These weaknesses notwithstanding, there are signs of strengths in internationali- zation efforts at US colleges and universities. Institutions are working more to infuse internationalization into student life, to support faculty work in areas of internationalization, and to increase administrative support for global learning. A high-quality education should not see global learning and/or internationalization as an add-on, but rather as an integral part of course content and pedagogy, research, and service. It requires sustained attention and leadership to help prepare students for the multicultural and global society of today and tomorrow. One valuable way to achieve this is to build on student interests and demographics. Many US institutions are making progress to meet the challenges of preparing students to live and work as active members of a global society. This is reflected in greater institutional support on several levels, more infusion of internationalization into student life, and greater use of technology as a resource for global learning.
There is greater emphasis than ever before on investment in the international capacities of faculty. Between 2001 and 2006, the study by ACE found more institutions funded faculty to teach at institutions abroad, paid for travel to con- ferences abroad, and supported faculty study or research abroad. More institutions have also offered opportunities for faculty to strengthen their foreign-language skills, and more sponsored workshops on internationalizing the curriculum to promote global learning initiatives.
Institutions are also increasing administrative support for internationalization, with a similar shift between 2001 and 2006 from a single office supporting internationalization to multiple offices. This suggests that institutions are engaging in more global learning activities and are responding to the need to support them.
Most institutions have at least a half-time staff member devoted to international student services, international student recruiting, English as a Second Language programs, and study abroad. While this is a positive trend, in the absence of a chief international officer, the proliferation of offices staffed by part-time professionals may at the same time be contributing to fragmentation of internationalization efforts on many campuses, as many of these various offices often have limited contact with each other.
An area where there is clear evidence of greater internationalization, as noted in the case study of HPU and the Shared Futures initiative of the AAC&U, is in infusing global learning initiatives into student life. This includes a rise in pro- grams designed to increase student appreciation for different cultures as well as bringing together students from the US with their peers from other countries. In general, colleges and universities are sponsoring more international fairs, buddy programs, and international meeting places and residence halls, trends that further embed global awareness directly into student life.
A final area where there has been positive growth is in the use of technology as a resource for internationalization. While anyone who has experienced it will note that there is no substitute for the personal experience of going abroad, technology offers excellent opportunities for students and faculty to interact with their col- leagues and peers from other countries. Video-conferencing as well as audio- conferencing, email and social media now enable students to interact with pro- fessors from abroad and to engage in collaborative projects with students sitting in classrooms far away. With the cost of using technology decreasing every year and the quality improving, institutions are in a better position to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by technology.
In conclusion, the overall picture for internationalization in American universities appears to be mixed. Institutions of higher learning are often slow to change, but that very slowness can often be of great benefit, ensuring that an institution is not simply caught up in the frenzy of an educational fad. Internationalization and global learning are not a fad. They are a reality that requires nurturing and support, and ways to get embedded into the curriculum and ethos of institutions of higher learning.
Bibliography
Friedman TL (1999) The lexus and the olive tree. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York Green MF, Luu D, Burris B (2008) Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses, 2008th edn.
American Council on Education, Center for International Initiatives, Washington
Lambert R (1989) International studies and the undergraduate. American Council on Education, Washington
O’Connell ME, Norwood JL (eds) (2007) International education and foreign languages: keys to securing america’s future. committee to review title VI and Fulbright-Hays international education programs. The National Academies Press, Washington
Perkins J et al (1979) Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of U. S. Capability. A report to the president from the president’s commission on foreign language and international studies. U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
Robertson R (1992) Globalization: social theory and global culture. Sage Publications, London (2006) Shared Futures, Global learning & social responsibility. Association of American Colleges
and Universities.www.aacu.org/SharedFutures, Washington, DC
Wood Van R (2006) Globalization and higher education: eight common perceptions from University leaders, IIE networker (institute of international education—Bi-annual journal for international education professionals), New York (Spring), pp 26–34
Universities Between Politics and Economics: Autonomy, Performance Agreements and Global Budgets at Austrian Universities
Manfried Gantner
This article is targeted at university managers and people involved in the field of university (de)regulation. The focus is on autonomy for state-funded universities (hereinafter simply called ‘universities’) and their financial steering through per- formance agreements and global budgets, bearing in mind the fact that contract management and multi-year global budgets have been playing a key role as instruments of university funding and control for 10 years now. After so many years of testing and experience, the time has come to assess the current situation and the sustainability of these developments. In particular, this paper examines the long-term potential of economic thinking and the use of business management tools for and at universities in comparison with political rationality in this field.1 We find a wide playing field for autonomy, financial steering and performance agreements; depending on the rules, and on the tactics and strength of the teams, they develop a wide range of forms and hence of stimuli and effects. But behind it all—in addition to the parties’ respective views with regard to the priorities of the development of the university involved—very real power structures exist. How- ever great the scope for autonomy, there is no ignoring the power differentials that exist between the Ministry and the universities; the Ministry wears three hats: it has control over the financial resources, it is the referee at the supervisory level and it can normally induce changes of the laws. The universities, on the other hand,
M. Gantner (&)
Department of Public Finance, The University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
1 An assessment of such a complex subject as the development of financial autonomy in a changing legal framework and in practice is needed, and the universities deserve to have their—
sometimes contradictory and sometimes mutually complementary—steering mechanisms made the object of scientific review and explicit evaluation. This paper was written in August 2009.
There were no relevant changes of the framework until publication.
A. Altmann and B. Ebersberger (eds.),Universities in Change, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4590-6_6, Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
87
have just one hat and are currently going cap in hand with it: they need resources.
They can nevertheless derive a high degree of self-confidence from the fact that they are the actual providers on their markets. That is their strength.
In the course of time, the degree and specific features of autonomy in the individual case can be extended or reduced through convention and practice or by laws and decrees; in certain areas it can be a living organism, but the realities of the operating framework and circumstances may also reduce it to an empty shell.
Financial steering can be practised in the form of multi-year global budgets; but practice can also degenerate into mere lip service as a result of annual or even more frequent interference in the specific case. Performance agreements may take the form of negotiations between equal partners or of a dictate on the part of the financiers. They can address the strengths and weaknesses and the profile of a university and its contribution in the overall university context, and they can focus on the specific wishes of the two parties.
The Austrian situation and the country’s experience with the 2002 Universities Act (hereinafter called ‘UG 2002’) and with the 2009 University Law Amendment Act (hereinafter called ‘URÄG (2009)’) are perhaps exemplary insofar as ques- tions of autonomy, steering, and funding on the basis of performance mandates or agreements in combination with medium-term global budgets are currently on the agenda in many countries with regard to tertiary education and its institutions.
The conflict between the goals of autonomy and state control in whole or in part is nothing new: at no point in the history of public universities have their political masters really absented themselves from the decision-making process relating to their objectives, operating conditions and resources nor—given the importance of the academic and scientific world—have they really been able to do so. It is not the case that the university of the past was under no economic constraints and did not have to take decisions in the face of finite resources.
In the last few years, however, a new and very pronounced conflict between political and economic rationality seems to have developed. On the one hand, this relates to the as yet unsolved question of the resources needed for a university to satisfy the objectives set: political rhetoric on the relevance of the universities for a country’s future prosperity is in stark contrast with the realities of the allocation of resources. And on the other hand, it is only in the last 10 years that the legislator in Austria—and in many other countries—has given the universities much wider scope for autonomy and at the same time demanded economic thinking and imposed the use of business management tools. Has the economisation of uni- versity performance paid off? Is the pendulum now on its way back, once again restricting the scope for autonomy while leaving the new instruments in place?
In an attempt to answer the opening question and investigate the aspects tou- ched upon above, this paper has been divided into a number of sections: fields of autonomy, economic rationality, medium-term global budgets, performance agreements, political rationality and conclusions. The theory is discussed with reference to the Austrian universities as presented in UG 2002 and URÄG (2009), which was enacted on 9 July 2009.