiveinterna-
tionalizationto take place, given the absence of congruencebetween (1) the
strategies,(2) the strengthof the universityculture, (3) the orientationof its
culture, and (4) the predominanceof and preoccupationwith allocation and
controlpriorities.
Conclusion
Universities, in respect to their primaryfunctions of teaching and research

and their secondary function of service to the surroundingcommunity,are
confronted by a compelling need to relate programmaticallyto the scope
and intensity of transnationalconnections at all levels of society. Students,
preparing for careers, as the twenty first century unfolds, require global
competenceto understandthe world they live in andto functioneffectively as
citizens and in their work lives. Based on this premise, it means in part,that
the knowledge and informationgenerated,transmittedand disseminatedby
the professionalsin universities(the professors) must be congruentwith the
objective of educating for global functioning. While internationalizationis
essentially a process involving all facets of universitylife, the universitycan,
nevertheless,select as a targetobjective the point on the internationalization
continuumthatis consistentwith its environment.
The use of the strength and orientation typology of the university's
culture (Sporn 1996) can help to assess the extent of its congruence with
the actual functioning structureand the strategies designed to achieve the
level of internationalizationdesired, given the overall surroundingenvirQn-
ment. As the illustrative examples indicate, the university that functions
hierarchically,while being occupied predominantlywith internal mainte-
nance, resource allocation and control, ignores or makes only limited or
token efforts toward internationalization.On the other hand, the university
thatis outwardlooking, fosters, supportsand rewardscreativeinnovationand
the infusion of intrapreneurialand entrepreneurialspirit, - characterizedas
adhocratic- also recognizes andbuildson the "powerof the culturesin which
planning occurs" (Chaffee and Jacobson 1997), thus helping to provide an
appropriateand integratedculturalunderpinning- in the Janusiansense - in
the institutionso that strategicmanagementis quite successful in bringing
about an effective internationalizationprocess. The culture vignettes are
consistent with the call for universitiesto employ some variationof strategic
culturemanagementin the adaptationprocess (Cameronand Freeman1991;
Chaffee and Jacobson 1997; Sporn 1996). Such an effort would lead to an

OFUNIVERSITIES
increasedsocial integrationof the varietyof subculturesof the differentunits

and a unified culture can then convey meaning and identificationwith the
objectivesandstrategiesof internationalization. As it emergesfromthe above
examples, the cross disciplinaryglobal clusters and the dual degreeprogram,
the
including requiredstudy abroad component(exampleII), is one indication
of the attentiongiven to the relationshipbetween the institution'scultureand
the strategyto advancethe internationalizationprocess.
The conception of internationalizationon a continuum,as relatedto the
organizationalculture typology, provides a framework,illustratedby the
examples, which helps to identify and understandthe variety of approaches
to internationalizationof universitiesin relationto the externalenvironment,
the internalculture,the functioningstructureand the related strategies.The
internalculturecan be inhibitingor facilitatingand, therefore,to enhancethe
effectiveness of any substantive,and not merely token, internationalization
process, the leadership'srole is to foster andlink a culturecongruentwith the
internationalization objectiveandthe managementof the university,including
resourceallocationand controltechniques.To this end, the task of university
leaders would include the identificationof internal contradictionsand the
design of appropriatesolutionsas well as the clarificationandcommunication
of the university'sidentityrelativeto its externalenvironment.
Acknowledgements
This article has benefittedfrom my experience as the founding Directorof
InternationalExchange Programs,Asper School of Business, Universityof
Manitoba, 1993-1997 and a researchleave duringwinter 1999 as a visiting
scholarat the InternationalCenter,Universityof Missouri-Columbia.
I would like to express my gratitudeto ProfessorRiva Bartell, my wife
and colleague, for her valuablecriticalcomments,suggestionsandboundless
supportin bringingthis article to fruition.I acknowledge with appreciation
the helpful comments of Professor Rodney Clifton on a first draft of this
article and am indebted to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments and suggestions which contributedmeaningfullyto the enhance-
ment of this article. The access to informationto the unnameduniversities
referredto in the examples greatly facilitatedmy work. The resultingarticle
is solely my responsibility.
References
Adler,N.J. (1997). InternationalDimensionsof OrganizationalBehavior,3rdedn. Cincinnati,
OH: South-WesternCollege Publishing.

68 MARVIN
BARTELL
American Council on Education (1995). Educating Americansfor a World in Flux: Ten

Ground Rules for InternationalizingHigher Education. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education.Author.
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canadaand Bank of Nova Scotia (1996-1997,
1997-1998, 1998-1999). Towardsa MoreGlobal Campus:InternationalizationInitiatives
of Canadian Universities.Ottawa,ON: Author.
Backman,E.L. (1984). Approachesto InternationalEducation,American Council on Educa-
tion. New York:MacmillanPublishingCo.
Baldridge,J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G.L. (1978). Policy Making and Effective
Leadership.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Bartell, M. (1984). 'A bibliographicintroductionand review of some factors influencing the
effectiveness of research and developmentteams: the agriculturalcontext', Agricultural
Administration16, 113-129.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadershipand PerformanceBeyondExpectations.New York:Free Press.
Becher,T. (1981). 'Towardsa definitionof disciplinarycultures',Studies in Higher Education
6, 109-122.
Birnbaum,R. (1988). How Colleges Work:The Cyberneticsof Academic Organizationand
Leadership.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Burs, J.M. (1978). Leadership.New York:Harper& Row.
Cameron,K.S. (1984). 'Organizationaladaptationand higher education', Journal of Higher
Education55(2), 122-144.
Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S.J. (1991). 'Culturalcongruence, strength and type: Rela-
tionships to effectiveness', Research in Organizational Change and Development 5,
23-58.
Chaffee, E.E. and Jacobson, S.W. (1997). 'Creatingand changing institutionalcultures', in
Peterson,M.W., Dill, D.D., Mets, L.A. and Associates (eds.), Planning and Management
for a ChangingEnvironment:A Handbookon RedesigningPostsecondaryInstitutions.San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 230-245.
Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System:Academic Organizationin Cross-National
Perspective.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Cohen, D.W. (1997). 'Understandingthe globalization of scholarship', in Peterson, M.W.,
Dill, D.D, Mets, L.A. and Associates (eds.), Planning and Managementfor a Changing
Environment:A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 548-562.
Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College
President,2nd edn. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.
Council on InternationalEducationalExchange (1994). The Power of EducationalExchange:
Essays in Honor of Jack Egle. New York:Author.
Deal, E. and Kennedy,A. (1982). CorporateCulture:the Rites and Rituals of CorporateLife.
Reading,PA: Addison-Wesley.
Denison, D. (1990). CorporateCultureand OrganizationalEffectiveness.New York:Wiley.
Dill, D.D. (1982). 'The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of
meaningand social integration',Higher Education 11, 303-320.
Dill, D.D., and Sporn,B. (1995). EmergingPatternsof Social Demandand UniversityReform:
Througha Glass Darkly. Oxford:Pergamon.
Dobbert, M.L.L. (1998). 'The impossibility of internationalizingstudents by adding mate-
rials to courses', in Mestenhauser,J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (eds.), Reformingthe Higher
Education Curriculum:Internationalizingthe Campus.Phoenix, AZ: American Council
on Educationand Oryx Press, pp. 53-68.

OFUNIVERSITIES
Ellingboe, B.J. (1998). 'Divisional strategies to internationalizea campus portrait:Results,

resistance,andrecommendationsfrom a case study at a U.S. university',in Mestenhauser,
J.A. and Elllingboe, B.J (eds.), Reformingthe Higher Education Curriculum:Interna-
tionalizing the Campus.Phoenix, AZ: AmericanCouncil on Educationand Oryx Press,
pp. 198-228.
Goodwin, C. (1991). Missing the Boat: The Failure to InternationalizeAmerican Higher
Education.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Groennings,S. and Wiley, D.S. (1990). Group Portrait:Internationalizingthe Disciplines.
New York:The AmericanForum.
Gumport,P.J. and Sporn, B. (1999). 'Institutionaladaptation:Demands for management
reform and university administration',in Smart, J.C. and Tierney, W.G. (eds.), Higher
Education:Handbookof Theoryand Research,VolumeXIV. New York:AgathonPress,
pp. 103-145.
Harari,M. (1989). Internationalizationof Higher Education:EffectingInstitutionalChange
in the Curriculumand Campus. Long Beach, CA: Center for InternationalEducation,
CaliforniaState University.
Hardy, C., Langley, A., Mintzberg, H. and Rose, J. (1983). 'Strategy formation in the
universitysetting', Reviewof Higher Education6, 407-433.
Janis,I. (1972). Victimsof Groupthink.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Keller, G. (1997). 'Examining what works in strategic planning', in Peterson, M.W., Dill,
D.D., Mets. L.A. and Associates (eds.), Planning and Managementfor a Changing
Environment:A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,pp. 158-170.
Kerr,C. (1987). 'A critical age in the universityworld:Accumulatedheritageversusmoder
imperatives',EuropeanJournalof Education22, 183-193.
Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy Thinking:TheNew Science of FuzzyLogic. New York:Hyperion.
Kotter,J. and Heskett,J. (1992). CorporateCultureand Performance.New York:Free Press.
Lapiner,R. (1994). 'Defining the challenges for achieving transnationalhigher education',
in Council on InternationalEducational Exchange (ed.), The Power of Educational
Exchange.Essays in Honor of Jack Egle. New York:Author,pp. 71-85.
March,J.G. (1984). 'How we talk and how we act: administrativetheory and administrative
life', in Sergiovanni,T.J.andCorbally,J.E. (eds.), Leadershipand OrganizationalCulture.
New Perspectives on AdministrativeTheory and Practice. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press, pp. 18-35.
Marsella, A.J. (2001). 'Essay: Internationalizingthe Psychology Curriculum',Psychology
International12(2), 7-8.
Masland, A.T. (1985). 'Organizationalculture in the study of higher education', Review of
Higher Education8, 157-168.
Merkur'ev,S.P. (1991). 'Implicationsof internationalizationfor the university', American
BehavioralScientist 35, 43-54.
Mestenhauser,J.A. (1998). 'Portraitsof an internationalcurriculum:An uncommon multi-
dimensionalperspective',in Mestenhauser,J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (eds.), Reformingthe
Higher Education Curriculum:Internationalizingthe Campus.Phoenix, AZ: American
Council on Education/OryxPress, pp. 3-39.
Mestenhauser,J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (1998). Reformingthe Higher EducationCurriculum:
Internationalizingthe Campus.Phoenix,AZ: AmericanCouncil on Education/OryxPress.
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems.New York:McGraw-Hill.
Mintzberg,H. (1989). Mintzbergon Management:Inside OurStrangeWorldof Organizations.
New York:The Free Press.

70 MARVINBARTELL
Mintzberg,H. and Vander Heyden, L. (1999). 'Organigraphs:Drawinghow companiesreally

work', HarvardBusiness Review77, 87-94.
Mittelman,J.H. (ed). (1996). Globalization:Critical Reflections.Boulder,CO: Lynne Riener.
Orton, J.D. and Weick, K.E. (1990). 'Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization',
Academyof ManagementReview 15, 203-223.
Ouchi, W.G, and Wilkins, A.L. (1985). 'Organizationalculture',Annual Reviewof Sociology
11,457-483.
Peterson, M.W. and Dill, D.D. (1997). 'Understandingthe competitive environmentof the
postsecondaryknowledge industry',in Peterson,M.W., Dill, D.D., Mets, L.A. and Asso-
ciates (eds.), Planning and Managementfor a Changing Environment:A Handbookon
RedesigningPostsecondaryInstitutions.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-29.
Peterson, M.W. and Spencer, M.G. (1990). 'Understandingacademic culture and climate',
in Tierney,W.G. (ed.), Assessing Academic Climates and Cultures.New Directions for
InstitutionalResearch, 17(68). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-18.
Peterson, M.W. and Spencer, M.G. (1993). 'Qualitative and quantitative approaches to
academicculture:Do they tell us the same thing?', in Smart,J.C. (ed.), Higher Education:
Handbookof Theoryand Research,VolumeIX. New York:Agathon Press, pp. 344-388.
Porter,M.E. (1980). CompetitiveStrategy.New York:Free Press
Rothenburg,A. (1979). The EmergingGoddess. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Schein, E. (1985). OrganizationalCultureand Leadership:A Dynamic View.San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Skolnikoff, E.B. (1994). 'Knowledge without borders? Internationalizationof the research
universities',in Cole, J.R., Barber,E.G. and Graubard,S.R. (eds.), The Research Univer-
sity in a Timeof Discontent.Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress, pp. 337-343.
Smith, S. (1991). Report of the Commissionof Inquiryon Canadian UniversityEducation.
Ottawa:Association of Universitiesand Colleges of Canada.
Sporn,B. (1999). 'Currentissues andfutureprioritiesfor Europeanhighereducationsystems',
in Altbach, P.G. and Peterson,P.M. (ed.), Higher Education in the 21st Century:Global
Challengeand National Response.New York:Instituteof InternationalEducation,Report
No. 29, pp. 67-77.
Sporn, B. (1996). 'Managing university culture: an analysis of the relationship between
institutionalcultureand managementapproaches',Higher Education 32, 41-61.
Stake, R.E. (1994). 'Case studies', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of
QualitativeResearch.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, pp. 236-247.
Thorton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (1999). 'Institutionallogics and the historicalcontingency of
power in organizations:Executivesuccession in the higher-educationpublishingindustry,
1958-1990', AmericanJournalof Sociology 105(3), 801-843.
Tichy, N.M. (1982). 'Managing change strategically:The technical, political and cultural
keys', OrganizationalDynamics 11(4), 59-80.
Tierney,W.G. (1988). 'Organizationalculture in higher education: Defining the essentials',
Journalof Higher Education95, 2-21.
Weick, K.E. (1976). 'Educationalorganizationsas loosely coupled systems', Administrative
Science Quarterly21, 1-19.
Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing,2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Weick, K.E. (1983). 'Contradictionsin a community of scholars: The cohesion-accuracy
tradeoff', Reviewof Higher Education6, 253-267.
Whetten,D.A. and Cameron,K.S. (1994). 'Organizationaleffectiveness: Old models and new
constructs', in Greenberg,J. (ed.), OrganizationalBehavior: The State of the Science.
Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, pp. 135-153.


Internationalization of Universities - A University Culture-Based Framework

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Internationalization of Universities - A University Culture-Based Framework

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Internationalization of Universities: A University Culture-Based Framework

Author(s): Marvin Bartell

This content downloaded from 132.170.217.12 on Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:07:31 AM