Barely There, Powerfully Present: Years of US Policy on International Higher Education 9781317849582, 9780415933315

Citation preview

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION DISSERTATION SERIES

Edited by

PHILIP G. ALTBACH Monan Professor of Higher Education Lynch School of Education, Boston College

OTHER BOOKS IN THIS SERIES:

SAVING FOR COLLEGE AND THE TAX

STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RESEARCH

CODE

UNIVERSITIES

Andrew Roth

David Weerts

RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN PRIVATE

THE VIRTUAL DEUVERY ANO VIRTUAL

RESEARCH UNIVERsn"IES

ORGANIZATION OF POSTSECONDARY

Daniel Rodas

EDUCATION

Daniel M. Carchidi I PREFER TO TEACH

&

An International Comparison of Faculty Preferences for Teaching James J.F. Forest

FEDERAUSM

TENURE ON TRAIL

Disadvantaged Students Making It at an Elite University Latty Lee Goodwin

LÄNDER AUTONOMY

Cesare Onestini RESIUENT SPIRITS

Case Studies of Change in Faculty Appointment Policies William Mallon FROM HERE TO UNIVERSITY

Access, Mobility, & Resilience Among Latino Youth Alexander Jun SCHOLARSHIP UNBOUND

Kerry Ann O'Meara A DREAM DEFERREO?

Examining the Degree Aspirations of African American & White College Students Deborah Carter TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER VIA UNIVERSITY-[NDUSTRY RELATIONS

The Case of the Foreign High Technology Electronic Industry in Mexico's Silicon Valley Maria Isabel Rivera Vargas BLACK STUDENT POUTICS

Higher Education and Apartheid from SASO to SANSCO, 1968-1990 Saleem Badat

BAREL y THERE, POWERFULLY PRESENT Thirty Years of D.S. Poliey on International Higher Edueation

Nancy L. Ruther

First Published in 2002 by RoutledgeFalmer Published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OXI4 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2002 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any e1eetronie, meehanieal, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ruther, Naney L., 1951Barely there, powerfully present : thirty years of U.S. poliey on international higher education I by Nancy L. Ruther. p. cm. - (Routledge/Falmer dissertations series in higher edueation) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-415-93331-5 ISBN 978-0-415-93331-5 (hbk) 1. International education-United States-History-20th century. 2. Education, Higher-United States-History-20th eentury. 3. Education and state-United States-History-20th century. I. Title. 11. Studies in higher edueation, dissertation series. LC 1090 .R88 2002 378'.016-de21 2002069788

To life . .. . . . and especially to PB who helps me live it so fully.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IX

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

XIII

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Rationale for the Study Focus and Approach for the Research Methods of Analysis and Data Sources

1 2 6 13

CHAPTER 11: INTERNATIONAL HIGH ER EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF THE LITERATURE Focus on "Higher Education" in the National Higher Education System Internationalization as Diffusion of Innovation Focus on the "National" in the National Higher Education System

25 30 38

CHAPTER III: ROOTS AND GROWTH (1958-1964) The National Defense Higher Education Act of 1958, Tide VI Foreign Assistance Counterpoint Policy Effectiveness Issues Raised for the Next Period

59 59 70 73 75

CHAPTER IV: GREAT EXPECTATIONS AND RETRENCHMENT (1965-1970) The International Education Act of 1966 NDEA Tide VI Continuing Programs Foreign Assistance Counterpoint Policy Effectiveness Issues Raised for the Next Period vii

23

81 82 100 105 108 110

~

C~~b

CHAPTER V: CONSOLIDATION AND REFINEMENT (1971-1980)

119

Title VI through the Higher Education Amendments of1972,1976and1980

120

Legislative Goals through the Amendments of 1972, 1976 and 1980

123

Legislative Resource Debates from the Nixon-Ford through the Carter Years Foreign Assistance Counterpoint: FAA Amendments of 1975 Policy Effectiveness Epilogue: Subsequent Initiatives and Actions (1981-88)

135 143 146 152

CHAPTER VI: INTERNATIONALIZATION: POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRAM IMPACT Policy Effectiveness with the Internationalization Ideal Diffusion and Sustainability Impact of Federal Programs: Title VI and AID Spotlight on Title VI: Institutional Diversity and Diffusion Impact

161 161 173 183

CHAPTER VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of Findings Further Research and Methods Commentary Lessons for the Future

193 194 199 200

APPENDIX: DATA SOURCES AND INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION GUIDE

205

TABLE A.1 SUMMARY OF CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION OVER THREE PERIODS

207

TABLE A.2 PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS: CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE STUDY

209

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

INDEX

239

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Philip Altbach who made it possible to transform the underlying dissertation into this book. Special thanks goes to Catherine Hyde Townsend, my former student and current copy editor, whose quick intelligence and technical skills made the book project possible. Colleagues at the Yale Center for International and Area Studies deserve recognition for their technical support including Peg Limbacher and Bob McKernan. I am particularly grateful for support of the faculty directors of YCIAS with whom I have had the privilege to work and who showed me the true power of international higher education in daily practice: Gustav Ranis, Gaddis Smith and William Foltz. Finally, I would like to again recognize those that made the underlying dissertation possible including my faculty advisors at the University of Massachusetts, staff and students at Yale and the senior staff of the Department of Education and of the Agency for International Development. Without Dr. Ann 1. Schneider's resourcefulness especially, the Tide VI participation analysis would not have been possible. Of course, the author takes full responsibility for any errors or omissions.

ix

This page intentionally left blank

List of Figures

Figure 1.1

Page

Internationalization dynamics of the higher education system

11

Matrix of federallegislative acts related to key dimensions of the higher education system

24

Illustration of the knowledge model adapted to the United States

27

2.3

Higher education associations

47

3.1

Authorizations versus appropriations: NDEA Tide VI (1959-64)

67

Activities of the IEA: Advanced centers and undergraduate programs

89

2.1 2.2

4.1 4.2

Authorizations versus appropriations: NDEA Tide VI (1965-71)

109

Authorizations versus appropriations: NDEA Tide VI and IEA (1972-78)

147

Authorizations versus appropriations: NDEAIHEA Tide VI (1979-86)

153

Authorizations versus appropriations: NDEAIHEA Tide VI and IEA (1959-86)

165

6.2

NDEA Tide VI funding by major programs (1969-88)

167

6.3

Regionallocation of grantees in education and AID programs

175

6.4

Regions represented by program

175

6.5

Regional funds distribution

176

6.6

Study group ownership

177

6.7

Ownership of gran tees by program

177

6.8

Ownership of grantees by c1assification group

178

5.1 5.2 6.1

XI

xii

6.9

List of Figures

Funding by type of ownership

179

6.10 Proportion of system covered by study grantees by classification group

180

6.11 Institutional diversity-Comparison of study grantees by group and system groups

180

6.12 Distribution of federal funds by type of institution

181

6.13 Distribution of program funds beyond the research universities group

182

6.14 Institutional diversity of grantees in Tide VI Centers program

184

6.15 Funding per group in the Tide VI IS/Graduate program (1972-80)

186

6.16 Grantee diversity in Tide VI IS/Undergraduate and JE/Business programs

187

6.17 Funds by institutional group in Tide VI IS/Undergraduate and JE/Business programs

188

List of Abbreviations Higher Education and Non-governmental Agencies AAC

American Association of Colleges

AACJC

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, formerly American Association of Junior Colleges

AAS

Association of Asian Studies

AASCB

Association of American Schools and Colleges of Business

AASCU

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

AAASS

American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies

AAU

American Association of Universities

ACE

American Council for Education

APSIA

Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs

ASA

African Studies Association

EWA

Education and World Affairs

HBCU

Historically black colleges and universities

ITR

International Training and Research program of the Ford Foundation

IRDC

International Rural Development Conference (J uly 1964)

LASA

Latin American Studies Association

MESA

Middles Eastern Studies Association

NAICU

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universi ties

NAFSA

National Association of Foreign Student Advisors

NASULGC

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges

SSRC

Social Sciences Research Council Xttl

List of Abbreviations

xiv Federal Agency and Legislative Abbreviations 211(d)

Seetion 211(d) of the FAA, Tide II authorizing strengthening grants to institutions of higher education working in development assistance with AID

AID

Agency for International Development, foreign assistance arm of the State Department since 1961

BIFAD

Board for International Food and Agricultural Development of AID

CAFLIS

Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (President Carter's)

CEC

Center for Educational Cooperation, an office in HEW at the Secretary level

CRSP

Collaborative Research and Science Program of AID

ED

U.S. Department of Education (since 1980)

FAA

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

FIPSE

Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education

FY

Fiscal Year, the government budget year running from July 1 to June 30 until 1976 and from October 1 to September 30 after 1976, e.g. FY 1977 included October 1, 1977 to September 30, 1978. In FY 1976, an extra quarter was added to the fiscal year to allow for the adjustment.

HEA

Higher Education Act

HEW

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

OE

Office of Education within HEW. Prior to being absorbed into HEW, OE was an independent agency of government created in 1867 attached to various cabinet level agencies.

NDEA

National Defense Education Act of 1958

NIE

National Institute of Education

NSEP

National Security Education Program, also known as the Boren Program

NSF

National Science Foundation

List of Abbreviations

xv

Tide VI

Legislation that supported international, language and area studies within higher education under the NDEA and later the HEA

VSDA

V.S. Department of Agriculture

VSIA

V.S. Information Agency, agency of the State Department

This page intentionally left blank

BARELY THERE, POWERFULLY PRESENT

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER I

Introduction and Overview

(There is a) deeper adjustment, or lack thereof, that is ta king place throughout (the Vnited States) to a world marked by increasing complexity, .... Clearly the capacity of the V.S. higher educational community to recognize this change and adapt thereto may be as significant as the nation's response in other segments of its affairs. If the response to this challenge is not more profound and institutionally creative than responses to the past ... , we believe that the costs to the nation will be great. All involved l will pay heavily this time for missing the boat (emphasis added). International studies in American higher education are at least as much a product of twentieth century political development as of internal evolution in American education. They are a product, in higher education, of major societal changes, and as such they have anational history.2

Global interdependence. The end of the Cold War. Economic competitiveness. These were but a few of the catch phrases for a dizzying array of worldwide transformations manifest in the early '90s. The magnitude and pace of global change challenges higher education and other national sectors to internationalize, to understand their relationship with the rest of the world and to integrate this understanding into co re activities and values. The process of matching higher education's capacities to national needs for international expertise and citizen training is not new but the demands on it have been expanding and accelerating. How the national high er education system will rise to the internationalization challenges lies in its structural and innovative capacity and in the historical relationship between the federal government and the higher education system. 3 The single boat metaphor focuses on the sum of the institution al parts understating the strengths of the higher education system as a whole. A better image for the higher education system may be a fleet of boats under different ownership arrangements, staffed by fairly mobile captains and crews 1

2

Barely There, Pawerfully Present

working independendy yet related by common apprenticeships, tasks and experience. The fleet fishes the world for knowledge, preserves it in many forms and carries it to different research, teaching and policy audiences. Internationalization challenges institutions and faculty to innovate and restructure how they collaborate or compete to take advantage of and discover new knowledge or technology, to meet new demands and to secure new resources from near or far. Higher education's internationalization suggests imbuing the institutional and intellectual fabric with a sense of the world. Henson's definition was deceptively simple: "Internationalization is the incorporation of international content, materials, activities and understanding into the teaching, research, and public service function of universities in an increasingly interdependent world.,,4 University presidents see internationalization as a major thread of change inta the 21st century. McCaughey suggested internationalization has taken a permanent place in the pantheon of higher education revolutions. 5 While this literature is growing, it has largely focused either on the baats or the environment but not on the fleet. National associations have issued guidelines to ass ist colleges to internationalize. 6 A few studies have analyzed key institutional variables associated with internationalization. 7 There have also been national studies of specific international elements such as foreign students or business education. 8 The literature on environmental forces focused on large trends such as economic competitiveness. 9 Many touched on the role of the federal government without detailed analysis. These insights have been necessary but not sufficient. To the author's knowledge, as of 1992, there had not been a comprehensive analysis of the United States higher education system's internationalization and the role of external actors since Gumperz and McCaughey. They both focused on the period up to the '60s and on the major foundations. This study attempts such an analysis from 1958 to 1988 focused on the federal government. 10 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

Barely there but pawerfully present. That is the short answer to the basic question, "How has the history of the federal relationship with higher education affected the institutional capacity of the United States higher education system to sustain and expand its international capacity, to internationalize?" Two federal programs were identified for their explicit interest in and continuous support for higher education's international capacity between 1958 and 1988. The Tide VI programs, administered by successive federal education agencies under the National Defense Education and later Higher Education Acts, were treated in depth. Foreign assistance programs administered by the Agency for International Development were highlighted as a counterpoint. The much heralded but stillborn International Education Act

Introduction and Overview

3

was studied as a crucial backdrop and object lesson. In its attempt to combine foreign affairs and education policy streams into a single program, the IEA provided the example of a "path not taken" as the policy arena developed in the United States. The study marked key national choices made as the international higher education policy arena developed over thirty years. Federal resources, characterized as low but steady particularly from Tide VI, rarely matched policy goals or any significant portion of international program costs within higher education. Despite the chronic under-funding, these federal programs played a powerful role in sustaining higher education's international capacity. Over the thirty years, the case programs most direcdy and robusdy contributed to international capacity in research universities, less direcdy in other parts of the higher education system. Still the federal focus on feeding the research universities, as the main aquifer of knowledge creation and doctoral training, allowed the ca se programs to irrigate sites where international teaching could blossom and also support a steady supply of new faculty to seed the fields in other parts of the higher education system. In 1994, when the dissertation underlying this book was completed, the author concluded that internationalization depended on higher education itself not on the federal government. The system was most likely to obtain more federal resources by stretching existing policy channels rather than creating new ones. Barring massive concerted advocacy or a unique policy catalyst like the launching of Sputnik that led to the NDEA in 1958, no major increase in federal resources for international higher education was deemed likely. Since 1994, some of the conditions deemed unlikely have actually occurred along with others unforeseen. The higher education advocacy community has forged a highly effective coalition and a strong force during the reauthorization of the HEA in 1996. It is re-grouping again for the reauthorization in 2002. At some point in the 1990s and certainly in 2002, "globalization" has become the catchphrase for a faster and more complex set of challenges than the "global interdependence" and "economic competitiveness" cited by the international high er education advocates in the early 1990s when the research was underway. Unforeseen in 1994, the world wide web and e-mail have produced a major technological shift in education and research, especially relating to international and area studies. Finally, the tragic and catalytic events of September 11, 2001 are reshaping our world view and our policies on national and international security. How will the international higher education policy community in the United States respond? It is the author's sincere hope that this history of the first thirty years of federal policy will prove useful in shaping a robust and positive response for the future.

4

Barely There, Powerfully Present

To clarify the enduring nature of the subject and help situate the reader in the historie context of the study's period, an overview of some of the key developments in the international higher education policy arena in the United States and the related national and international forces may be of use. From the inception of the higher education system with the colonial colleges, extra-university groups, foundations, governments and individuals have provided resources and legitimacy to faculty and administrators attempting to strengthen their international capacities. The earliest experiments with the study of modern foreign languages and cultures (as opposed to Greek, Latin and Hebrew) were introduced into the curriculum by a single professor working from a library donated by a missionary or merchant returning from a life's work overseas. The beginning of the research university and the establishment of the national land-grant college system (1850 to 1920) occurred against a backdrop of increasing technological and trade competition with Europe as weil as substantial foreign investment in the country's westward expansion. Many of the new technicallyoriented faculty in the land-grant colleges embodied the academic and organizational approaches of the European training. From 1920 to 1950, enterprising faculty, foundations and scholarly societies Iike the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) collaborated to integrate small scholarly islands on campuses into a larger faculty archipelago of international and area studies research and curriculum. Higher education was also a key source of the accelerated language, engineering and scientific training and advances needed to prosecute World War 11. Afterwards, the GI Bill helped higher education absorb many soldiers just returned from overseas. The Marshall Plan and Point Four program supported academic trade flows with faculty working as consultants and institution builders overseas while commodity surplus revenues fed library collections. The experience of World War 11 and subsequent global prominence transformed the United States. From 1950 to 1970, Sputnik, the Vietnam War, African de-colonization and the Alliance for Progress provided the backdrop of a golden era for universities working in common cause on international capacity building with foundations and government. The federal government took an increasingly active role in higher education through research funding and student aid programs. Foundations provided major funding to expand higher education capacity in international and area studies, foreign languages and overseas development. In the early '60s with the Fulbright exchange program and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) and flourishing technical assistance programs, the federal government began to replace the private foundations as the principal funding agent for international education. The International Education Act (IEA) held extraordinary promise to sustain this dynamism. Higher education associations like the American Council of Education (ACE) and university

Introduction and Overview

5

leaders began to treat the federal government as an increasingly legitimate partner and they provided guidance and pressure. ll In the '70s, the promise of the IEA was dashed. Fiscal stress battered the campus while the country suffered recession and stagflation. Oil price shocks shivered through the economy induced by the OPEC cartel and the government-imposed retail price controls. The United States withdrew from Vietnam, opened relations with China, entered an era of detente with the Soviet Union and struggled with Iran's revolution and diplomats held hostage. The international higher education golden age was over. Yet, while the academy turned inward, students sought out the world. More United States citizens were traveling abroad than ever before, including students and faculty. While internationalist academic groups retrenched and consolidated, trying to preserve pockets of federal funding, there was momenturn building around undergraduate international studies curriculum and fragmented but energetic efforts on study abroad, foreign students and international program coordination. Reflecting on the '70s, Burn applauded these international strengths but lamented the lack of leadership to focus the growing but scattered campus resources. 12 The report issued by President Carter's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (CAFLIS) repeated the refrain, calling on higher education to rise and meet the needs for international competence. 13 In the '80s, the nation began to worry seriously about its ability to meet global economic competition or to fulfill the promises of the civil rights and social agendas of the '60s. Higher education found itself sharing the blame for the nation's inadequacies. The break-up of the USSR, the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe, the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tianamen Square, multi-party e1ections in Nicaragua, the emergence of the "four tiger" economic powerhouses in Asia, the break-up of apartheid in South Africa and widespread economic break down in other African nations provided the global backdrop. Not unlike the era of the land-grant movement a century earlier and the Sputnik era two decades earlier, the nation faced serious economic, technological, political and military challenges in a rapidly changing world and higher education was seen as a key player in the national response. States, businesses and citizens groups began to court foreign investors as potential employers in their own backyards. The numbers of students from overseas grew on U.S. campuses. Scholars and students found new intellectual opportunities and incredibly open access to the entire world including the former Soviet Union. Language requirements began to reappear on campus. The thrust was consolidation while infusing the curriculum with greater world awareness. 14 Internationalization guidelines were published and the disciplinary associations began to reconsider their comparative and international approaches. 15 In the '90s and beyond, internationalization of all sectors of society including higher education will continue to be important. New trade and

6

Barely There, Powerfully Present

military and political flash points are likely to rise as old ones seem contained. Unimaginable human tragedies and major world events will sweep across television screens in real time. Universities that have begun building international capacity will have growing reasons to pursue and even amplify the plans. Key higher education associations have commissioned studies to enable higher education, government and business to formulate policies for educating citizens for an interdependent world. 16 The federal government has continued international support by reauthorizing the higher education Tide VI programs leaving an unbroken funding line since 1959. Further, Congress authorized a major new law, the National Security Education Act of 1992, creating a trust fund to support students, faculty and institutions of higher education in international endeavors. In 2002, there was a mid-cycle funding increase authorized by Congress for Tide VI in response to Sept. 11,2001. Other initiatives for internationalizing higher education will not be uncommon into the 'OOs. Focus AND ApPROACH FOR THE RESEARCH This study takes a longitudinal approach to identify evidence of permanent structural changes in the higher education system's international capacity between 1958 and 1988. The analysis is anchored in specific cases of federal legislation and programs in which higher education institutions have participated regularly over the entire period. The study seeks to answer the question: How has the recent history of the federal relationship with higher education affected the institutional capa city of the United States higher education system to sustain and expand its international dimension, to internationalize? This will be addressed through two sets of sub-questions. The first set addresses the federal programs. How have federal program goals and incentives matched the needs and motivations of different parts of higher education systems? How have federal programs related to different groups of the 3000 plus institutions of higher education in the United States, ranging from research universities to community colleges? How have they related to the public and private sector? How have they related to higher education in different regions within the Uni ted States? The second set addresses the higher education system. What parts of the higher education system have participated in wh ich federal programs? What does their the pattern of participation in federal programs suggest about the historical diffusion of international capacity across the higher education system? What does the participation pattern suggest about federal programs' effects on the sustainability of internationalization for different groups of universities and colleges? What do the lessons from both sets of questions suggest for the federal role in the next phase of internationalization of United States higher education? In terms of its significance and limits, the research is intended to contribute to understanding international higher education and its broad

Introduction and Overview

7

strategie and politieal eontext. The historie analysis of this federal poliey arena may help edueators and other poliey makers to shape the next phase of national higher edueation legislation to respond to the pressures of the era of globalization and the reverberations of the events on September 11, 2001. Pragmatieally, understanding the systemie faetors may help aeademie administrators and faeulty to take advantage of the intelleetual and finaneial resourees available. The study may eontribute insight, questions or data of use to other researehers who taekle international edueation or innovation diffusion in high er edueation systems. It may be of use to historians or to publie poliey researehers interested in higher edueation or foreign affairs in the United States. The Appendix is a small but unique data resouree for further research on Tide VI and AID university grantees. 17 Legislative history relies on doeumented sources lending transpareney and ease of verifieation, rather than individual interviews. The foeus on legislative and system processes highlights eomparisons aeross groups of institutions but does not detail federal effeets on speeifie parts of the higher edueation system. Insights into the larger poliey maehinery may show ways that institutions ean influenee the poliey arena or work more effeetively within it. Mueh the way an arehaeologist studies the dynamies of soeieties from the study of pottery shards and royal pronouneements, so too the author attempted to understand the dynamies of internationalization by analyzing key patterns of external funding to universities and of federal legislation. The working hypothesis of this study is that the more federal programs have been eongruent with the internationalization goals of the higher edueation system, the more effeetively they will have sustained and diffused international capacity within and aeross the system. Two refining questions will guide the exploration of this working hypothesis: 1) How effective have the federal case programs been in achieving their legislative aims related to international education? This provides a framework for analyzing the effeetiveness of poliey based on the legislation, for traeing the development of the international higher edueation poliey arena and their impact on internationalization. 2) What da higher education participation patterns in the federal case programs reveal about the effectiveness of these programs and their impact on the structure and capa city of the international dimension of the high er education system? This explores the programs' impact on diffusing international capacity aeross the system. The major period for analysis of the ease programs is from 1958 to 1980. Events through 1988 are explored beeause of implementation lag faetors. The ease programs were drawn from the edueation and foreign affairs streams of federal poliey: 1) language, area and international studies programs administered by the Department of Edueation under Title VI of the NDEA of 1958 and the subsequent Higher Edueation Aets and 2) development assistanee programs administered by AID under the FAA of

8

Barely There, Powerfully Present

1961 and its amendments, particularly Tide XII in 1975. The International Education Act had a significant impact in defining the policy arena especially the point of balance between foreign affairs and domestic education interests. The IEA is included with the legislative ca se studies but not in the structural impact analysis. The Tide VI and AID programs received full analysis for many reasons. They had explicit interests in the institutionalization of international capacity and both functioned continuously from after World War 11 to 1988. They represented different parts of the federal policy arena. They had a dominant piece of legislation that structured their implementation. Nontrivially, they left adequate documentary and numeric evidence for their study. Both Henson's and Afonso's empirical work supported the choice of Tide VI for full study. Because AID programs only partially met the criteria, they were analyzed only as a counterpoint to Tide VI. Afonso factored out the AID variable for lack of statistical significance in her internationalization index, but Henson found AID imrortant to internationalization, especially in its earlier stages on campus. 1 The "big four" in the literature have been Tide VI, AID, Fulbright-Hays and the Ford Foundation's ITR. The last two were dismissed. Ford's ITR was substantial but was neither federal nor active through the period. FulbrightHays has had substantial influence but not direct institutional interest. Beyond the "big four," according to Wiprud there were over 300 federal programs related to international higher education that were limited m . 19 scope an d duratIOn. Policy Congruence with the Internationalization Ideal This section describes a framework for analyzing the congruence of federal policy with higher education using a heuristic device of an internationalization ideal. The organizing questions draw on Sabatier's approach to analyzing policy change that calls for reviewing legislative goals as weil as policy implementation. This encourages consideration of the range of interactions with the federal programs rather than a one-way influence of federal programs on higher education. Comparing Tide VI and AID programs allows the author to highlight differences in goals, implementation and political interests, to identify points that might not surface from a single program and to reveal more completely the intentions and effects of federal policies. 2o McCaughey wryly observed that internationalization admits to almost infinite regression. 21 This is useful for advocates but problematic for researchers. The finite task of this study is to determine how the goals have shifted and how the policy arena has attempted to craft federal programs to support or stymie them. As a proxy for the higher education goals, the elements of the internationalization ideal are compared with the federal case programs as they developed in three periods during the thirty years of the study.

Introduction and Overview

9

The Sabatier framework for understanding policy change, supplemented by insights from Gladieux and Wolanin, provide the empirical framework for the case study analysis. Based on the empirical results of the twenty-four different applications of variants of the top-down policy implementation case analysis in higher education in the United States and Europe, Sabatier found six conditions associated with effective policy imp)ementation: consistent objectives, adequate causal theory, adequate legal structuring of implementation, skilled and supportive implementing officials, support of interest groups and sovereigns, and a relatively stable socio-economic environment. He suggested that a focus on legally mandated objectives helped "produce a less pessimistic evaluation of governmental effectiveness" saying that: ... the foeus on legaHy man da ted objeetives eneouraged seholars to earefuHy distinguish the objeetives eontained in legal documents from both the politieal rhetorie surrounding poliey formulation and the tendeney of erities to evaluate a profram on the basis of what they mistakenly pereeived 2 to be its objeetives.

This approach was appealing because of its emphasis on case programs to iIIustrate aspects of policy implementation, learning and change over time. The structured case study allowed for historical and qualitative analysis suited to the complex subject of internationalization. As a heuristic construct, the internationalization ideal relies on colligation, a technique that helps link historical developments with current concepts or terms where an analyst focuses on "dominant concepts" to group events and establish their order and connections. Hodysh recommended taking care when introducing a current "term to account for the data of an earlier historical time" but recognized that ~roblems could be offset by consistent treatment of data and hypotheses. 3 With internationalization, the historical period selected is relatively recent reducing the problem of importing a current term into a different spatio-temporal setting. Since consistency of usage and definition of the colligatory focal concept is important, two conceptual terms that constitute internationalization warrant mention. International education focuses on the disciplinary or academic element and international dimension focuses on the institutional or enterprise element. Internationalization focused on the dynamic transformation of higher education, its institutions and the entire system, both its discipli. eIements. 24 nary an d enterpnse An internationalization ideal, specified in figure 1.1., is adapted from Henson who developed an index score for the degree of university internationalization. His matrix provided a tool for measuring the movement of institutions along the internationalization path. It ignored the system linking variables, the communication processes and networks important to system-wide change processes. Thus, a system-linking variable was added using membership and leadership roles in both disciplinary and institu-

10

Barely There, Powerfully Present

tional higher education associations as indicators of the network functions of higher education. The system linking variables appear in the illustration with international units reinforcing the national associations as vertical system links and, as horizontal links, institutional coalitions taking advantage of external resources or economies of scale. Of the five elements in figure 1.1, Henson and Afonso found the leadership and management element to be the most important. Henson found faculty promotion, tenure and merit policies for faculty with overseas interests to be particularly important. While organizational structure was least important, he found that a single facilitative international program located near the central administration was the strongest form. Multiple program units also were effective when combined with strong leadership. The resources element included human resources, incentive structures and fun ding. The research made clear that the heaviest lifting of internationalization falls to fore es and actors within high er education. Ir also revealed a serious role for external agents to provide outside moral support and pressure for interna I advocates by adding funding or leveraging and nurturing and legitimizing a internal resources for new pro~rams pro-internationalization culture. 5 The case programs and the overall development of the international higher education policy arena are analyzed in two parts drawing from Sabatier. The underlying question is what attributes of the internationalization ideal were addressed. The first part of each period's case analysis addresses the broad trends in the policy arena using guide questions for the legislative history. What were the elements of continuity with and digression from existing legislation? How did the goals halance high er education's core values of autonomy, equity and excellence? Did a particular catalyst or socio-economic or technological shift or change in governing coalition drive the program? How did higher education advocacy me mbership and strategies change and how did they judge program effects on internationalization? The second part focuses on the policy implementation process, the five factors conditioning policy effectiveness to analyze how external agency affected the institutionalization of innovation specified in the internationalization ideal. On clarity and consistency of objectives, there were two key items. The wider the gap between rhetoric and resources, the less effective the program. How stable and consistent the legislative objectives have been over time matters, though some amhiguity lends political and operational flexibility useful for implementation. On the adequacy of causal theory, Sabatier and Mazmanian found that success was more likely when authority was vested in a sole agency rather than spread across many. To understand how the program enabled diffusion of the innovation across the higher education system, evidence of targeting international education program elements would be good so long as the resources were sufficient. Constancy in goals and resources rather than

Figure 1.1 Internationalization dynamics of the higher education system 26

Lower degree of intemationalization

Higher degree of intemationalization

I) Leadership and Management • •

Leadership support nascent to sorne degree Resources do not match rbetoric, sporadic support to obtain external funding • Little infonnation for planning • Oisincentives in faculty policies for overseas work • Few or weak links with national associations' international offices 2) Organization Office of foreign students plus pressure ftom some other program units pro-international • Weak links among interested parties • Little support in organizational culture • Institutional member ofNAFSA, other international associations Iimited to individual memberships on campus •

• •

Leadership strong at a11 levels. Resources match rhetoric, serious long-tenn commitment to international elements • International as regular part of planning • Neutral to supportive faculty policies for overseas work • Strong or multiple links with national associations' international offices

• • • •

Multiple linked offices or strong central office Interested parties Iinked across campus Supportive organizational culture Institutional member of NAFSA and other internationally focused consortia, associations and groups

•

Variety of international degrees offered: BA to Ph.O. Many foreign languages offered and/or required; enrollments rising Regular movement ofU.S. and overseas students including graduate research Regular movement of faculty ftom and to overseas for teaching and research Multi-disciplinary research/teaching in area & global themes & languages Oevelopment cooperation Iinked to other academic program activities Public service clientele neutral to interested in international services

3) ProgramActivities • • • • • •

Some international and area courses in social scienceslhumanities; minors maybe Some foreign languages offered but not required; most common ones Growing number of overseas students but few U.S. students involved in study abroad Occasional faculty travel overseas but inftequent visiting scholars ftom overseas Some development cooperation but not linked to other campus activity Public service clientele hostile or disinterested to international programming

• • • • • •

4) Resources • •

Administrators supportive, Iittle flexibility Faculty with international capacity limited, few with interest in international teaching/research • Funds limited for international activity • Few external grants beyond development cooperation • Library with few international books or journals; virtually all English materials 5) External Environment • •

Little demand ftom stakeholders and clients Weak links between pro-international elements on and off campus • National institutional association tepid or newly aware of internationalization

• •

Administrators active, articulate, flexible Faculty core internationally competent, many interested • Pro-international incentive funds available through internal competitions • Frequent external funds ftom many sources • Library collection with regional/theme focus and non-English materials •

Strong demand by stakeholders and key c1ients for international programs • Strong links between pro-international elements off and on campus • National institutional association active prointernationalization

12

Barely There, Powerfully Present

simple levels of resources would be important. To be sure that implementation was legally structured to enhance compliance by implementing officials and target groups, "veto points, sanctions and incentives must be available to overcome resistance and to assign programs to supportive agencies with adequate resources. Commitment and skill of implementing officials was identified as the single most consistently critical condition for success with an implementing agency that viewed the program as a feather in its cap, had a track record with similar programs, and generated little congressional oversight. Sabatier and Mazmanian emphasized the importance of consistent support of interest groups and sovereigns for the issue addressed by the legislation. They identified the key role of the angel or "an important legislator or executive official who controls resources." They groups in maintaining suphighlighted the multiple roles of constituenc~ port of its legislative and judicial sovereigns. 7 Analyzing Sustainability and Diffusion Effects The second major question is: wh at do higher education participation patterns in the federal ca se programs reveal about the effectiveness of these programs and their impact on the structure and capacity of the international dimension of the higher education system? To answer, participation and funding patterns of higher education institut ions in the ca se programs are analyzed over time. These trends help cross-check the results of the policy effectiveness analysis. Evidence of structural change and sustainability is derived from changes in institutional concentration or its absence. Evidence of diffusion effects and values balance is seen through institutional diversity, ownership balance and regional distribution of participating institut ions and their funding levels. This pattern analysis over the twenty-year period is like tracking the tip of an iceberg to understand the movement of the crucial mass below the surface. Ir indicates the path and depth of internationalization's diffusion, the structural potential of the system to internationalize further, and potential policy and program adjustments. One of the simplest indicators of a contribution to system diffusion is the extent of the program's coverage across groups and types of institutions. To approximate the case programs' contribution to sustaining the system's international capacity, the institutional participation da ta are disaggregated to reveal the trends in resource levels and the duration and frequency of participation by groups of institutions over time. This illustrates how much of the higher education system is supported, ignored or denied by the federal programs. The groupings are based on the classifications of higher education institutions created by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to analyze structural changes. 28 Four assumptions underpin this structural approach to understanding diffusion and sustainability of internationalization as a complex innovation

lntroduction and Overview

13

across the higher education system. First, the case analysis reveals how the programs intended to support internationalization. Second, the more categories of institutions partieipating in the program, the more serious its influence on diffusion across the higher education system. Third, the more stable the participation of a group of institutions, the greater the program's influence on sustaining international capacities in that group. A corollary is that frequency of participation is a better indicator of institutionalization than level of funding. Fourth, the more research and doctoral universities are present, the greater the programs' impact on diffusion. The last assumption may be controversial but it draws from both the traegerin and the emulation effects that are important to innovation transmission in higher education. 29 METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND DATA SOURCES

The basic approach is historical for many reasons. Internationalization is not new and federal programs are renewed every five years. Bemoaning the lack of longitudinal studies, Thelin saw the need to, "nudge higher education researchers toward increased interest in the structural and organizational behavior of academic institutions over longer periods of time. ,,30 Seeing a policy role for history, Hansot and Tyack reminded us that history can be useful for meta-analysis, asking "not what shall we do (or did we do) about X problem, but why is X considered to be a problem at certain recurring times?" This does not mean "investigating precedents for the latest fad" but if some idea has been tried before, "it may be weil to see why it was introduced, how weil it worked (under different conditions to be sure), and why it ... disappeared from sight ... ". Historieal insights are quite useful when fundamental choices must be made, highlighting inaccuracies of "the incrementalism of past reform and the overblown salesmanship of fad-mongers. ,,31 Since international higher education has not been immune to hyperbole and fads, separating the rhetorieal chaff from the political wheat is one of the aspirations of this study.32 Thus, the author chose an historic approach to identify key poliey choiees that have shaped and constrained the federal role in higher education's internationalization. A longitudinal approach was chosen to reveal the enduring structural changes in the higher education system from its participation in key federal programs since 1958. Historic periods help mark the recurring and new questions of federal policy's relation to higher education. The author's research suggested three major periods, covered in chapter 3 (1958 to 1964), chapter 4 (1965 to 1970) and chapter 5 (1971 to 1980). In each, a legislative case analysis shows the evolution of the international higher education policy arena and the effectiveness of specific programs and policies related to internationalization.

14

Barely There, Powerfully Present

The methods of legislative history and content analysis were the primary tools for the case studies of policy effectiveness on Title VI and AID programs in chapters 3, 4 and 5. Such methods are applied early because they help identify trends in the qualitative data. 33 Broad outlines drawn from Congressional Quarterly Almanac reports were expanded and validated with the scholarly literat ure and by reviewing the laws themselves, their legislative precedents, committee reports, hearings and testimony to legislators from executive branch officials and educational representatives. Numeric data on the authorization and appropriations trends ca me from laws, reviews of legislation provided by the Congressional Information Service and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). The CFDA began Rublication in 1969 so earlier data were drawn from the other sources. 4 Chapter 6 provides three cross-cutting views to summarize the overall lessons of the case analysis and the evidence of the programs' impact on internationalization. The first looks ac ross the entire period 1958-1980 drawing lessons in narrative form about the programs' congruence with the internationalization ideal. The second looks ac ross both programs from 1969 to 1988 with narrative and graphic analysis of the programs' structural impact using measures of aggregate institutional participation and funding patterns of higher education grantees that represented roughly 14% of all institutions nationwide. This period was based partlyon data availability and partlyon the lag inherent between legislation and policy implementation. The third looks in-depth at Tide VI impact on institutional diffusion beycmd the research universities over the same period 1969 to 1988 using narrative and graphic analysis. In the second and third parts with the structural impact analysis, the author applied basic descriptive trend analysis of program funding and duration of awards to participating groups of higher education institutions. Two proxies were used to reveal the effects of the case programs on sustaining and diffusing international capacity. First, frequency and continuity and total program funding allocated to the participant served as a proxies for effects on sustaining international capacity. Second, total level of funding and numbers of participants by groups served as proxies for diffusion effects and concentration of international capacity over time. The institutional categories used for the analysis in chapter 6 were adapted from the Carnegie Classification of 1976 as the study's midpoint (Appendix A.1). The database of participating institutions (Appendix A.2) shows both ca se programs, institutional type, regional location within the United States and ownership type. 35 Ownership and region were straightforward. Overall, the institutions in the six main categories were non-profit and secular. Out of 506 individual institut ions in the numerator, only two were religious-based colleges, both appearing very early in Tide VI, and so the study denominator (N=2803) is only secular. Category 7 was added to

Introduction and Overview

15

reflect the study's special population of consortia. Category 8 included grantees outside Carnegie's definitions and they were generally excluded. Data on annual funding by grantee for each of the Tide VI programs was derived from ED reports from 1968 to 1988. The 1958 to 1969 da ta were only available as a ten-year summary by grantee for the Centers and Fellowship programs so the structural analysis focused on 1968 to 1988 with its complete annual data. The reported data was aggregated into spreadsheets for the trend analysis in chapter 6. 36 Comparable annual funding data for AID programs for 1968 to 1988 came from contract summaries (W-442 Reports) including both host country work implemented primarily overseas and direct or AIDlWashington work focused on multinational or regional needs and implemented either overseas or on-campus. 37 The data were reported as multi-year and cumulative totals. The author averaged these by months of service in the contract or grant with AID to create annual totals by institution comparable to the Tide VI data. Such smoothing seemed acceptable given the simple demands of comparative trend analysis. The author was not able to segregate the institutional strengthening grants linked to 211(d) or Tide XII so the AID analysis is aggregated for all categories of technical assistance, research and training from higher education. AID re ports were not available for January 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976, the period when the federal government changed from a July-June to an October-September fiscal year. This gap was not deemed critical since each grant was reported on a multi-year and cumulative basis. In summary, the book attempts to answer the question, How has the recent history of the federal relationship with higher education affected the institutional capa city of the V.S. higher education system to sustain and expand its international dimension, to internationalize? Chapter 2 focuses the lens of the scholarly literature on understanding the basic approaches for the study. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 present the fulliegisiative case study and policy effectiveness analysis for Tide VI with a comparative counterpoint from the AID case and the partial ca se of the IEA in three periods: 1) Roots and growth, 1958 to 1964,2) Great expectations and retrenchment, 1965 to 1970, and 3) Consolidation and refinement, 1971 to 1980. Together, they present the evolution of the federal international higher education policy arena. Trends of legislative authorizations compared to appropriations provide a bottom line measure of effectiveness in each per iod. The dyn amics of the legislators with the higher education actors and the federal implementing officials receives particular attention. Chapter 6 reviews the congruence with and effectiveness of the two federal programs vis-a-vis the internationalization ideal of the higher education system. The chapter then presents the quantitative evidence of the two case programs' impact on sustaining and diffusing international capacity across the higher education system. Patterns are highlighted for the private and public sectors, for dif-

16

Barely There, Powerfully Present

ferent geographie locations and for all types of institutions in the system from research universities to two-year colleges. Chapter 7 summarizes the findings and conclusions. It reviews the full set of research questions, suggests further research directions, and highlights the implications of the findings for the future federal role in helping the higher education system to internationalize.

NOTES 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Missing the boat: The Failure to Internationalize American Higher Education (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991),9-10. Eileen McDonald Gumperz, Internationalizing American Higher Education: Innovation and Structural Change (Berkeley, California: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 1970), 1. Nancy L. Ruther, "The Role of Federal Programs in Internationalizing the U.S. Higher Education System from 1958-1988" (Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, 1994), abstract in Pro Quest Information and Learning no. 434528. The book was drawn from this research and edited to fit publisher guidelines. The research was conducted in 1991, 1992 with analysis and writing in 1993 and defense of the thesis in February 1994. References were complete as of late 1993 but were not updated for this book per the series guidelines. James B. Henson et. al., Internationalizing U.S. Universities: A Preliminary Summary of aNational Study (Pullman, Washington: International Program Development Office, Washington State University, 1990),3. Karen Grassmuck, "Toward the 21st Century: So me Research Universities Contemplate Sweeping Changes, Ranging from Management and Tenure to Teaching Methods," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 Sept. 1990, Sec. Al, A29-A31. See also Richard l. Miller, Major American Higher Education Issues and Challenges in the 1990s (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1990). Robert McCaughey, The Permanent Revolution: An Assessment of International Studies in American Universities, Report to the Ford Foundation (New York, 1979). American Council for Education (ACE), National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) among others. Earl Backman, ed., Approaches to International Education, (New York: American Council on EducationiMacMillan, 1984), xv. Maurice Harari, Internationalizing the Curriculum and the Campus: Guidelines for AASCU Institutions (Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1981). James B. Henson, ed., Internationalizing U.S. Universities: A Time for Leadership, conference in Spokane, Washington 5-7 June 1990 (Pullman, Washington: International Program Office of Washington State University, 1990). Henson covered a great range of institutions in his study. For a study of the research universities, see Janet D. Afonso, The International Dimension of American Higher Education (Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 1990), abstract in ProQuest Information and Learning no. 9108411.

Introduction and Overview

17

Richard D. Lambert, "International Studies: An Overview and Agenda," The Annals o{ Social and Political Science, 449 (1980). Lee Nehrt, Case Studies o{ Internationalization o{ the Business School Curriculum (St. Louis, Missouri: American Assembly of Collegia te Schools of Business, 1981). John Thanapolous, ed., International Business Curricula: AGIobai Survey (Cleveland Ohio: Academy of International Business, 1986). Alexander Rabinowitch, "Internationalizing Language and Area Studies: The Case of Indiana University," National Forum: The Phi Kappa Phi Journal 68, no. 4 (1988): 21-23. Richard W. Ryan, "The Internationalization of Domestic Policy Issues: Will Public Affairs/Administration Education Respond?" International Journal o{ Public Administration 13, nos. 1-2 (1990): 127-155. Ralph Smuckler and Lawrence Sommers, "Internationalizing the Curriculum: Higher Education Institutions in the U.S." National Forum: The Phi Kappa Phi Journal 68, no. 4 (1988): 5-10. Lewis C. Solmon and Betty J. Young, The Foreign Student Factor: Impact on American Higher Education (New York: Institute for International Education, 1987). 9 Sir Christopher Ball and Heather Eggins, eds., Higher Education in the 1990s: New Dimensions (The Society for Research in Higher Education. Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press, 1989). Goodwin and Nacht, Missing the Boat. Burkhart Holzner, "Economic Competitiveness and International Education," National Forum: The Phi Kappa Phi Journal 68, no. 4 (1988): 11-13. Richard D. Lambert, Points o{ Leverage: An Agenda {or a National Foundation {or International Studies (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1986). Richard I. Miller, Major American Higher Education Issues and Challenges in the 1990s (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1990). William C. Olson and L1ewellyn D. Howell, International Education: The Vn{inished Agenda (Indianapolis, Indiana: White River Press, 1982). Sven Groennings, "The Global Economy and Higher Education," Atlantic Community Quarterly 25 (1987-1988): 469-478. 10 Gumperz, Internationalizing American Higher Education. Robert McCaughey, International Studies and the Academic Enterprise (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984). 11 McCaughey, International Studies? Homer D. Babbidge, Jr. and Robert M. Rosenzweig, The Federal Interest in Higher Education (New York: McGrawHilI, 1962). James A. Perkins, International Programs o{ V.S. Colleges and Vniversities: Priorities {or the Seventies (New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1971). See also Lawrence E. Gladieux and Thomas R. Wolanin, Congress and the Colleges: The National Politics o{ Higher Education (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1976). Gumperz, Internationalizing American Higher Education, described the three early phases in detail on pages 7-76. 12 Barbara Burn, Expanding the International Dimension o{ International Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980). 13 President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, Strength Through Wisdom, a Critique o{ V.S. Capability: AReport to the President {rom the Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies (Washington, 8

18

Barely There, Powerfully Present

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979). See also the background papers and studies. 14 Many university presidents have called for such an infusion strategy: Mark Eyerly, "Rhodes: Cornell Should be the World's Land-Grant University," Co rn eil '90 (lthaca, New York: Cornell Alumni Office, Summer 1990). CharIes J. Ping, Ohio University in Perspective, annual convocation address 4 Nov. 1982 (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1982). Derek Bok, Harvard University Commencement Address of June 11, 1987 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Office of the President of Harvard University, 1987). Also, see Larry J. Rosenberg, The Whole is Greater than the Sum of the Parts: A Study of International Involvement at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, report prepared for Richard D. O'Brien, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (Amherst, Massachusetts, July 1987). 15 See Harari, Internationalizing the Curriculum and the Campus, for AASCU. American Council for Education and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges also produced such guides. Sven Groennings and David S. Wiley, eds., Group Portrait: Internationalizing the Disciplines (New York: The American Forum, 1990). Also see Richard J. Samuels and Myron Weiner, eds., The Political Culture of Foreign and Area Studies: Essays in Honor of Lucien Pye (Washington, D.C.: Brassey's, 1992). 16 CharIes o. Ping, "Strategies and Leadership Options for Effective Internationalization," Report of the Task Force on Guidelines for International Activities on University Campuses, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Nov. 1988. Backman, Approaches to International Education. For other university presidents see Derek Bok, Harvard University Commencement Address and Mark Eyerly, "Rhodes: Cornell Should be the World's Land-Grant University." Gail S. Chambers and William K. Cummings, Profiting from Education: Japan-US International Ventures in the 1980s, Report no. 20 (New York: Institute for International Educatioll, 1990). Alice Chandler, Obligation or Opportunity: Foreign Student Policy in Six Major Receiving COltntries, Report no. 18 (New York: Institute for International Education Research, 1989). Profiting from Education: Japan-US International Ventures in the 1980s, HE Research Report #20 (New York: Institute for International Education, 1990). Alice Chandler, Obligation or Opportunity: Foreign Student Policy in Six Major Receiving Countries, HE Research Report #18 (New York: Institute for International Education, 1989). Also, Solmon and Young, The Foreign Student Factor. Henson et. al., Internationalizing U.S. Universities. 17 The data is available to other researchers upon request and the author is discussing archiving it with the Yale University Social Sciences Library and Information System for more general access. 18 Henson et. al., Internationalizing U.S. Universities. Afonso, International Dimension. 19 Helen R. Wiprud, International Programs of the U.S. Government: An Inventory (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980). See also an earlier listing of international education programs in International Education Resources: A Summary of Research Projects and Reports Funded by the Department of Education, ERIC doc. no. 80-14010, National Institute of Education and the

Introduction and Overview

19

Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, cum. 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, 1956-1977). 20 Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Soureebook of New Methods (Beverly HiIIs, California: Sage Publications, 1984). For the value of comparisons across cases, see 151-152. 21 McCaughey International Studies, 211 22 Paul A. Sabatier, "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Publie Poliey 6, no. 1 (1986): 28. 23 Henry W. Hodysh, "Objectivity and History in the Study of Higher Education: A Note on the Methodology of Research," The Canadian Journal of Higher EdueationlLa revue eanadienne d'enseignement superieur 26, no. 1 (1987): 83-93. 24 For further development of these terms in order of their appearance, see R.F. Butts, Ameriea's Role in International Edueation: A Perspeetive of Thirty Years (Chicago, IIIinois: National Society for the Study of Education, 1969), 12-13. Wesley W. Posvar, Edueation and World View (New Rochelle, New York: Change Magazine Press, 1980), 49 and Henson, er. al., Internationalizing U.S. Universities. 25 Henson et. al., Internationalizing U.S. Universities. Afonso, International Dimension. 26 Henson et. al., Internationalizing U.S. Universities. Afonso, International Dimension. See Ruther, Role of Federal Programs, for detailed summary of rhe research underlying this matrix. 27 Sabatier, "Top-Down and Bottom-Up," 23-24,27-28, 30. Paul A. Sabatier and Daniel A. Mazmanian, eds., Effective Poliey Implementation (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, 1981), 11, 14, 16-18. Wilbur J. Cohen, "Higher Education and the Federal Government" in Higher Edueation: From Autonomy to Systems, eds. James A. Perkins and Barbara Baird Israel (New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1972). 28 The Carnegie Classification is the most consistent of the c1assification schemes over the entire study period. The Carnegie series was chosen since it had more categories providing greater explanatory power than the parallel scheme of the National Center for Educational Statistics. Appendix A summarizes the c1assification guide used for the participating institutions in the case programs. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, A Classifieation of Institutions of Higher Edueation (Berkeley, California: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1973). The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, A Classifieation of Institutions of Higher Edueation, rev. ed. (Berkeley, California: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1976). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classifieation of Institutions of Higher Edueation (Lawrenceville, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987). These three c1assification guides in 1973,1976 and 1987 will be referred to jointly as the Carnegie Classification. 29 T.N. Clark, "Institutionalization of Innovations in Higher Education: Four Models." Administrative Scienee Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1968). Reprinted in

20

Barely There, Powerfully Present

Academic Governance: Research on Institutional Politics and Decision Making, comp. and ed. Victor J. Baldridge (Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Co, 1971). David A. Garvin, The Economics of University Behavior (New York: Academic Press, 1980). Garvin's barrier to entry argument suggests that harder entry into federal programs emphasizes excellence, triggering both emulation and frustration. Easier entry emphasizes equity but reduces the emulation effect and potentially lowers the sustainability of the innovation. This is discussed in depth in chapter 2. 30 John Thelin, Higher Education and Its Useful Past (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1982), 169. 31 Elisabeth Hansot and David Tyack, "A Usable Past: Using History in Educational Policy," in Policy Making in Education, 81st Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Higher Education, eds., A. Lieberman and M.W. McLaughlin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 1,16,19-21. 32Hansot and Tyack, "A Usable Past," 1-22. See also Gwendolyn B. Folsom, Legislative His tory: Research for the Interpretation of Laws (Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press, 1972) on the uses of legislative history. 33 Folsom, Legislative History. Robert Philip, Basic Content Analysis, 2d ed. (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1990). Stafford Hood, "Legislative Intent, Program Implementation, and Higher Education Policy: The Ca se of Tide III of the 1965 Higher Education Act"( Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at UrbanaChampagne, 1984), abstract in Pro Quest Information and Learning, no. 8422081, 3-6, 8-13, 21-24. Tsige Zegenu, "Public Policy Implementation: Federal and Organizational Influence on Local Programs" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1989), abstract in ProQuest Information and Learning, no. 9000888, 33. Also see Milcs and Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis. 34 Catalog or Federal Domestic Assistance (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Annual publication 1969-1986. Gladieux and Wolanin, Priorities for the Seventies, indicated that appropriations versus funding was key to understanding the balance achieved between executive and legislative branches. 35 Appendix A.1 summarizes the Carnegie categories with group totals and percentages as weil as system totals over the three publications. Appendix A.2 presents the entire database of the study participants with complete detail on the author's categorization choices. The author reviewed the institutional migratory patterns of the grantees over time and concluded the shifts between categories were too small to warrant special adjustments to the analysis. 36 Ruther, Role of Federal Programs. Appendix B lists all of the source reports which were made available from the files of USDE by courtesy of Ann I. Schneider and Susana Easton of the Center for International Education. Each of the twenty-nine reports is listed in the Bibliography under either the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare or the U.S. Department of Education along with its specific program tide. 37 Agency for International Development, Department of State, Report No. W-442. AID-Financed University Contracts (Washington, D.C.: Contract Services Division, reports dated from 31 March 1968 through 30 Sept. 1988). The seven reports are fully cited in the bibliography. Frank Campbell, A.I.D.lU.S.

Introduction and Overview

21

University Contracts Providing Technical Assistance to Host Country Governments and Institutions, database prepared for Erven Long and Frank Campbell, Re{lections on the Role of A.I.D. and the U.S. Universities in International Agricultural Development, U.S. Agency for International Development (Rockland, Maryland: Statistica, 1989). Brian Jordahl and Vernon Ruttan, "Universities and AID: A History of Their Partnership in Technical Assistance for Developing Countries, Paper no. P91-32 (St. Paul, Minnesota: Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 1991). Conversations with the authors were very helpful in understanding the AID data. Mr. Campbell most generously made available the host county database electronically. W-442's from AID files were made available courtesy of Mr. Gary Bittner of AID's Center for University Cooperation who also facilitated access to other AID university data.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER II

International Higher Education through the Lens of the Literature

Mueh of the seholarly literature on the internationalization of higher edueation has foeused on speeifie edueational fields and the organizational eapaeities of institutions. Mueh of the advoeaey literature has asserted but not tested the importanee of federal funding to sustain the international capacity of higher edueation. 1 This ehapter reviews the seholarly literature as a set of lenses to help foeus on the key approach es to understanding internationalization as a system-wide innovation and how interactions with the federal government have supported, sustained and diffused this innovation aeross the higher edueation system over time. The ehapter begins by summarizing the study's foeus with an explanation of the eontents and uses of figure 2.1, Matrix of federallegislative aets related to key dimensions of the higher edueation system. It then dips back into the seholarly literature, using three lenses from the literature to c1arify approaehes and assumptions underlying the study This study will foeus primarily on the eategorieal programs where federal poliey treats higher edueation as instrumental to achieving national poliey goals and where, on the higher edueation side, the enterprise dimension is the primary loeus of involvement. The matrix deseribes the federal poliey arena for international higher edueation with three vertieal and horizontal dimensions. The vertieal side shows how federal programs view higher edueation in different roles for aehieving poliey goals. The main federal foeus has been on higher edueation as a means to aehieving national goals. Eaeh of three types of federal programs in the instrumental row (row two) relates primarily to different faeets of the higher edueation system. In the left eell of row two, federal programs like those of the National Seienee Foundation rely primarily on the diseiplinary dimension to produce research to meet national needs, generally through national grant eompetitions or competitive eontraets. In the right eell of row two, federal pro-

23

24

Barely There, Powerfully Present Figure 2.1 Matrix offederallegislative acts rc\ated to kcy dimensions ofthe highcr education system DlSCIPLINE AND/OR PROFESSIONAL HELD

H1GHER EDUCATION FACET FEDERAL FOCUS

H1GHER EDUCATION NETWORKS

ENTERPRISE (Individual or mullicampus insLiluliolls of HE or institutional assm:iations 01' Higher Fducation)

(Client~,

and assodales SUl"h a.s

(lndividuals, groups or

slLldt:nls. parenL'I, alurnni/ae

academiclproL assns)

assm;iations)

jI-aclllUes support (including. language l