The Role of Senior International Officers as Strategic Leaders in Research Universities

• In Event: Focusing on practice and leadership in university offices and initiatives (I)

Proposal

Introduction

Twenty-first century universities throughout the United States are intentionally engaging in internationalization strategies to support institutional missions (Knight, 2004). Internationalization strategies prioritize global education as a primary institutional concern, support the development of graduates that can offer diverse perspectives and contribute successfully to their fields, and encourage knowledge transfer through transnational collaboration (Maringe & Foskett, 2010; Tight, 2021). For research universities, these strategies serve as a contemporary internationalization agenda to enhance student preparedness for a globalized world, foster innovation, align teaching and research and engagement towards an institutional global vision and mission, and integrate internationalization across the institution’s colleges and departments. A university’s Senior International Officer (SIO) is deeply involved in the internationalization strategic planning process and charged with leading an internationalization strategic plan that represents the institution’s mission and goals (Cruz, 2019; Heyl et al., 2019; Olson et al., 2006).

Relevance

Nevertheless, the SIO’s role in strategic planning for internationalization at a research university is an under-researched area that could inform our understanding of institutional strategies and operations in support of internationalization while offering insights on the future of internationalization at a time of intensified global changes. Contemporary global issues that threaten to complicate internationalization strategies include political obstacles stemming from geopolitical concerns and world events; health and safety issues, particularly those caused by climate change; increased scientific and technological competitiveness; concerns about the theft of intellectual property; and circumscribed academic freedom (Altbach & de Wit, 2017; Mace & Pearl, 2021). Given these issues, a qualitative study of how the SIOs of research universities navigate these evolving global challenges in their leadership role is both timely and necessary for understanding the future of internationalization and leadership in higher education. Considering The Power of Protest, if we want to understand the power dynamics involved in internationalization, and better understand how education can be a catalyst for change, we need to understand the role of the SIO.

Conceptual and Theoretical Overview

This study unpacks the concept of globalization by focusing on five dimensions outlined by Manfred Steger (2020): economic, political, cultural, ecological, and ideological. These dimensions inform interview questions with SIOs regarding their views on the future of higher education, their strategies for internationalization in future years, and their priorities for their institutions. Contingency leadership theory and intellectual leadership theory inform data analysis pertaining to the role of SIOs as leaders of their respective institutions and in seeking to better understand the SIO leadership role in research universities.

Research Questions

1. From the perspective of SIOs, which dimensions of globalization are most likely to influence the internationalization strategies at U.S. research universities?
2. How do SIOs perceive their leadership roles in developing and implementing internationalization strategies for their institutions?
3. What specific strategies do SIOs develop and implement to address the internationalization priorities of their institutions?

Research Methodology

This study included two sources of data collection. The primary source of data consists of semi-structured interviews with 10-20 Senior International Officers (SIOs) at U.S. higher education research universities. Interview data were initially coded through an open coding process to develop themes, and axial coding was subsequently used to construct links between themes (Simmons, 2017). Discourse analysis was also used to analyze a secondary source of data: strategic plans for internationalization from participants’ universities. To establish trustworthiness, interview and strategic plan data were triangulated (credibility), thick description of data was used (transferability), and member checking and reflexive auditing were employed to ensure accuracy (dependability) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings

Preliminary findings indicate that Senior International Officers (SIOs) indeed play a crucial role in strategizing and leading internationalization efforts in research universities. Their responsibilities extend beyond managing day-to-day operations and involve shaping long-term visions to promote global engagement and enhance their institutions’ international reputations. However, preliminary data also indicate that SIOs do not always have the authority to implement programs and/or policies to support their long-term goals. Due to the diffuse and loosely-coupled (Weick, 1976) nature of higher education, SIOs expressed frustration about the need to “herd cats” to align faculty with their institutional missions and focus resources on important institutional goals. Data from this study also highlighted the importance of the following internationalization strategies:

• Partnerships and Collaborations: SIOs continue to actively seek and cultivate international partnerships with universities, organizations, and international entities worldwide, even in environments where academic freedom might be curtailed. The primary lures of transnational collaboration are revenue, resources, and international talent.
• Recruitment: SIOs emphasized an entrepreneurial approach to internationalization, engaging in market research to identify target regions for international student recruitment in collaboration with enrollment management units.

• Advocacy and Communication: As ambassadors and advocates for their institution's internationalization efforts, SIOs invest considerable time and resources in communicating achievements, initiatives, and opportunities to various audiences.

• Flexibility: Given today’s environment of political uncertainty, SIOs oversee offices that must remain nimble to effectively support students, staff, and faculty in vulnerable positions.

Implications and Conclusion

This study contributes to our understanding of how institutions strategize for internationalization, how collaborations are formed with key stakeholders, which principles of strategy are employed by SIOs, and how internationalization processes are assessed. A more comprehensive understanding of these factors can expand opportunities for university engagement and service internationally, enhance transnational collaborative activities, support education policies, and counter political and economic trends which threaten greater transnational engagement. A second implication of this study is a better understanding of how SIOs at research universities describe their motivations and rationales for implementing internationalization activities. These data can inform emerging conceptual and theoretical ideas about effective SIO leadership and institutional decision-making processes which impact international engagement.

In summary, SIOs freely use different leadership approaches, such as contingency leadership theory and intellectual leadership theory, to communicate with different stakeholders. SIOs rely on stakeholder governance - through targeted outreach with faculty, compliance partners, and international collaborators - to realize their institutions’ strategic goals. SIOs also serve as intellectual leaders, supporting the development of university innovations and patents, by cultivating international partnerships and focusing on the intellectual strengths in university relationships.

Authors

• Iyonka M. Strawn-Valcy, Georgia Institute of Technology

• Michael Lanford, University of North Georgia