Partnerships: Collaborating on the Future

LEAP Virtual ColloquiumMarch 12, 2014

Susan Buck SuttonBryn Mawr College

International Academic Partnerships

Kevin Kinser and Madeleine Green (2009):

“cooperative agreements between a higher education institution and another distinct

organization” related to international activities

Auburn University International Agreements

IUPUI and the Universidad Autόnoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Women in Public Service Project

Outline

I. The changing landscape of international academic partnerships

II. The POISE model for building strong partnerships

I. The changing landscape of international academic partnerships.

The wide-ranging, sometimes conflicting goals of academic internationalization (1)

Institutional Goals:• To advance institutional ranking, including globally• To generate tuition income• To generate grant income• To market programs overseas• To spread the reach/impact of the institution• To diversify the student body • To improve student learning • To keep research and scholarship cutting edge • To build/enhance the institution and its programs • To develop global citizenship for both students & institution• To tackle global issues

The wide-ranging, sometimes conflicting goals of internationalization (2)

Societal Goals:• To develop a globally competitive and cross-culturally

competent workforce• To advance national diplomacy and security• To serve the international needs and interests of surrounding

communities• To contribute to nation-building• To develop capacity in the global South• To address problems that are global in scope• To contribute to international understanding and peace-building• To advance science and scholarship

In this light, partnerships

• are central to an institution extending outward• take on new roles and functions• reach out to new partners, both at home and

abroad• require more focused attention• are no longer simply what bubbles up• are no longer conceived simply in terms of

logistics

Rosabeth Moss Kanter: “collaborative advantage”

Collaborative advantage

“…in the global economy, a well-developed ability to create and sustain fruitful collaborations gives companies a significant competitive leg up”

Kanter 1994, p. 96

What collaboration does that going it alone does not (1):

• Connects to external centers of energy relevant to institutional interests, adding dimensions that are missing

• Provides the international insight and dialogue now essential to effective teaching, research, and applied work

• Shares costs, risks, and resources• Gives known (and knowledgeable) base in unknown

environment, builds sense of mutual responsibility• Results in lower transaction costs, because processes are

regularized, well-understood

What collaboration does that going it alone does not (2):

• Builds complex understandings of partner and partner’s country that deepen over time

• Results in new projects neither side could do on its own• Develops materials & projects tailored to the particular profiles of both

partners• Enables faculty without international knowledge to become involved in

international work easily• Establishes defined concentrations of activity that attract external funding• Institutionally models cross-national competencies we want for our

students• Contributes to a global system of higher education that is balanced in

impact across nations, recognizes the importance of dialogue, and operates according to mutually developed standards and principles.

In this light, partnership work is increasing

• ACE 2012 Mapping Survey: 90% doctoral institutions and 50% of baccalaureate ones have greatly increased their partnership activity over last 5 years

• IAU 2010 Survey: Of the top 5 internationalization activities for universities worldwide, 3 fall under the heading of partnerships

Higher ed institutions need a broad portfolio of partnership types.

• Faculty, departmental, institutional• Across teaching, research, service missions• Different locations around the world• With academic institutions but also other kinds

of organizations• Both extending institutional strengths and

complementing them• Serving the range of goals that characterize

internationalization in general

Partnerships vary by scope:

• Faculty-to-faculty• Student exchange• One-way student flows• Department-to-department• Institution-to-institution• Multi-national consortium

Partnerships vary by function: Teaching.

Partnerships vary by function:Research

Partnerships vary by function:Capacity Building

Partnerships vary by function:Public Diplomacy

Partnerships vary by importance to the institution

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPSsustained and robust linkages with

a carefully selected set of institutionsin order to

• Advance core goals and mission of the institution• Have broad impact for the institution• Engage faculty, staff, and students across the institution• Carry great mutual benefit for all partners• Result from a strategic planning process

Partnerships vary by the kind of impact they have on the institution.

Transactional Transformative

Transactional Partnerships

• Simple give-and-take• Neither institution is much changed by the

exchange• Instrumental in nature• Trade resources

Transformational Partnerships

• Change both institutions, as they work together• Generate common goals, projects, products

through dialogue and collaboration• Combine resources• Emphasize relationship as much as the product• Expand over time• Spread into the teaching, research, and/or

service functions, as well as the mission, of each institution

Transcendental Partnerships

• Have identity separate from that of each constituent member

• Constitute an international unit or network• Focus on the common good of the network• Develop mechanisms for operating

independently of any one member

plan

organize

init iate

sustain

evaluate

plan

plan

Colleges and universities have some require some modification of organizational change theory:

•Value-driven institutions where words, goals, and mission matter

•Distributed leadership structure

•Ideal of shared governance

•Different constituencies have different goals, not easily combined

(Kytle 2012)

plan

Change in HEIs means getting the right people involved in planning processed that are viewed as transparent, inclusive, and legitimate.

plan

Understand the institutional context:What are your institution’s• mission and purpose• aspirations (rankings, benchmarked peer institutions, etc.)• strategic goals• priorities (financial, growth, student/faculty recruitment, etc.)• current actions/initiatives• metrics for success

plan

Identify stakeholders and involve them in the planning processWho, at your institution• determines strategic goals and priorities• allocates funding and human resources• gathers data and assesses progress towards strategic goals

Understand how major decisions are made at your institutionWhat is the role of the

• governing board of trustees• executive leadership• deans, department heads, institute directors• advancement/alumni relations team• faculty governance body• corporate/external advisory boards• allocates funding and human resources• gathers data and assesses progress towards strategic goals

plan

Survey your current partnership practices & portfolio:• Take stock of existing partnerships

number geographical distribution level of activity impact on both institutions

• Create partnership registry for all partnerships (existing and future)• Identify the processes that are in place

Is there a central clearinghouse for partnership agreements? How are newly proposed partnerships reviewed and approved? Interaction with university legal counsel?

• Identify modes and models of partnership Which of your partnerships have lasted? Why? Which of your partnerships have failed? Why? Financial models for sustained partnerships?

• Identify clusters of activity Are there certain geographic areas where, historically, your institution has been more engaged?

Why there? Are there certain geographic areas where, historically, your institution has been under-engaged?

Why there? Are there certain thematic/research foci that require or facilitate international partnerships? Survey Scopus, Elsevier, etc., for clusters of joint publications

plan

Develop a Partnership Plan that specifies:

•Your institutional goals for partnerships•Where partnerships fit in your overall international plans•What types of partnerships you want and how many of each type

(e.g., faculty-to-faculty, departmental, institution-wide)•What geographical distribution you want •What types of activities you wish to pursue (teaching, research, service)•What criteria you will use to prioritize possible partnerships•How you refresh and revise this plan over time

AND all the remaining four elements of POISE

plan

Example: developing criteria for prioritizing certain partnerships over others (1):(some possibilities)• Institutional Compatibility

Similar missions, aspirations, values Similar scope of activity (for potential breadth of impact) Similar areas of excellence (building synergy) Complementary areas of excellence (filling gaps) Similar understanding of “partnership” Similar level of commitment to the partnership

• Location In a region of strategic focus for your institution Significant source of international students/alumni Significant student interest as a destination for learning abroad Safety and risk management issues Civic/commercial links (shared corporate partners, sister city relationships, etc.)

• Quality/Integrity National and International Rankings (how important is this to your leadership?) Accreditations Academic freedom, government and corporate relationships

plan

Criteria for prioritizing partnerships (2): (continued)• Faculty and departmental engagement

Historical and existing links “faculty champions” at both institutions

• Genuine mutual benefit for all partners• Partnership spreads across multiple departments or schools at your institution• Resources (both human and financial) exist to support the partnership over time• Compatible Educational Structures

Can academic calendars mesh? Can course articulations and direct equivalencies be identified to facilitate study abroad in under-

represented disciplines? Is distance co-teaching/learning practical? (synchronous? asynchronous?) Potential for dual or joint degrees?

• Robust, meaningful conversations have occurred with the partner, over a sustained period of time

• Exciting new collaborations are under discussion

organizeGet your college or university ready to support a robust

international partnership program.

organize

Articulate and promulgate the importance of partnerships.

•Lead this process in multiple forums

•Produce written statements that articulate the benefits and significance of partnerships

•Lead campus to see that internationalization is more than students out and students in

organize

Establish policies and procedures.

•For approving new partnerships and/or new activities for existing partnerships•For faculty, staff, and students to participate in existing partnerships•For managing and keeping existing partnerships going•For keeping track and communicating about partnerships•For managing crises, travel warnings, and similar situations

organize

Streamline and/or remove existing procedural and other obstacles.

•Processes for spending funds overseas

•Travel advances and reimbursements

•Processes for paying stipends to colleagues at partner institution

•Processes for dual and joint degrees

organize

Develop financial and other support.

•Seed money for faculty/administrators•Effective exchange funding models•Buy-in from deans, high level administrators•External grants•Creative ways of sharing resources with partner•IT infrastructure for long-distance collaboration

organize

Develop effective organizational structures.

•Connect the various offices and individuals who work on component parts of partnerships

•Designate an administrator who is in charge of partnerships

•Maintain authentic faculty engagement and ownership of the partnerships

•Develop separate steering committee for each major partnership

organizeProvide professional development and rewards for

faculty and staff.

•Workshops, web resources, group travel•Awards for partnership activity•Recognition in Tenure and Promotion process, salary raises•Educate on

Complexities, obligations, and implications of establishing partnershipsHistory, language, culture, politics, economics of partner countriesSkills of cross-cultural interactionHave colleagues at partner institutions do some of this work

organize

Develop international office expertise.

•Intricacies of 2+2 and similar programs, dual/joint degrees and so forth

•Models, best practices, innovative ideas

•Connecting the various individuals who work on component parts of partnerships

init iate

Move from plan to action…Use the plan and organization to frame how

you start new partnerships or enhance existing ones.

init iate

Broaden your knowledge of possible partners in a particular nation

•Survey where your faculty and students already have connections •Familiarization trips •On-campus presentations by visiting faculty•Conferences and meetings•Use of alumni to identify and create bridges to potential partners•Consultations with embassies, organizations to understand full range of HEIs in a country•Move beyond fame, look for institutional fit

init iate

Narrow down the list.

• Using the criteria you have already established• Also fit with the current range of partnerships you already

have

init iate

Take the time to get to know the possible partner. • Learn about each other’s institutions• Discuss what “partnership” means • Talk about kinds of partnerships you have had and kinds in which you are

interested• Work to find the common ground among partnership goals • Identify areas of mutual interest,• Range broadly over possible activities, narrowing down the list over time• Discuss what each side can provide in way that addresses inequalities• Consider the manner in which difficulties and crises will be handled• Invoke principles of shared decision-making, reciprocity, mutual benefit• Exercise flexibility, adaptability, and openness to change • Acknowledge the importance of relationship-building

init iate

In these initial discussions, move toward: • Identifying “faculty champions” on both sides from among existing

research/education collaborations network• Identifying initial targeted disciplines/areas of foci determined to be of

potential mutual benefit (existing clusters, mutual strengths, complimentary strengths, external funding opportunities)

• Introducing faculty/departments in the targeted areas to one another for exploratory discussions (via video conference, on-site research symposia, roundtables at scholarly conferences)

• Identifying some specific collaborative projects worth some initial investment (seed funding, calls for proposals)

• Visits by senior campus leadership, articulating broad goals and desired outcomes for initial stage

• Setting broad, institutional goals for initial stage of the partnership

init iate

Secure needed approvals on all sides.

•Following agreed-upon procedures•Discuss with all relevant constituencies•Review with legal counsel, financial and risk management offices•With much back-and-forth between the various offices at your university and your contacts at the partner university.

init iate

Make sure resources are in place to support the partnership.

•Faculty and departmental buy-in exists•Funding for travel is available•Revenue neutral exchange structures are in place•Course articulations are possible•System of regular communication can be established•Each side has a team or office to manage its part of the partnership•Capacity to provide language instruction, cultural and national framing for work with partner exists (or can be developed)

init iate

Collaboratively draft documents to formalize the partnership (1).

•to provide formal, public acknowledgment that the institutions intend to work together •to provide documentation sometimes needed for obtaining government funding and/or enabling faculty members to implement activities•to minimize misunderstandings in the future regarding the components of what was agreed •to specify who does what and when•to act as a formal, legal contract, if legally binding commitments are made

init iate

Collaboratively draft documents to formalize the partnership (2).

Many U.S. institutions now have a two-stage process:

•A general MOU of friendship, cooperation, and agreement to pursue possible collaborations

•Specific implementation plans for each specific collaboration that is developed

init iate

Key elements of a general MOU.

•Intention to explore collaboration in various areas•No commitment to anything specific•Steps to be taken before specific projects can commence•Period during which the MOU is in effect•Possibility of either side ending the collaboration•Naming of who is responsible on each side

init iate

Key elements of an Implementation Plan (1).

•Specific purpose and scope of the activity•Definition of key responsibilities for each side•Specific start and end dates•Identification of what kinds of students, faculty, & staff will be involved and how they will be selected•What funds, facilities, and other resources will be provided by each side•Rules, regulations, policies, and laws that govern the agreement

init iate

Key elements of an Implementation Plan (2).

•Legal liabilities, insurance provisions, and similar matters•Principles of academic freedom and rights that must be upheld•Conditions that may lead to termination of the agreement•Procedures for managing disagreements and maintaining communications•Identification of specific individuals who have responsibility for various parts of the activity

sustain

Support and advance the partnership over time, through ups and downs.

sustain

Factors that lead to high-performing partnerships (1).

•Good match in mission, values, interests of both sides•Shared understandings of what the partnership will do•Trust developed by integrity, fairness, honoring commitments•Shared decision-making, reciprocity, mutual benefit•Flexibility, adaptability, and openness to change•What each side will provide is clear in way that recognizes assets and addresses, rather than perpetuates, inequalities

sustain

Factors that lead to high-performing partnerships (2).

•Pursues workable early projects that build base for later ones•Frequent and meaningful communication•Disagreements dealt with openly; procedures for resolving them•Spreads across multiple units within each partner institution•Person or group designated to manage partnership on each side•Has low-cost, on-going activities alongside more dramatic projects

sustain

Factors that lead to high-performing partnerships (3).

•Faculty, staff & students guided in deepening knowledge of the country, its relationship to own country, and the cultural/contextual differences framing the partnership•Financial, personnel, and other resources in place; procedural roadblocks identified and removed•Procedures for reviewing or terminating the partnership •Respect for independence as well as partnership

sustain

“…rich personal relationships”

“Intercompany relationships … work best when they are familylike…obligations are diffuse, the scope for collaboration is open, understanding grows between specific individuals… and the interpersonal context is rich. Only relationships with full commitment on all sides endure long enough to create value for the partners.”Kanter 1994, p. 100

evaluate

Metrics for SuccessKey question: What has the partnership accomplished, that could not

have been accomplished by either institution acting alone?

Step Six: Assessment• Without evidence that internationalization

contributes to core institutional missions, it will never rise above secondary status.

• Assessment options: inputs, outputs, outcomes.

• Ultimately, it is outcomes and impacts that measure true value added.

63

evaluate

OUTPUT (what activities and participation rates result)

OUTCOME (what is the impact of these activities)

INPUT (what we put into

the partnership)

evaluate

• # of visits back-and-forth• Frequency of communication• Efforts at engaging surrounding communities, businesses• Efforts at engaging faculty, students, staff at each partner• Websites, reports, data gathered on the partnership• Funds devoted to the partnership• Joint facilities/centers developed (both virtual and on-the-ground)• Publicity and outreach efforts• Efforts to deal with problems which arise during the partnership

Inputs

evaluate

• # of students who have traveled, taken courses at, or engaged in online interactions with partner

• # of faculty and staff who have engaged with partner• # of co-taught courses (on-line, on-site), with enrollments• # of new curricular collaborations begun• # of collaborative research projects, in what fields• # of co-authored publications • # of collaborative research proposals submitted• Level of partnership activity over time• # of new activities that emerged from the initial partnership activities

Outputs

evaluate

• Student learning outcomes• Citations, awards, and other measures of effectiveness of collaborative

research projects• Success in obtaining external grants• Impacts on surrounding communities, businesses, organizations• Impact on reputation/comparative standing for both institutions• Impact with respect to public diplomacy• Impact with respect to addressing global issues and problems• Internal impact on each institution• Deepening connection and understanding among the partners• Level of reciprocity, mutual benefit achieved • Ability to work together even in crisis situations

Outcomes