Salisbury University: A Maryland University of International Distinction
Introduction
Globalization has greatly influenced the scope of the world today. With technological and social advancements that have affected the global economy, the world is smaller, more connected, and more advanced. International borders between nations that were once viewed in the past as barriers to access and collaboration have since shifted from restrictive to almost non-existent. As a mechanism to cope with globalization, academic systems and institutions have undertaken internationalization policies, adjusting with the tide in order to not only stay afloat, but also to continue on the often rocky voyage.
Whether or not an institution will be able to successfully weather the storm is greatly contingent on its ability to address the motivations behind internationalization, including commercial advantage, knowledge and language acquisition, and enhancing the quality of curriculum by infusing it with international content. To address these motivations, an institution might consider initiatives such as branch campuses, cross-border collaborative partnerships, programs designed for international students, creating English-medium programs and degrees, and more (Altbach and Knight, 2007).
Comprehensive Internationalization
In its nascent stages, many institutions viewed this voyage of internationalization more along the lines of a leisurely activity reserved only for those who wanted to participate, rather than as an inevitable mass migration that affected all constituents at the institution. As a way to provide institutions with a direction through this voyage, the concept of Comprehensive Internationalization (CI) was introduced and a model for it was created by the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE). Under the CI model, an institution would commit to infusing international and comparative perspectives throughout all facets of their practice, including teaching, research, and service through the invested collaboration of leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all support units (Hudzik, 2011). The CIGE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization includes: (1) articulated institutional commitment; (2) administrative leadership, structure, and staffing; (3) curriculum, co-curriculum, and learning outcomes; (4) faculty policies and practices; (5) student mobility; and (6) collaboration and partnerships (Helms, Brajkovic, Struthers, 2017). Using CI not only outlined what institutions would need to bring on the voyage, but it also identified who needed to be onboard the ship.
Salisbury University
It is through this lens of CI and various peer-reviewed articles that this paper critically analyzes the current internationalization plan of Salisbury University, as outlined in its publication: “International Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018.”
Founded in 1925 and located on the Eastern Shore thirty miles from the Atlantic beaches and less than three hours away from Baltimore and Washington, D.C., Salisbury University is a proud member of the University System of Maryland and is a regionally accredited four-year comprehensive institution. Offering 58 distinct graduate and undergraduate programs, Salisbury University was named by the U.S. News & World Report in 2010 as one of the Top Public Universities in Master’s category (North) for the 13th consecutive year. Within the entire state of Maryland, Salisbury was the highest-placing public Master’s-level university. According to The Princeton Review’s 2016 edition of The Best 380 Colleges, Salisbury was ranked within the top 15 percent of all regional four-year colleges nationwide. Enrollment in Fall 2016 was reported at just under 8,750 students (Salisbury University).
Salisbury University Internationalization Plan
In the wake of globalization, Salisbury University first created an internationalization strategy during its 1999-2004 planning period. During that time, there was not much structure to the strategy and the main objective was to focus on study abroad programming. Salisbury has cited its creation of a Director of International Education position as its most significant accomplishment of this period within the context of internationalization. Two planning periods later in 2009-2014, Salisbury created an internationalization strategy that intentionally aligned with tenets of CI. During this time, the university achieved several milestones: study abroad participation increased by 50 percent, the number of short-term faculty-led study abroad programs increased, the first semester-long study abroad programs were created, and a full-time professional study abroad advisor was hired. In fact, Salisbury’s study abroad participation rates were just above the national average of 14 percent in 2012-13. During this planning period, two additional areas of focus were introduced: global faculty mobility and international students. A university response to the latter area of focus was the establishment of the English Language Institute (ELI), which enrolled international students in English-language learning courses before formally admitting them into a degree program. Within three years of its establishment, the ELI enrollment marked a 175 percent improvement. However, despite above-average participation in study abroad programs and the growth of international student enrollment, Salisbury still significantly trails behind its peer institutions within the University System of Maryland and others nationwide.
The current internationalization plan at Salisbury outlines two overarching goals. The first is “to create an engaged global learning environment in which all students develop international and cross-cultural skills and an enhanced global consciousness in order to thrive as professionals, citizens and individuals in an increasingly interdependent world.” The second goal is “to improve the financial strength of the University by expanding the global markets from which student enrollment is actively pursued and increasing the percentage of international students as a proportion of the student body.” Essentially, Salisbury’s goals are to promote cultural competencies and increase revenue through the enrollment of international students.
To achieve these goals, Salisbury has identified three critical pillars. In order of importance, they are: (1) international students; (2) study abroad) and (3) faculty mobility and development. Within each of these pillars, Salisbury has outlined action items to move the institution closer towards achieving these strategic goals.
Internationalization Plan Strategy One: International Students
Salisbury’s first strategic goal is to increase percentage of international students in student body to five percent. The first action item is to use the standard definition of ‘international student’ also used by US Department of Education and the US Department of Homeland Security in all reporting to maintain consistency. The second action item is to address facility space concerns to continue growing and expanding the ELI at Salisbury. The third action item is to prioritize Memoranda of Understanding and other formal agreements that will enroll more international students. The fourth action item is to create pathways for international students from the ELI into graduate level programs, resulting in fifteen percent international graduate student enrollment. Currently, Salisbury has only created pathways for international students to transition from the ELI into undergraduate degree programs. The fifth action item is to develop permanent strategies for international student housing and needs within residential life.
Internationalization Plan Strategy Two: Study Abroad
Salisbury’s second strategic goal is to increase gross study abroad numbers from 300 to 500. The first action item is to increase percentage of students studying abroad on semester or year-length programs from eighteen percent to 40 percent by integrating semester-length study abroad programs into the curriculum for as many majors and minors as possible. The second action item is to integrate general education curriculum into existing study abroad semester programs to encourage freshmen and sophomores to participate. The third action item is to prioritize new semester-long study abroad program partnerships that expand access to academic programs underserved by the current portfolio of programs. The fourth action item is to increase summer study abroad institutes with partners abroad based on the model of the Salisbury University Spain summer program with low-costs and without Salisbury faculty leadership. The fifth action item is to further refine operational procedures for short-term faculty-led study abroad programs to ensure academic quality, minimize risk, and maximize programs offered despite having limited human resources.
Internationalization Plan Strategy Three: Faculty Mobility and Development
Salisbury’s third strategic goal is to increase international faculty mobility in both directions with Salisbury University partners abroad. The first action item is to incentivize mobility for Salisbury faculty to teach, conduct research and be in residence at partner institutions abroad. The second action item is to re-focus the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program in the “Professor” category on faculty from Salisbury partner institutions. The third action item is to establish Visiting International Scholar Chair titles in each of the four academic schools, with priority given to applications from partner institutions abroad. The fourth action item is to create faculty development programs to promote effective teaching of international students in the spirit of writing across the curriculum.
Resources
Salisbury has also included a section within their internationalization plan that focuses on resources. It is a call to reallocate human, physical, and fiscal resources to achieve the goals and strategies outlined in the plan. This section advocates for an investment of fiscal resources in the form of scholarships for prospective international students, or for study abroad for current students, or grants for faculty mobility. Additionally, it explicitly mentions that human and physical resources are more important than fiscal, citing the growing enrollment within the ELI as an example of how leveraging physical space and more administrative staff and faculty in this area of the institution is significantly important.
Critique of Initiatives
The internationalization plan of Salisbury University is succinctly outlined with three overarching strategic goals and corresponding action items for each goal; however, there are several opportunity areas for refinement.
The Comprehensive Internationalization (CI) Model seems to have been the foundational piece in creating this strategic plan, which is an important first step. Although the plan mentions that Salisbury University will move forward in implementing this internationalization plan as a single university community, instead of being siloed by colleges within the university each running their own operations towards internationalization, there seems to be a lack of specificity around how this will actually be done. This lack of specificity contributes to the instability of the the CI pillar of “Articulated Institutional Commitment” (Hudzik, 2011). The strategic plan, particularly the final section on “Resources,” seems to be written with a tone of persuading Salisbury administration to contribute these resources, instead of a tone that proclaims the allocation of resources as outlined.
Given the current enrollment and institutional context of Salisbury University as a school serving mostly domestic students in the University System of Maryland, it is interesting that Salisbury selected the growth in enrollment of international students as the foremost strategic goal in the internationalization plan, instead of what it had outlined as Strategic Goal Two (study abroad programs). There are not many international students at Salisbury to begin with, so what is the true motivator behind the desired growth in international enrollment? Is international student enrollment completely motivated by the need for financial gain? This is a moment to ask: Why do we do certain things and what do they help in achieving the goal of quality of education and research in a globalized knowledge society?” (Brandenburg and de Wit, 2015).
While Strategic Goal Two pushes for increased study abroad participation, the internationalization plan does not outline any provision of resources to support students in pre- and post- stages of their study abroad experience. Linguistic, cultural, and engagement preparation are crucial in shaping the immersion experience of study (Goldoni, 2013).
To attain Strategic Goal Two, the internationalization plan suggests the integration of general curriculum requirements into study abroad opportunities to entice freshmen and sophomores to participate. While this may seem like a smart move, it might be at the expense of the quality of classes and the study abroad field as a whole. To award academic credit for study abroad activities seems to weaken the credibility of the internationalization field (Woolf, 2007).
Continuing with Strategic Goal Two, the internationalization plan wishes to maximize the study abroad opportunities available to students through cultivating foreign partnerships and finding ways to adapt current Salisbury programs to study abroad experiences. With this growing volume of study abroad experiences, how will quality assurance be implemented throughout, with respect to the five implications for quality assurance outlined by the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE): regulatory environment, quality of courses, internal quality assurance, value and sustainability of total experience, and internationalized curricula?
Recommendations
This next section lists several recommendations that Salisbury University might consider for future internationalization plans, building from its current iteration.
Specify roles in the internationalization plan across all departments. The first pillar of the CI model is ensuring that all key players in the institution are fully in support of the internationalization plan (Hudzik, 2011). There needs to be more clarity around who the key players are and what each player’s role is towards meeting the internationalization goals.
Reorder strategic goals. Currently, the order of importance in the internationalization plan is: International Students, followed by Study Abroad, then Faculty Mobility. Given the enrollment and institutional context of Salisbury, it should consider more focus on building up the study abroad experiences for its current and incoming domestic student population, rather than enrolling more international students, as this action is easily portrayed as self-serving on Salisbury’s part and has an unintended consequence of international students not being set up for success once on campus.
Increase preparation for student travelers. If Salisbury wants to significantly grow student participation in study abroad experiences, the university must also work hard to provide adequate preparation activities, such as pre-departure orientation and language courses, to ensure that students have a quality program and class experience that is truly enriching (Goldoni, 2013).
Increase resources for international students beyond just housing and residential life needs. Once international students arrive on campus, they will be in a completely new environment, and will need more than just a place to live. Their needs are similar to those of domestic college students, with a layer of customization, given their international context. The university needs to increase resources such as counseling, career services, academic support, etc.
Invest in technological resources to advance internationalization efforts. The “Resources” section of the internationalization plan specifically advocates for fiscal, physical, and human resources. However, technological resources should also be provided to properly assess and measure how the university is doing throughout the strategic period and delivering on its goals.
Conclusion
As globalization continues to expand and influence the way the world works, institutions of higher education have a duty to adapt and ensure that they are grooming students to be culturally competent in a global market. To aid in this effort, the model of Comprehensive Internationalization is a solid foundation to build from. Salisbury University has an incredibly structured internationalization plan that aims to both create a global learning environment and grow financially; however, it should continue to assess whether or not its action items are designed in a manner that truly benefits students, especially since the core role of universities is to help understand this world and to improve how to deal with it (Brandenburg and de Wit, 2015). Currently, the tagline of Salisbury University is “A Maryland University of National Distinction;” however, there is certainly potential to have that tagline soon change to “A Maryland University of International Distinction.”
References:
“About Salisbury University.” Salisbury University - About Salisbury University - Home,
www.salisbury.edu/about/.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 290-305.
Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2015). The end of internationalization. International higher
education, (62).
Goldoni, F. (2013). Students' immersion experiences in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals,
46(3), 359-376.
Helms, R.M., Brajkovic, L., & Struthers, B. (2017). Mapping internationalization on US
campuses: 2017 edition. American Council on Education.
Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action.
INQAAHE Module 1: Higher Education in a Global World: The Context of Quality Assurance. Unit Intro. Unit 3: Internationalisation, Globalisation and Cross-Border Education (p. 1-34)
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN 2014-2018. (2014). Retrieved from
https://www.salisbury.edu/intled/SUCIEinfo/International_Plan_2014_18.pdf
Woolf, M. (2007). Impossible things before breakfast: Myths in education abroad. Journal of
studies in international education, 11(3-4), 496-509.