Strategic Planning

University Culture

University culture has been discussed with reference to tribes and territories (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Trowler, Saunders, & Bamber, 2012), internal dynamics rooted in the organization’s history that reveal values, processes, and goals (Bartell, 2003; Tierny, 1988), and by external social, cultural, economic, and political forces (Clark, 1983; Sporn, 1999; Stier, 2004). The organizational development of the university has been shaped by its historical culture through its values of academic freedom, individual autonomy, self-governance, and subsequent divisions of the disciplines. The process of unfettered scholarly inquiry supports faculty in building interinstitutional and interdisciplinary networks in which to pursue “ . . . free investigation, speculation, imagination, reflexivity, interpretation, assessment, and informed opinion protected against inevitable accusations of political and religious heresy” (Ivie, 2005, p. 53). Becher & Trowler (2001) view “disciplinary knowledge as reflecting real-world differences in subject matter” (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p. 35). So, although there are multiple ways of distinguishing between the disciplines,

. . . there are reasonably clear distinctions between the knowledge domains in terms of the following: characteristics in the object of enquiry; the nature of knowledge growth; the relationship between the researcher and knowledge; enquiry procedures; extent of truth claims and criteria for making them; the results of research. Such relatively clear delineations were at one time quite easy to find in the literature concerning or drawing on disciplinary differences. The realist approach is particularly evident in work that seeks to distinguish between disciplines for an applied purpose (Becher & Trowler, 2001, pp. 35-36).

Accordingly, Becher & Trowler (2001) classified the knowledge domains into four categories based on hard/soft and pure/applied qualities: (a) pure sciences, (b) humanities, (c) technologies, and (d) applied social sciences. The pure sciences are concerned with universal truths, are impersonal and value-free with general consensus over significant questions to address. The hard-applied sciences were characterized as “know-how” versus “hard knowledge” resulting in products and techniques. It is concerned with the mastery of the physical environment and the application of heuristic approaches. The soft-applied is concerned with enhancement of professional practice and uses case studies and case law which results in protocols and procedures. The soft-pure category is holistic, value-laden, and characterized by disputes over criteria for knowledge verification; this category lacks consensus over significant questions to address.

Becher & Trowler (2001) raise caution, however, in three particular areas when using a “broad brush” depiction and stark delineation of the disciplines. First, social factors contribute to the construction of the disciplinary knowledge (e.g., the role of power in the narratives that shape the epistemological); second, the effects of temporal change (e.g., new forms of knowledge and discipline splicing) and; third, the oversimplification to the categories. Boundaries between the categories are not precise and disciplines within the categories fail to fit comfortably. In other words, Becher and Trowler (2001) observe that the expressions of academic disciplines can be viewed as a continuum rather than discrete categories.

Although we can view the academic domains as a continuum, there are reasonably clear distinctions between the knowledge domains and “classifactory exercises of this kind nevertheless serve a useful purpose” (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p. 39). Because the nature of the disciplines influence how faculty members engage in inquiry procedures, determine the extent of truth claims and the results of research, and define the relationship between the researcher and knowledge, it is important to consider how faculty members think about internationalization in the context of their discipline if universities are to further an international mission and sustain the outcomes of their efforts.

University Governance

University governance is a fundamental dimension of university culture. The governance model used for the institutions in this study is mandated in this State’s administrative code and is characterized as a system of shared governance. The State in which the universities in this study are located is in the Midwest region of the United States. It has adopted this system of shared governance for the 13 universities within the public higher education system. This system of governance defines how academic work is conducted and hence identifies the decision-making structures along administrative (executive authority) and faculty (collegial process) lines. Specifically, this Midwestern State’s administrative code identifies faculty as having responsibility for governing the institution in which they are employed, including faculty organizational structure and the selection of faculty representation to participate in institutional governance. Decisions concerning tenure and promotion are situated at the departmental level per this state legislation. Each of the 13 universities in this public education system has its own mission, strategic framework, and subsequent priorities. Faculty decisions concerning academic, education and personnel matters, therefore, differentiate per institution relative to its specific mission. Consequently, internationalization may be determined as a priority at an institution and/or department level. Even if internationalization is established as an institutional or department priority, however, it is up to faculty within each academic unit to determine the extent to which internationalization will be a measure for tenure and promotion in their respective unit(s).

International research, teaching, and service are not explicitly mandated at the institutional level at any of the universities in this study. International work is generally expected at the point in the performance review when a faculty member requests promotion from associate to full professor. It is expected that a faculty member be recognized internationally by his or her peers to qualify for the distinction of full professor. Because decisions are decentralized to individual departments, the decision to expect and/or mandate international teaching, research, and service, in the merit review criteria is made by the department faculty. Faculty members, however, are generally expected to, and rewarded for, publishing in top journals in their respective fields rendering merit for international work limited to those already publishing in the field of international education.

Method

This study examines how faculty members think about internationalization in the context of their respective discipline. Interview questions focused on participant’s descriptions and perceptions of internationalization, their experiences in international education, and the value and importance of internationalization to their students and to their campus. Ground in a model of shared governance inherent in university culture, faculty members have considerable discretion in academic decision-making. For those academic units that do have a particular focus on international work, the rewards for faculty members are determined at the departmental or school level. For those academic units that do not have internationalization as a focus, it is at the discretion of each faculty member whether he or she decides to engage in internationalization. Understanding how faculty members think about internationalization in the context of their discipline, therefore, will help in campus-wide strategic planning efforts to internationalize the curriculum across the disciplines.

Data was collected from 37 faculty members (Table 1) across three institutions (Table 2) within the same state higher education system. Focus groups and a document analysis were the primary methods of data collection. The criteria for which faculty was selected is twofold: (a) faculty members who were on tenure-track or were tenured; and (b), faculty members who have previous or current involvement at their respective institutions with internationalization. Faculty members were required to self-select into one of four disciplinary categories: (a) pure sciences (hard-pure), (b) humanities (soft-pure), (c) technologies (hard-applied) and (d) applied social sciences (soft-applied). The four disciplinary categories stratified the focus groups (Appendix A). A document analysis included institution- and unit-wide level (e.g., school/college) policies (such as mission and vision statements, strategic plans, financial priorities, and allocations), and from information on national education reform initiatives from the US Department of Education.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary of Participant Gender and Rank by Discipline Category.

	Gender			Discipline	Rank
Disciplinary Group	Female	Male	Gender by level of analysis not reported	Total per discipline category	Tenure-track (not yet tenured)	Tenured	Total
Hard applied	2	7		9	2	7	9
Soft applied	8	7		15	5	10	15
Hard pure	1	4		5	1	4	5
Soft pure	2	5		7	1	6	7
Not reported			1				1
Total	13	23		37	9	27	37

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Participants Across Three Institutions.

	Disciplinary grouping	Comprehensive University	Land-grant University	Urban University	Total
Tenure-track and tenured faculty	Hard applied	3	—	6	9
	Soft applied	6	5	4	15
	Hard pure	—	1	4	5
	Soft pure	3	1	4	8
Total		12	7	18	37

All focus group sessions lasted between 60 and 90 min, were moderated by the researcher, were audiotaped using a digital voice recorder and were transcribed by a transcription company. Data analysis occurred within and across this multi-site case study. Cross-case analysis involved the case-oriented strategy of studying one case, and then in succession the second and third case (Miles & Huberman, 1994), “thus making a slightly new group from which to generalize a new opportunity to modify old generalizations” (Stake, 1995, p. 85). Attention was paid to early steps in the data analysis such that interweaving of data collection and analysis contributed to the energizing process of fieldwork and allowed for corrective data collection and analysis to occur (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Analytic induction was used as a method of coding and identifying patterns and themes from the data. The limitations of this study are twofold. First, faculty members were required to self-select into one of four focus groups stratified by disciplinary category using a self-selection tool provided. The instructions provided criteria on which to base their selection in how they viewed their work in the context of internationalization. As such, it is possible that some faculty members self-selected into a focus group that might not have been the best fit given the nature of their work. Second, the hard-pure disciplinary group had only five participants, and as such, was not as well represented as the other disciplinary groups.

The Universities

The institutions from which faculty were selected were chosen for several reasons. First, the selected cases represent a teaching or research university as designated by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. ¹ Land-grant University (LGU) has a very high research capacity and, as such, espoused a global mission to solve complex global challenges; Comprehensive University (CU) espoused a teaching mission serving a more local population and espouses to strengthen its liberal arts curriculum. Urban University (UU) recently adopted a high capacity research mission with the urban community as its service area and is focused on rejuvenating local economic development. The specific mission and type of an institution, whether research or teaching, may discern differences in how faculty members think about and subsequently engage in internationalization. Second, all three institutions are part of a larger state university system that is governed by similar policy frameworks as defined by state legislation and the Rules of the System Board of Regents. Third, the three institutions have some degree of international activity as evidenced by one of the following: (a) the recent creation of centralized offices that have primary responsibility for international activities, (b) study abroad programs, and/or (c) internationalization as a strategic priority in the institution’s mission or vision statement.

Political Context

Major federal educational reform initiatives ² have recently been implemented with a focus on preparing graduates for a new knowledge economy requiring that all students be globally competent. “Global competence is the capacity and disposition to understand and act on issues of global significant (CCSSO, 2011). With a nation dependent on economic creativity and democratic vitality, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) campaign the value of a liberal education for all students. “From its founding in 1915, AAC&U has focused on advancing and strengthening liberal education for all college students, regardless of their intended careers” (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009). Further, national education, government and private agencies are funding major federal initiatives to address the nation’s weak performance in science, technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) fields. In 2006, the Bush administration “announced the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) to increase the nation’s capacity to provide experts with critical language skills” in less commonly taught languages determined to be vital to national security and foreign policy (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2007, p. 4).

Reduced state funding for higher education has also changed the context in which the three universities in this study are located. The current financial reality for this state’s educational system has resulted in a significant reduction in-state funding, leaving universities trying to balance budgets while trying to maintain and indeed grow enrollments. Current State appropriations, for example, average 25% in 2007-2008 down from approximately 34.5% in 1998-99 (system fact book 08-09). This reduction in-state funding has the three institutions in this study seeking alternative funding sources to carry out the primary functions of teaching, research, and service.

In September 2009, this university system’s president created a Research to Jobs Task Force that subsequently developed recommendations on creating jobs through university system-led research and increasing the technology transfer to in-state companies. This Task Force outlined three distinct approaches including job creation through start-ups, growth of mature business and effective ways to communicate the critical role of university system research to the public and industry. The state university system is slowly building its research and development capacity on all of its campuses and ranks among the top quartile of all states in overall research and development capacity. At this same meeting (September 2009), the system president announced the formation of a Task Force on Internationalization and Economic Development. The Task Force is evident of global forces bearing on institutions of higher education to respond to (or ignore) opportunities and challenges associated with internationalization.

Findings

Findings are first presented across the disciplinary categories followed by a presentation of discernable differences among the institutions. Data is framed and presented in Becher and Trowler’s (2001) categorization of the disciplines and presented in the following order: hard applied, hard-pure, soft-applied, and soft-pure. These findings are grouped and summarized in Table 3. A cross-case analysis highlighting discernable differences among the three institutions relative to international strategies institutions chose to adopt and the extent to which internationalization was supported is then provided.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Summary of Internationalization in the Context of Disciplinary Categories.

	Applied	Pure
Hard	Competitive; purposive; functional	Discipline is borderless
	Economic imperative	Universal language
	Technology and product driven	Transcends cultural context:
	International governing regulations	Value-free; impersonal
	International faculty/little technology transfer	Relevance of the scientific process (data)
	Relevance of language ability	Standardized curricula
		English as the global language/homogenization
Soft	Value of reflective practice	Inherently international
	Relevance of local culture	Inherently interdisciplinary
	Challenge beliefs, values, assumptions	Highly interpretative
	Value human experience	Empathy
	Application of learning	Value of human experience
	Multiple ways of knowing	Relevance of local culture
		Moral imperative

Hard Applied Disciplinary Group

Participants identified global competencies as a priority for students due to the various national contexts in which students may be working; that is, a single product can be designed, manufactured, tested, packaged, marketed, and eventually used in several different countries. A major concern for faculty members relative to an international work environment is the need for students to develop competencies beyond the disciplinary content if graduates are to be successful in the global work environment. The concern for success in the global work environment reflects the applied and purposeful nature of this disciplinary category and renders it important to the development of skills beyond the discipline. As one participant stated:

You have to have your base skills from the discipline but more and more you have to be able to communicate, you have to exist in a global economy and know what it means to work in a global environment rather than just your own cubicle.

Particular challenges of working in global classrooms and work environments were noted in the development of products and techniques and the ever-present language and cultural challenges in multilingual and multicultural environments. The perceived global nature of product development encompasses complex international regulations and multiple language and cultural barriers. It is expected that graduates must become globally competent and therefore able to negotiate complex international processes and systems regardless of cultural or national origins.

Participants generally agreed that, although there are a robust number of international faculty members represented in the hard-applied disciplines, there was very little foreign presence in the curriculum. Faculty members identified this absence of knowledge transfer into the curriculum as a problem for students “because the foreign faculty members bring a culture with them that the students don't understand, and sometimes a language problem as well.” So, although international faculty were active participants in the students learning experience, the perception was that there was no international content reflected in the curriculum even though it was taught by an international faculty member. This “absence of knowledge transfer” punctuates the importance of faculty members’ ability to question their own disciplinary epistemology, methods and objects of inquiry, and socialization practices central to their professional and personal identity. “Internationalization is requiring academics to look at their personal and professional values, at their way of interacting with cultural others, and to broaden their understanding of knowledge systems, values, behaviors, and embedded practices” (Clifford, 2012, p. 204). For reasons of deeply embedded professional affiliation, historical intellectual traditions, and socialization practices, it is often difficult to question one’s own personal and professional values and identity for the purpose of broadening existing knowledge systems.

Hard Pure Disciplinary Group

Although it was generally agreed that the interpretation of results is often understood through different contextual lens—economic, political, and cultural—for example, faculty members indicated that the hard-pure disciplines are inherently international, borderless, and universal. It was suggested that science, regardless of where it was conducted, matters only that it is being done. As one faculty member stated, “Internationalization is so inherent that I didn’t even think about it that way. It’s like [faculty member] said, it’s just what we do.” For the hard-pure discipline, it was generally agreed that science transcended context supporting the notion that the hard-pure sciences are impersonal and value-free. One faculty member stated,

I think that in the sciences there's a lot of what I call internationalization that has always been happening because the sciences see no borders. If you open up any of the leading journals, just look at the affiliation of the authors of papers. It's very international. It's not as if somebody is calling attention to the fact that there is a very international effort but, rather, it just is. It has always has been international and it's much more so now than it ever has been because all the major journals are in English. That might not be fair but it's true. So when I assign readings for my students they're reading internationally contributed work. Sometimes I didn't even notice where these [authors] are from.

The idea that this faculty member did not know where the international authors are from (country) suggests a particular homogenization inherent to the discipline. Developing global competencies will require that students engage in the process of solving real-world problems and are experienced in the practice of interdisciplinarity. There is some movement, however, to actively engage students in cultural contexts different from their own, “But I think the push has been to try and go the next step, rather than just have our students in another country for awhile, and call that international, to actually have some engagement.” The interdependency of the local and global contexts manifest in such ways as global warming or the environmental effects of consumerism, for example. These manifestations require scholars, regardless of academic discipline, to engage in local culture to adequately examine the object of inquiry and to fully address how new understandings of the object of inquiry will contribute to addressing some of the world’s most pressing problems—a central value of serving in the best interests of the public good.

Much of the discussion among participants of the hard-pure disciplinary group centered on data—its storage, instruments for measurement, methods for gathering, publication, utility, ownership—indicating a particular importance of data itself (and the scientific process) in how participants view their work in the context of internationalization. Unlike other disciplinary groups, data were the platform from which this group understood and engaged in internationalization. Comparatively, other disciplinary groups emphasized, for example, purposive foci and work environments (hard-applied), reflective practice and the human experience (soft-applied) and, as is noted below, relevance of local culture and its interpretation (soft-pure).

Participants also indicated that there is much more international collaboration and cooperation due to the sharing of data and suggested that internationalization means further homogenization of the hard sciences.

“It’s a collaboration but also a homogenization. There’s so much more and better and immediate communication that the international effort is just much more homogenous than it has been before.”

The growth in technology and the recent adoption of English as the standard language used in the publication of research has increased the speed of communication, the sharing of data, and utility of findings. Technology and the adoption of English as a standard language (with the exception of Latin for medicine and biology) have enabled high mobility of ideas (and people) across national borders. The adoption of English as the global language lends voice to a greater number of scholars worldwide and, at the same time, operates to marginalize non-English speakers and non-Western ideas. These changes, however, were perceived by participants to homogenize professional university degree requirements, curricular content, and credit transfer.

Soft Applied Disciplinary Group

Critical self-reflection was articulated as important for students in their development as global citizens. Specifically, reflective practice was considered important for students to learn what it is like to be human in other contexts. Relevance of local culture to student growth was important as faculty members discussed reflective practice in the acquisition of tacit knowledge.

I would speak specifically in the health sciences. There's probably no experience that you get a bigger bang for your buck in terms of time investment than a student who goes abroad to a less resourced environment, where they really have to struggle to get clean water and deal with malaria and all those other things. They come back different. They're profoundly changed.

Experiential learning in unfamiliar contexts and, in this case, developing contexts, provided the platform in which students’ perspectives and encompassing values, and beliefs were challenged and, subsequently, changed. This application of learning and reflective practice in different contexts engaged the students as learners who value the life experience of others in the development of self. Faculty members further discussed internationalization as intrinsic to a liberal arts curriculum and critical to student growth in terms of developing new understandings of themselves and others. Faculty believe that the challenge is, in part, to frame how students think about internationalization; that is, students will benefit from the understanding that they need cultural competencies as they move from one city to the next regardless of the domestic or international context. Important competencies desired for students are those that allow mobility within and across different cultures and that allow students to take another perspective different than their own. This includes an understanding of the relativity of culture and its inherent value systems.

Soft Pure Disciplinary Group

Faculty members discussed the soft-pure disciplines in the context of internationalization as innately international, inherently interdisciplinary, and highly relevant to local culture. “I didn’t want to be pigeon-holed in one particular discipline. None of my colleagues are the mono-discipline types.” Participants indicated that experiential cultural learning experiences were important for two primary reasons: (a) the kind of learning students engage in and, (b) application of knowledge to real-world problems of which interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary knowledge is required. Faulty members in the soft-pure disciplinary category agreed that an international or cross-cultural experience was important for student learning. They were, however, adamant that those students who experience another culture do so with a depth and breadth that will allow students to understand what it is like to be a human being in another culture. “Once you’ve done that, it’s easier to absorb, learn, tolerate, and understand other cultures.” The relevance of local culture to student learning was expressed as being highly desirable particularly because the perception here is that many students are too comfortable with their limited regional knowledge of the world.

The application of knowledge to real-world problems in the service to others was also mentioned as an expectation of graduates. One participant described an experience in which one of her graduates moved to a rural area in another country and not only worked in the field he was trained for, but developed and facilitated a rural health clinic project.

It is important for our students to be effective in areas that are part of our field, literature and language, but also in facilitating aid projects. [Students should go] out into the world with skills we’re training them in like creative thinking, critical thinking and analysis, and share them in places where you might not expect to use those kinds of skills.

In this example, the student went beyond boundaries of national context, culture, and discipline in his application of knowledge to solving a real-world problem. The expectation of faculty in this example is for graduates to apply disciplinary knowledge with a specific purpose of doing meaningful work that improves the lived experience of others. Consistent with Becher and Trowler (2001), the soft-pure discipline category is concerned with the search for empathic understanding of the phenomenon rather than casual explanation.

Participants further indicated that internationalization was valued and important but not without challenges. Because the soft-pure disciplines are highly interpretative and dependent on local culture for knowledge generation, reaching consensus on curricular issues can be problematic. One participant shared an example highlighting a discussion among faculty addressing the development of new language requirements to be adopted by his department. He commented:

There was a huge back and forth at one point between language and linguistics professors about the implementation of the foreign language requirement. Language professors were saying that part of what you learn when you learn a language is a new view of the world, there’s a real cultural component. Linguistics professors were saying that the point of the language requirement is to get students to think about language in a new way. That’s part of it but for the linguistic professors, that was it!

As a discipline category known for its interpretative nature and relevance to local culture, then, the social construction of knowledge and the subsequent interpretation cannot be easily standardized. Even within a single discipline, the degree of interpretation adds challenge to decision-making. Internationalizing curriculum, however, requires at least some common ground between disciplines, institutions and, indeed, national education systems, on curricular issues, degree requirements, and other elements necessary to realizing an international mission.

Cross-Case Analysis

Discernable differences between the three institutions were found concerning the international strategies institutions chose to adopt and the extent to which internationalization was supported. Discernable differences include the type of university (research or teaching), the institutional mission, and the disciplinary palette (see Appendix B Summary Case Descriptions of Three Universities).

CU is a teaching university that serves an undergraduate population and its mission is to serve the economic, cultural, and social needs of local communities. It offers primarily undergraduate programs and has significantly less fiscal allocations than the two research universities that support student and faculty research. A mission to serve local communities ensures faculty members are rewarded for their research, teaching, and service conducted at the local level. Aside from a tangential mention of “international studies” as an example of an experiential activity, there is no mention of internationalization in the current mission statement. A focus on the local service area also operated to reinforce that internationalization education was understood as something that occurred “abroad,” failing to recognize faculty work in local international communities as constituting international education. Further, as a comprehensive undergraduate teaching university, CU does not have the graduate student population that so significantly adds to an institution’s research capacity and, by extension, internationalization. The internationalization strategy this institution chose to adopt, therefore, is a strong focus on study aboard boosting one of the nation’s highest percentage of students (24%) who study aboard (institutional website). In fact this institution was ranked 9th nationally among like-institutions for mid-length (abroad for a semester or longer) duration of study abroad for master’s programs.

Comparatively, the two research universities are mandated with a high UU and very high-level LGU capacity for research. LGU, in particular, has a mission of solving complex global challenges that helps to sharpen the focus of research, teaching and service on purposeful inquiry in the global arena. LGU has an impressive disciplinary palette and research centers and institutes needed to address issues of global significance (e.g., veterinary medicine, agriculture and food, environmental sciences). By extension, LGU also receives fiscal appropriations in support of the research mission of solving global challenges. As the name implies, the mission of (UU) has an urban focus and strives to meet the diverse needs of the largest metropolitan area in the state. To fulfill its mission of a major urban doctoral university, it draws historically on its teaching responsibility, emphasizes applied and basic research, and continues a strong commitment to public service (university website). In fact, this institution was recently recognized at the annual conference of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities for its civic engagement and was ranked among the nation’s Top 25 “Saviors of Our Cities” universities (Dobelle, 2009). Specifically, this institution was recognized for actively promoting the economy, culture, and overall quality of life in local communities.

Research plays a significant role in the extent to which institutions engage internationally primarily because faculty members are connected worldwide via academic disciplinary interests. That is, academic disciplines themselves are not confined to national geopolitical borders. LGU and UU, therefore, are more internationally engaged through research and teaching exactly because they are research institutions. Both LGU and UU have large graduate populations, 27% and 16.8% respectively, that contributes significantly to research production. By contrast, CU as an undergraduate teaching university focuses its international strategy on study abroad. UU and CU, however, have missions that serve local communities therefore limiting the extent to which faculty members are rewarded for international teaching, research, and service.

Discussion

Reduced government funds, new immigration patterns, a weak local economy, and strong federal economic initiatives have created a changing political context in which universities operate. In this context, universities and businesses alike understand a sense of urgency to graduate students with global competencies in which they can live and work in an interdependent global reality. A particular concern, however, is the privileging of some disciplines over others in which faculty members in this study work and, in so doing, risks further imbedding curricula in a national ideological framework. The current paradox facing international educators is that competitive national educational initiatives may run counterproductive to cooperative efforts needed for success in international efforts. This is especially true as it pertains to acting in the best interests of the public good particularly as the “public” shifts to include a greater international economic, political, and social presence. Brooks and Normore (2010) refer to this meaningful integration of local and global forces as “glocal” and advocate the worth of global literacy for contemporary educators. A changing public raise questions pertaining to how the local public is conceptualized and the extent to which higher education is indeed working to serve in the best interests of a glocal or universal common good. A re-conceptualization of “local public” is needed particularly as global impacts are reflected in, and interconnected on, a local level (Brooks & Normore, 2010; Stier, 2004).

Disciplinary knowledge is viewed here as reflecting real-world differences in subject matter relative to internationalization. Internationalization manifests in different ways relative to the subjective–objective and the applied or pure qualities of the discipline categories. Applied disciplines engage contexts and cultures in ways that the non-applied, or pure, disciplines did not. Issues of language emerged in the applied disciplines as well as the soft-pure disciplinary group as a challenge to internationalization but as a necessary global competency. Conversely, the English language emerged in the hard-pure disciplinary group as an international component that operated to support internationalization. The hard-applied disciplinary group, in comparison to the soft-applied and -pure disciplinary groups, was framed within a purposeful competitive work-related context. The soft disciplines manifest in meaningful engagement with local culture whereas the hard-pure disciplines were understood as value-free and impersonal.

All disciplinary focus groups agreed on the importance of developing global competencies. Specific competencies emerged primarily as having ability to speak more than one language, to have an awareness of one’s self, to take multiple reference points, to have spent time in another culture (not necessarily another country), and to work and live together with others who are different in culture or language. The application of learning was discussed as the primary method of the soft-applied and -pure disciplines of engaging the cultural context in which scholarly work was being conducted. The hard-applied disciplinary group discussed the application of learning as important but was emphasized within a work-related environment. The hard-pure disciplinary group discussed the universal nature of the discipline in that it transcended cultural context but later identified that engaging culture was an emerging movement.

The soft-applied and -pure disciplinary groups emphasized the value of engaging in local culture and reflective practice as important in developing global competencies. The connections to local culture in knowledge application allowed students and scholars alike to fundamentally shift their values, beliefs, and perspectives in ways that had the potential to “profoundly” change them. The moral imperative of the soft-pure disciplines also engaged the culture going beyond the disciplinary content to involvement in a humanitarian project. The hard-applied disciplinary group discussed internationalization in a competitive-work related context but identified the need for graduates to be able to function in an intercultural environment because product and technique development is a multinational business. The need to be fluent in cross-cultural communication and fluent in another language was emphasized as a critical global competency.

The impact of university culture (disciplines, governance, tenure and promotion, academic freedom) on organizational development supporting internationalization must be considered in discussions on strategic planning for internationalization. The organizational design of the institutions in which faculty in this study were affiliated is characteristic of traditional higher education structures such as the executive authority, collegial governance, division of academic disciplines, and the tenure and promotion system. Indicators of deep-level visible changes necessary to sustaining an international curriculum will be evident of institution- and unit-wide policy frameworks. Altering normed everyday practice (deep-level change) requires policy frameworks supporting international research, interinstitutional agreements, curricular reform, student and faculty mobility, and internationalization-at-home. “Those who would change a modern academic system need to know that desired changes will attenuate and fail unless they become a steady part of the structure of work, the web of belief, and the division of control” (Clark, 1983, p. 114). Kezar & Eckel (2002) found that change strategies are more successful when they are culturally congruent, or aligned, with the institution’s culture. Consideration of university culture on organizational development is essential to sustainability of internationalization and, in particular, the internationalization of the curriculum.

Conclusion

Findings emphasize the influence of the sociopolitical and economic context in setting institutional priorities concerning internationalization. Differential funding of the disciplines privileging those aligned to national (government) economic imperative influence how internationalization is understood and expressed in the context of the disciplines. It further raises questions concerning the role and relevancy of serving in the best interests of the public good and advocates for a re-conceptualization of the local public to include the integration of global forces (glocalization). Some federal initiatives (STEM, for example) supported particular fields for the perceived economic impact to the region. For some faculty members interviewed here, engaging in international projects has meant negotiating structural issues (e.g., governing bodies and funding structures of higher education). Further, the hard-pure and -applied disciplines are more vulnerable to market influences by virtue of the high degree of social interest associated with national economic imperatives. It was clear that faculty members believe the hard-pure disciplines to be value-free, a universal language, and that it transcends cultural context so highly valued by the soft-applied and -pure disciplinary domains. The soft-applied and—pure disciplines are more associated with enlightenment as an experiential learning outcome situated in various cultural contexts rather than concerned with the social interests of national security driving “big science.” A competitive strategy to national security is strengthened and managed research becomes the norm—a counterproductive strategy to internationalization in which cooperation between countries is a necessary goal to serving a common universal good.

Internationalizing the curriculum is an organizational development strategy that can operate to sustain internationalization and ensure students are prepared for an interdependent global reality. Knowing the many ways in which internationalization is understood and expressed across the disciplines and institutions can help to inform campus-wide strategic planning, particularly as it relates to internationalizing the curriculum. Universities engaged in strategic planning with the intent of sustaining internationalization may wish to consider strategies that emphasize the values inherent to specific academic disciplines, that balance the educational and economic motivations to engage in internationalization, and that focus on an interdependent global reality. Specifically, the disciplinary links to local culture and language and the focus on the fundamental role of higher education in serving a universal common good must be kept in sharp focus should higher education succumb to greater depths in market forces. Although some disciplines engage more easily with local culture, other disciplines are viewed as highly theoretical and borderless but nonetheless impact local culture. The preparation of students as the next generation of leadership requires that we think in terms of serving a universal common good and, in so doing, address the world’s most pressing problems at the most fundamental level—curriculum.