Journal of International Education and Leadership Volume 2, Issue 1 Spring 2012 http://www.jielusa.org/home ISSN: 2161-7252 FINDING LEADERSHIP FOR THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION MICHAEL B. SMITHEE, ED.D. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY (RETIRED) The internationalization of U.S. higher education has depended on leadership from a variety of sources in different strengths and purposes over time. The leadership shifted from President Lyndon Johnson's sponsorship of legislation, as part of a trilogy of legislation known as the Great Society, to a collaborative and at times competitive leadership marked by a struggle to establish international education as legitimate focus for higher education institutions. Leadership came in the form of advocates for international education who were drawn from the stakeholders. These advocates included practitioners, researchers, professional organizations, and alliances. Leader- advocates also contended with philosophical changes in the way higher education perceived itself and its actions. The struggle to articulate the nature of international education in U.S. higher education institutions improved once it was realized that the focus should not be a thing, but a process. However, the struggle continues regarding who is to benefit from internationalization. In spite of the best arguments put forth by advocates, in high and low positions, internationalization has become a priority in U.S. higher education based on factors internal and external to the institution but related to more survival of the institution and its core mission. Keywords: international education, advocacy, leadership, organizations, internationalization, higher education Thomas Jefferson “advocated public higher In the past 60 years there have been education to foster an informed citizenry and substantial changes in international students also as an investment in the nation’s economic studying in the U.S. and domestic students future” (Hunt, 2006, para. 1). In a speech on studying abroad. According to Open Doors (IIE, Educational Leadership for the 21st Century, 2001) in 1950 the number of international James B. Hunt, former governor of North students studying in the U.S. was a scant 26,000. Carolina, makes a point about how a quantity By 2010 their numbers increased substantially to change the way an organization responds to it. 690,000. Their percentage of the total He described how returning GIs from WWII, enrollment in U.S. higher education increased who took advantage of the GI Bill to study for from 1.1% to 3.5% during that same period. For college degrees, changed how higher education domestic students studying abroad the numbers functioned. Formerly the preserve of children of quadrupled from 65,000 in 1989 to 260,000 in the wealthy, higher education enrollment 2008. Such changes have increased the attention doubled in size by 1950 to 2.7 million (Hunt, to the international dimension of education by 2006). In 2010, the enrollment is nearing 20 higher education institutions. million. These numbers alone do not represent the With respect to higher education in the past full scope of internationalization, but they do fifty years, quantity has forced institutions to draw attention to the issues. Over the past 50 recognize the value of international education. years there have been continual attempts to lead Although advocates of international education U.S. higher education institutions (HEIs) into have sought change based on philosophical and recognizing the value of international education social arguments, it has been quantity, or the by adopting or engaging in the concept of threat of loss of that quantity that has bolstered internationalization for the campus. Leaders their arguments. have used methods such as, articulating the message(s), publishing research or other forms of communication; holding conferences, Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee colloquia, workshops; collaborating with each study abroad, as well as admissions personnel, other; developing and disseminating methods language program teachers, and organizers of other could use to advance the idea; conducting college and community based programs related letter writing campaigns to sway decision to incoming and outgoing students; (2) faculty makers in a state legislature or the U.S. who have experiences in travel, research, Congress. Thus, leadership for truly teaching or are originally from another country internationalized HEIs can be characterized as and whose work or personal views support multifaceted, replete with competition, international education; and (3) beneficiaries cooperation, alliances, shining examples, and which include faculty, students, and parents. individual excellence. Government Groups are: (1) U.S. government When and from where did U.S. higher law making bodies for the federal, state, and education institutions obtain the readiness to local governments; (2) U.S. government make specific institutional responses to agencies, departments, task forces, and internationalization? What forces were involved commissions, and (3) international governing in leading institutions to this readiness? Who organizations, such as the UN and World Bank. were the actors that articulated the need for such Organizations are: (1) foundations providing action? This paper will look at the interplay grants and other support to international between individuals, organizations, and ideas for education; (2) non-governmental organizations, the international dimension as arguments are for example, Academy for Educational articulated by stakeholders, leaders, and Development, and (3) professional associations advocates. At the core, we want to determine in and organizations, as well as alliances of those what forms the leadership emerged for organizations, and (4) within the HEI internationalization in U.S. institutions of higher organization certain academic programs, education. projects, and institutes. STAKEHOLDERS AND ADVOCATES Advocates In the broad sense stakeholders of Advocates are individuals, or groups international education are those individuals and speaking on behalf of its members, who seek organizations who are involved in or may be policies and programs beneficial to affected positively or negatively from actions international education. Advocates may be related to it. However, it must be realized that found in any of the stakeholders categories. stakeholders at the HEI level vary from They are a wide range of people who represent institution to institution. Rather than identify the themselves as individuals, researchers, faculty differences of each institution, for the purposes students, professionals, politicians, as well as of this paper, I will assume there is more those who represent organizations; similarity than difference. I have divided governmental and non-governmental. stakeholders into four categories: Advocates seek collaborators who agree with Higher education institution decision makers: and often foster the ideals of the advocates. At the center of one finds higher education As such, collaborators can be found in higher institution trustees, and administrators: those in education administration and governmental the upper levels of administration, such as deans, bodies. Advocates may have philosophical, provost level, and presidents, as well in some social, political or economic motives. cases, program directors. They have decision Primarily this paper will identify a few making power to initiate and advance ideas, and significant individual and organizational programs, make policies, and to allocate advocates. resources. Individuals are: (1) those who are practitioners, LEADERSHIP those staff and some faculty who directly engage face to face with incoming students from other Leaders are not just individuals but may be countries, or outgoing U.S. students seeking organizations or associations. Leadership can 2 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee involve responding to events or crises, or Figure 1. Contributions to Leadership initiating actions, disseminating information, Impacting U.S. Institutions of Higher Education and influencing through ideas. Barker (2002) suggests that leadership is not so hierarchical as often assumed, personified as the proverbial PERCEPTION OF THE U.S. GOVERN- captain of the ship; but includes many other MENT AS A LEADER OF INTERNA- external and internal factors as the ship sails TIONALIZATION through the waters. In this way, leadership for internationalization is a “process of social Advocates have sought the support of the influence in which one person can enlist the aid U.S. government by calling upon it to establish and support of others in the accomplishment of a policies, programs, and initiatives as a way to common task” (Chemers, 1997, p. 2). bring international education to the attention of Organizations consist of people and individuals decision makers in HEIs. Advocacy for that act on behalf of their members, usually with internationalization also emerged from a mix of the concurrence of the membership. These two government actions, positive and negative. views of leadership allow individuals as well as Leading HEIs to internationalize spans the organizations, and coalitions, to function as spectrum of arguments from philosophical leaders. In the cause of internationalization, the positions to economic gain. The U.S. quest by stakeholders for information, ideas, and Government role in leading the leadership at various points in time have allowed internationalization of U.S. higher education is different advocates to contribute as leaders in the often characterized as providing grants and face of events and conditions. scholarship monies to programs. This provides Figure 1 shows sources for leadership in incentives and motivation, but, has not resulted internationalizing U.S. higher education in an overall policy on international education. institutions. Similar to the stakeholders and The best that advocates have been able to obtain advocates these categories indicate that are separate initiatives by government individuals, organizations, corporations, and departments and bureaus. For example, a governments could potentially play leadership collaboration of the U.S. Departments of State roles. Each have in their own way contributed to and Education declared an International internationalization. To see how these sources Education Week (IEW) each year since 2000. It functioned we need to trace the lineage of was not a result of the events of 9/11, but its international education. effects since 9/11 have been positive ones (State, 2011a). IEW has served as an affirmation of the value of programs that, “prepare Americans for a global environment and attract future leaders Individuals from abroad to study, learn, and exchange & Researchers experiences in the United States.” (State, 2011a, Professional, para.1). In addition, over the years the Academic Consortia and and Department of State has funded Overseas Alliances Functional Organizations Advising Centers in many countries (State, 2011b). And, most recently in 2005, the Department of State, Bureau of International Higher Education Information Programs established an e-journal Institutions Publishers of which describes college and university education Journamlse adnida other U.S. Government in the United States (Seidenstricker, 2005). These initiatives and others by the U.S. government show attention to the international dimension of education, but to advocates, an Administrators Practitioners & international education policy statement, the Professional Staff (Upper Level) gold standard, has not yet been established. In 2007, as a guideline to influence decision 3 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee makers and to make its members and affiliates of knowledge about foreign languages and area aware of the needs, the professional studies” (Council, 2007 p. 1). organization, NAFSA: Association of The concept of international education International Educators (NAFSA) drafted a for the United States emerged from WWII statement entitled, An International Education and the Korea War with a realization that the Policy for U.S. Leadership, Competitiveness, rest of the world had not developed the and Security. It identified rationales and capacity to manage change. One might have proposed components of such a policy (NAFSA, said that the push toward inter- 2007). Still, there is no policy. nationalization in higher education came Professional organizations continue to with the passage of the Fulbright Act of advocate for such an overall national policy on 1946 and later consolidated into the international education. Although the U.S. government supports actions that are related to Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 known as the international education, most often its actions Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange have been to support foreign policy objectives, Program. While these programs paved the such as in the Cold War era, and now in the post way for students from other nations to attend 9/11 era. In addition, the government must universities and colleges in the U.S., they respond to a variety of criticisms mostly related did not automatically create an to immigration issues or in the case of higher internationalized institution. In 1961 education, intrusion into the goals and objectives international education had not been of academe. considered by policy makers or universities Since the close of World War II, there have as a core part of U.S. higher education. been attempts to motivate HEIs toward Thus, advocates for internationalization internationalization. With the exception of the Fulbright-Hayes Act establishing the Fulbright continued seeking validation for the view Exchange program, its actions were not specific that international education should be seen to cause internationalization. Rather the U.S. as a core part of U.S. higher education. government provided a backdrop from which Recognition of international education as a change could occur. One change was that the major component of the educational community soldiers returning from WWII had new, occurred at the time the Cold War was becoming international, experiences and a world view that an increasingly competitive arena. The U.S. increased the vitality of the classroom (Hunt, government promoted programs to combat the 2006). As will be shown, in spite of U.S. spread of communism abroad and it often called government actions, what makes leadership in upon the expertise of those in academia. The international education difficult to pin down is most expansive initiative came in the aftermath that leadership does not come from a singular of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It was then champion, but from a complex interaction of that President Lyndon B. Johnson began a series forces, factors, and actors which ebb and flow, legislative initiatives known as the 'Great marked by different degrees of strength. Society.' With the leadership of President Lyndon B. INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF Johnson, the Great Society legislation began a 1966: A BEGINNING path towards establishing international education as an educational goal. President Johnson first According to the Coalition for International began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Education, the programs of The Higher Higher Education Act of 1965. These Acts Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. No. 89-329), coupled the women’s rights movements and the (HEA 1965) and Fulbright-Hays programs War on Poverty and led to an increase in the (Pub.L. 87-256, 75 Stat. 527, 1961), “have number of women, minorities, and low income served as the foundation for the students attending college. In the ideal of the internationalization of higher education in the time it was a college degree that would enhance United States....(and).... have enhanced the body the opportunity for a good job. In addition, the 4 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee HEA 1965, “…expanded the opportunities for The Supplement was formally was entitled, growth by individuals and institutions. Title IV International Education: Past, Present, became a key program for students of all racial Problems and Prospects. and ethnic backgrounds or economic The supplement reviewed the value of the circumstances” (Kinzie, Jillian, et al., 2004, p. international dimension of education. To 16). Brademas, the IEA 1966 was aimed at The International Education Act of 1966 “strengthening the resources of American (IEA 1966) appears to have been a third colleges and universities in international studies component of the Great Society legislation that and research.....to teach and conduct research President Johnson sought. Having achieved about foreign lands and world problems” legislation for domestic purposes, and (HR14643: International Education, 1966, recognizing that the Cold War was a continual remarks of John Brademas, Chairman, p. ix). source of concern, President Johnson recognized In the Supplement Stephen K. Bailey the need to expand legislation that would identified the many aspects of international achieve benefits for the U.S. and other nations. education and acknowledged that the broad He provided the most visible and highest place scope of international education included: 'non- in the government from which support for American substance' of curriculums, education international education could be launched. for students from abroad, American students President Johnson commented that “we must studying abroad, development education, review and renew the purpose of our programs professional training for careers in international for international education” and called for service, and a goal to educate citizens of their implementation of a sweeping policy which world responsibilities as individuals and leaders included the following (HR 14643, president using such terms as civic understanding and Johnson's message on international education, informed leadership (HR14643: International pp. 16-22): Education, 1966, paper of Stephen K. Bailey). 1. To strengthen our capacity for Also, as Bailey acknowledged the 'vague, international educational cooperation, ambiguous, and multifaceted,' (p. 2) nature of 2. To stimulate exchange with the students international education, he suggested not only and teachers of other lands, that universities contained many dimensions of 3. To assist the progress of education in international education that needed to be developing nations, organized...but that external forces to the 4. To build new bridges of international universities must also play a role. understanding. To this degree, the IEA 1966 could be seen as an We are doing far too little to orient man to educational and political as well as a moral his global context; and what we do along response to the Cold War. these lines is frequently misguided, International Education Act of 1966 was misplaced, or woefully short of the bolstered by a series of hearings and mark....the essential educational burden documentary supports of the Task Force on here is in the hands of our political leaders; International Education (HR14643, 1966), and but this must be buttressed by extraordinary the Senate Hearings (Senate, U.S. 2874, 1966). educational efforts on the part of the mass The support for international education in media and civic and professional Congress was strong in 1966. This was evident organizations across the land-and beyond in the papers submitted and testimony given in (HR14643: International Education, 1966, the House and Senate. A Supplement to HR paper of Stephen K. Bailey, p. 7).i 14643 was a compendium of readings gathered under the leadership of the Honorable John The sixty-nine articles of the Supplement Brademas chair of the Task Force on came from institutional leaders, faculty experts, International Education. He was an ardent practitioners, and professional and community supporter for international education and who organizations. These were divided into six later became president of New York University. major topics that affected higher education: 5 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee world affairs, internationalization of the synergy to reach needed goals for society, such curriculum, educational exchanges, and as a competent citizenry (Lewis, 2009). The education for development. The remaining two pantheon of international education included addressed the relationship between government activities of educational exchange, incoming and and higher education institutions, and some outgoing students, scholars, and faculty. thinking on the future. All of the articles were Although the ‘Me’ generation is emerging as a identified by Brademas for their strong analysis force or rationale for international education for of the needs, prospects, and barriers to themselves, for the institution, the elements are international education, but on the whole also forming that could lead to this result. supported the concept. The audience of the Supplement was members of Congress as well Effects of Great Society Legislation on as faculty and administrators of higher education Internationalization institutions. Yet, the worries and concerns of that time also serve as a reminder of our current A result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and vulnerabilities. For example, the current the Higher Education Act of 1965, is that generation's view of international education has enrollment in HEIs continued to expand. When been affected by improved means of looking at the increases in numbers of domestic communication, increased numbers of and international students between 1976 and publications, and use advanced technology to 1997, one might say that internationalization is communicate and receive ideas which have all about numbers of students. As we will see changed perceptions of how the world works. later in the paper, that may be perceived as the In the context of LBJ's leadership, Bailey case. But, numbers in themselves do not (1966) referred to international education as “a necessarily pave the way for changes in the core burden to fall on the political leaders” (p. 7). of the university mission. This idea has remained a barrier for both In Table 1, it can be seen that between 1976 advocates and the government. The concept of and 1997, the number of students from all international education as described in the categories increased from 10.9 to 14.3 million. Supplement was primarily one of the U.S. In terms of international students, Berendzen government providing incentives and guidance remarked in1982 that “the number of foreign for expanding the higher education curriculum students in the United States could climb ....to as it related to policies and needs for the nation's one million by the end of this century...” foreign activities. This included infusing world (Goodwin and Nacht, 1983 p. iii). The Table affairs, non-western studies and views, area below shows that as international students studies, language instruction and study, increased to 461,345 nearing the end of the improving teaching resources, library resources, millennium, far below predictions, and perhaps and engaging in new research abroad. With even, hopes. This table also obscures the rates of respect to the IEA 1966, if it had not been for increase and decrease that varied from year to the conflict in Vietnam, the adoption of the year. International Education Act of 1966 would have completed a trilogy of legislation designed to Table 1 change the face of American society. The Enrollment in Colleges and Universities, 1976 IEA1966 was passed by the House and Senate & 1997. (in thousands) but died in the in the appropriation committee. Year 1976 1997 Since it was never funded as a complete concept, White non Hispanic 9,076.10 10,160.90 we are left to wonder how the leadership and Black non-Hispanic 1,033.00 1,532.80 policies of the government would have Hispanic 383.8 1,200.10 ultimately been received by higher education. Asian and Pacific Islander 197.9 851.5 In 1966, higher education institutions were American Indian and Alaskan not considered as organizations that should Native 76.1 138.8 become internationalized rather, institutional Non-resident Alien 218.7 461.3 components or dimensions should form a 6 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee Total 10,985.60 14,345.40 driving forces are briefly described here. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Public Good: In the argument of the Center for Education Statistics, Higher purpose for higher education institutions, the Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), public good is a long held concept. In this “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” context, American institutions of higher surveys, and Integrated Postsecondary education were founded on the concept of public Educational Data System (IPEDS), “Fall service (London, 2003). That is, graduates will Enrollment” surveys. Digest of Education be more civic minded, engage in social Statistics 1999, Table 209. responsibility, to educate individuals to their moral responsibility, in some ways exhibit a Advocates sought an institution where there civitas. One university expressed its vision as was general agreement that international “Serving the public good in these ways pervades education and the international dimensions were our daily decision making and connects us not considered valuable and intrinsic components of just with our immediate community, but with the university. The use of quantity to denote communities throughout the world” (Cantor, importance, in some ways a cultural notion, was 2011 (para. 3). The public good concept fosters reflected in the reaction to the increase in the idea that education should provide the numbers of students. Advocates pointed to such individual with a broad set of knowledge and increases as indicators of the need for intellectual skills that he/she may apply to ‘real’ institutional leaders, faculty, and staff to allocate world activities. The public good concept is more attention and resources to activities reflected in the HR 16423 Supplement that involving international education. As the Great suggested institutions should adhere more to the Society legislation set the stage for increases in liberal education interpretation of the purpose of demand for study abroad, there continued to be higher education. Even though the public good concerns regarding foreign students. From 1976 is a well known approach, its current to 1997 even though there were rising competitive approach is known as enrollments, there were also changes occurring Neoliberalism, or market liberalism. in the pool of high school students available to Neoliberal Approach: The neoliberal attend college. “The populations of young approach has been applied to many aspects of adults has fluctuated in size over the past three the global economy and is seen as a tool for decades, increasing in the 1970s (as the baby assisting developing nations improve their boomers reached college age) and declining in educational systems (Treanor, 2011). For our the 1980s and early 1990s” (Hudson, 2002, p. purposes here, in the neoliberal approach, the 16). This will become important when we institution must consider how the market for discuss what forces affected HEIs views and higher education places the institution in a more action on internationalization. or less competitive advantage for enrollment, resources, and prestige. The concept spans a Competing and Facilitating Arguments myriad of reforms from the Reagan presidency to the present. Its basic tenet emphasizes a free For all of the initiatives, research, data, and market approach economic policy; also known feedback obtained since the 1960s, HEIs have as market liberalism. What is important to this been challenged by attempts to expand paper is the effect on educational policy and international education and internationalization. practice. Various intergovernmental Competing concepts and ideas force institutions organizations developed policies which support to develop their responses to global competitive the market liberalism approach, such as The challenges (Currie, 1998; Williams, 2003; International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Hugonnier, 2007). Internationalization is not Organization for Economic Cooperation and incompatible with the concept of public good or Development (OECD). They impose policies of market liberalism, but the application of the focused on reducing labor costs, reducing public concepts play a role in how internationalized the expenditures and making work more flexible in institution is perceived or perceives itself. These the education sector (Bourdieu, 1998). 7 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee Lingard and Rizvi (1998) explain that reasonable call for action. However, in 1981 market liberalism creates a new managerialism after the election of Ronald Reagan, with his that is focused on a leaner and more competitive tendency toward market liberalism, there began state among the nation states. They further a contentious series of governmental debates on explain that international organizations such as foreign policy issues. One of these was an effort the IMF and the OECD serve as serve as an by the Reagan administration to cut the funding “institutionalizing mechanism for the idea of an for the Fulbright program. International integrated global economy underpinned by the education advocates pounced on this move by ideology of market liberalism” (p. 271). orchestrating a campaign to restore the proposed Further, this view has now been adopted by cuts (Cummings, 2004) resulting in an alliance managers, organizations, and universities, and of many professional organizations, former has been integrated into higher education Fulbright Scholars, and educators, to restore the policies in many nations. The OECD has proposed cuts. This action and others like it led affected the educational policies of large and to the strengthening of stakeholders, and small nations in encouraging global flows of particularly, advocates for international people, information, and ideology. education. Other writers found that the realities of the Institutional actions are affected by the market impacted higher education and saw the traditional public good arguments and the emerging technologies and for-profit/virtual emerging competition of the global market place institutions among important factors institutional for not only the best and brightest minds, but leaders needed to consider, as well as a deep minds whose presence supports the institution as consideration of the 'public purposes of higher a viable organizational entity. Advocates have education' (Newman, Couturier, & Scurry, used both public good and market liberalism 2004). Another writer alludes to the idea that it arguments to advance internationalization. is one thing to frame the behavior of HEIs as entrepreneurial and another to say the goal of ADVOCATES HEIs should be entrepreneurial or driven by a profit goal. For HEIs, sitting back and thinking Politics could be a fulcrum to galvanize and becomes expensive unless it produces profit or mobilize advocates. For example, the public other value for the institution (Williams, 2003). good was the general perspective of advocates Rather than acquiring knowledge as a general for international education in 1980. This was guide for life decisions, HEIs have undergone a expressed by Clark Kerr in his introduction to conceptual shift and are now pressured by the Barbara Burn book, Expanding the various stakeholders to focus their learning on International Dimension of Higher Education: skills needed in the workforce (Singh, 2001). In addition, Dill explores the increasing We strongly believe that the federal tendency of HEIs to resort to a market approach. government should make firm commitments “The overt rationale for these reforms is not only to support programs that stimulate the traditional argument of economic international scholarship, foreign-language efficiency—with its supposed corollary benefits studies, exchange of students and faculty of institutional adaption and innovation—but members among the nations, and cultivation increase a resort to market competition as a of intellectual, technical, and creative means of achieving equity in the form of mass resources on the nation’s campuses that will higher education” (Dill, 1997 para. 1). facilitate American assistance and The failure of the IEA1966 to secure participation in cooperative efforts in other funding from Congress stung many advocates parts of the world. But, the commitments for international education. As a result there must be more than an articulation of continued to be calls for the U.S. government to intentions (Burn, 1980, p. xxxv). step up its support, such as a prominent effort by Kerr and Burns with foundation support through Government contracts and funds from the Carnegie Commission articulating a foundations remained important to enable 8 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee stakeholders to meet and review strategies and on campus continued, professional organizations ideas. In 1967, a Wingspread Colloquium was fought for independence from government sponsored by the Council of Graduate Schools, requirements limiting their ability to advocate. along with such professional organizations as In the 1980s, NAFSA was one of the AACRAO, CEEB, IIE, and NAFSA. There was professional organizations that derived a hope for a benign government leadership, but at significant portion of its operating budget from the same time, with the reality of the Vietnam the U.S. government. But it also perceived itself War, these professional organizations began to as advocating with Congressional leaders on consider an independence from U.S. behalf, and with the support of its members. For Government guidance, while at the same time, example, audits by USAID would entail review allowing recognition of the role of government of advocacy practices that the government and foundation funds in supporting a variety of deemed lobbying, an act that was prohibited by lines of beneficial research, many of which used government contractors. As a result, by the mid- foreign locations. This tension between 90's NAFSA had implemented a series of independence and external funding is one of the actions in which the percentage of government most difficult issues to resolve between the support was significantly reduced. This action universities and funding sources. Albert G. allowed NAFSA to emerge as one of the most Sims, vice-president of the CEEB, expressed it vocal advocates for international education. It's this way, “…no institution can maintain the positions, that initially focused on how independence necessary for research and for the practitioners navigate the U.S. government ordering of knowledge about the total society regulations on behalf of higher education and at the same time be engaged in social and institutions, expanded to include the political action” (Sims, 1969, p. 52). governmental programs and policies on visas as After the loss of IEA 1966, government well as governmental support for leadership for international education was now a internationalization of the colleges and questionable notion. Establishing international universities. education as a priority in U.S. higher education Over the years collaboration between institutions left advocates looking for other government policy makers, their agencies and means. Burn suggested that the U.S. government departments and all levels of advocates was could not really represent U.S. higher education often achieved in tandem with private in the way systems do in other countries. The foundation support, grants to professional lack of federal jurisdiction over U.S. higher organizations, and grants to practitioners education meant that there would be continued through professional organizations. In addition, competition between colleges, professional collaborative sponsorship with other organizations and federal agencies regarding stakeholders resulted in colloquia, task forces, international educational exchange (Burn, 1980, commissions, and research projects. The p. 151). interaction between these stakeholders led to It was obtaining a place at the institutional new understandings about international table, to be included in the conversation on education, and the role each stakeholder played. institutional priorities that now motivated It also led to the establishment of alliances. advocates and practitioners, with the support of Also important to advocates was the their professional organizations and foundations identification and cultivation of well placed to seek an internationalized university. However, individuals who had a propensity to support advocates also perceived government support as international education. For example, Ernest L. a symbol of importance. Through the Boyer, when he held the position of U.S. leadership, guidance, or largess of the Commissioner of Education in the Carter government advocates thought they might have administration, supported international and a stronger rationale within the higher education global education by seeing that a Presidential institutions in discussing the institutional Commission on Foreign Language and priorities related to international education. International Studies was established in 1978. While the practitioners' battle on for recognition More recently, the late Senator Paul Simon 9 Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Smithee played the role as the high placed advocate. As The leadership sources identified in Figure 1 opposed to establishing laws for higher have employed a variety of methods to promote education institutions to follow, the key pieces internationalization in higher education; for of the governmental approach was to provide example, concepts and ideas, organizational funding to government departments, as well as change, advocacy, research and publication, non-governmental organizations, endowments, resources, policies, individual effort, collabora- and foundations to facilitate the exchange of tion, and competition. Observation tells us that faculty and students for educational purposes. leadership for internationalization is shared These organizations provided a core of through collaboration and agreements. But we educational exchange that HEIs could not also know that individual research and other provide for themselves (Burn, 1980, p. xxxv). factors prompt leaders to act. Other types of advocates not directly By the late 70s, advocates found a need for associated with higher education institutions, improved research to bolster their arguments for were the community based World Affairs international education, for improved Councils and the National Council for information, better avenues of dissemination, International Visitors. The former relied on and an informed public. Research conducted by discussion groups to form opinions about the faculty, practitioners, and other advocates played current state of foreign affairs, and where a role in advancing international education and appropriate contact their Congressmen to make internationalization. Professional organizations their views known. The members of the latter and their members saw the need for competent organization typically included well educated research on international education to be families who sought to host international visitors conducted and reported by faculty. It was in their homes, most often as an educational tool thought that the U.S. Government should take for their children. This activity served as a the lead in fostering international education. highly popular public diplomacy, or citizen When the government did not take this role, diplomacy tool recognized by the federal foundations, such as Carnegie, Ford, Sloan, government, but was also embraced by the Guggenheim and others took the lead by organization and its members (Mueller, 2008). enabling professional organizations to sponsor For advocates, the IEA 1966 made clear that research and data gathering. In this way the there was a tension between the desire to jump Institution of International Education took the start internationalization through governmental lead, supported by foundations, to make the case funding and the goals of the HEIs which would for internationalization using data collected from be implementing the programs. In addition, institutions, and through research reports it public diplomacy served as an example that the commissioned and published, such as Goodwin U.S. government promoted its own foreign and Nacht (1983). policy objectives through programs it organized Research conducted by individuals under the and supported. To this degree the faculty and sponsorship of professional organizations, U.S. administrators of HEIs were somewhat wary of government departments, or for academic government policies and programs usurping the reasons played important parts in advancing goals of higher education. Advocates international education and internationalization. continually promoted the U.S. government as an In this sense they led the way to important symbol of validity for international internationalization through their research education. Still, in the HEI faculty were more conclusions, collecting and analyzing data, and concerned with the intellectual value and public developing the means to communicate good of the government programs, and with the observations about and the needs of international status of utilizing their knowledge to benefit the education played an important role in making public good through guiding decision makers the case for the value of international education. and program initiatives to reasoned outcomes. From an advocate point of view, research was a way to gain attention and to keep the The Leadership Role of Research and conversation going in an academic institution. It Publications as Advocates was thought that the value of international 10