Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Higher Education’ Category

The EU is a collection of separate countries that came together to prevent the possibility of another world war, as well as to compete more powerfully in the international marketplace. However, right now a common currency and shared issues in higher education seem to be the only things they have in common.

Latin America is made up of many separate countries too. Each has its distinct culture and political environment. As with the EU, it is almost impossible to refer to Latin America as a unified entity. Few if any would see it as a common market.

I had the honor this week of kicking off a conference attended by university marketing and communication professionals from many of the countries in Latin and Central America, the United States, and Puerto Rico.  I talked with them about my new book, The Transition Academy, and about my lessons learned over 50 years adapting marketing and communication strategies and tactics to the challenge of making academic institutions better understood. I found that on these topics they indeed did have a lot in common. They were all experiencing government cutbacks, the impact of the digital technology revolution both inside and outside their institutions, and the widespread effects of globalization.

The participants talked to me about how social media tools were changing their students, as well as how they were marketing their institutions differently. They were interested in more sophisticated approaches to brand identity development, and ways to get more support for their work inside their universities. In other words, they have the same internal politics issues that we all do. They asked about the importance of world rankings, and how smaller institutions can respond to related constituent pressures.

In other words, I experienced with this group what I had previously experienced in Canada, Europe, Australia, Asia, and even South Africa. While some of the specifics are different, many of the big issues we face in the academy are the same. While we compete for students and money in some cases, we also can come together and share common concerns and lessons.

Latin America is not a common market. But the universities of Latin America do have many issues in common and problems they can resolve together. And when I suggested that the ultimate potential of all this interaction was a global industry that developed truly international leaders and the expertise to solve our most pressing international problems, no one seemed to object.

Read Full Post »

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism hosted a Summit on Global Leadership in Public Diplomacy at the US Institute of Peace in Washington this week.

In his welcoming remarks the Center’s director explained that the term “public diplomacy” was originally coined 50 years ago by US Diplomat Edmund Gullion to denote “coordinated governmental engagement with foreign publics,” but that over the years the concept became much “more expansive.”

My interest in the topic also began almost 50 years ago as a graduate student studying communication and international relations at American University. And I must say that over the years my teaching and writing embraced the more expansive concept of “people-to-people” communication. For me, government-to-people implied promoting the current administration’s foreign policy. But people-to-people implied a more mutual exchange of traditions, values and human aspirations. In short, for me the “idea of America” seemed best conveyed directly by its citizens. And so I also came to view international higher education as a highly effective form of public diplomacy.

At the Summit this week there were participants from universities, the state department, government contractors, NGO’s, and others. The speakers covered the full “expanse” of public diplomacy concepts and tools from traditional face-to-face exchanges, to uses of social media, to video projects, to MOOC’s, to establishing cultural centers abroad, and more. Common themes ranged from cultivating the ability to have civilized conversations with people with whom you do not agree, to listening first and then accepting a goal of reaching win-win agreements.

One panelist said that “credibility in communication is established by WHO is sending the message.” I certainly agree. And so everything I heard affirmed my contention that international higher education is indeed a pure form public diplomacy. It promises to produce global leaders, enhance cross-cultural understanding, and gradually focus more research on international problem-solving.

 

Read Full Post »

This week the anchor of Meet the Press acknowledged he would avoid mentioning the name of the recent community college shooter out of concern for television’s unintended consequences. And yet he did not put this critical issue on the table for his expert panel of journalists to analyze and discuss.

It seems that each time another shooter goes on the rampage his unstable mental situation is the only factor pundits and politicians can agree on. And yet the more I study such situations, the more it seems to me that the celebrity making potential, and mass visibility of going out in a blaze of glory, are likely to be important contributing factors in stimulating copycats.

There is little doubt that television is at it’s best when it makes drama. It’s in its very nature. Otherwise it’s boring. Live 24/7 television coverage requires drama to hold audiences. Competition between media for side stories enhances that drama. And emotional victim interviews add even more drama.

What does it take for sick-minded, angry and isolated individuals to also want this kind of mass visibility and celebrity? The temptation to copy this drama could be overwhelming. And yet while all of this is unfolding on television, the issue is never discussed.

So what implication does this have for higher education?  Ever since the television revolution of the 1960s I have been discussing “media literacy” with anyone who will listen. Media revolutions always change how everything works… from family interaction, to what it takes to win elections, to individual behavior.

If a global higher education industry can educate international leaders and help solve world problems, it can also advance media literacy. And with so much dramatic violence in the world to report, understanding media must become still another core competency.

 

Read Full Post »

The Pope’s appearance before Congress and Obama’s presentation to the United Nations were both historic moments. They were impressive performances and could be seen as interesting topic agendas for international higher education initiatives.

The Pope addressed most of the pressing issues the planet faces these days, from reversing global warming to breaking the cycle of poverty. He made his concerns about the consequences of capitalist greed very clear, argued that everyone deserves equal opportunities, and reminded the entire world about the universal appeal of the “golden rule.”

But two other points also stood out to me: If you listened carefully he also called for an end to polarization, pointing out how destructive it is for the common good. In addition, he pointed out that US universities have an enormous research capacity to help solve the world’s most serious problems.

On a different but compatible note, Obama’s speech to the United Nations was a clearly articulated case for preferring diplomacy over military action whenever possible. Following the speech, however, a pundit quipped that this was vintage “professor” Obama, missing a perfect opportunity to talk more practically.

My reaction, however, was that all practical solutions begin with “big ideas” and diplomacy and public diplomacy are the perfect “big ideas.” And furthermore, a global higher education industry will help lay the groundwork for effective diplomacy, while itself functioning as a powerful form of public diplomacy.

In the final analysis, both the Pope and the President were challenging the US and the rest of the world to put greed aside and educate everyone everyday for the common good. A global higher education industry will certainly help bring that about.   (more…)

Read Full Post »

Should higher education be included in national political debates?  Should it have its own place on the agenda?  Or should it be considered as a vital factor in effectively addressing other topics?

For example, in a debate about the economy, job opportunities, and social problem-solving should questions about the role of higher education be asked? Many politicians have already declared higher education a failure, so maybe its role in these matters should be debated and discussed more widely.

If some of the more extreme charges go unanswered the implications are frightening. For example:

(1)  Universities are inefficient and ineffective. In political debates where the nation’s effectiveness as a world leader is being questioned, this charge against higher education’s effectiveness has far-reaching implications? Since our universities produce the nation’s leaders, it is a charge that must be strongly and visibly answered.

(2) The high cost of higher education is limiting access to good jobs. The truth is that financial aid offsets an average of 40% or more of the cost, and the diversity of size and type means that sticker prices vary significantly. There is a college somewhere in the US to fit most everyone’s needs and pocketbook. This misunderstanding needs to be answered.

(3) Universities should focus more on practical fields of study. The implication here is that the liberal and fine arts are less worthy. The facts are that many companies prefer liberal arts graduates, and that the job a graduate gets today might not exist tomorrow! These facts need to be heard.

Even if the debates themselves end up with politicians continuing to attack the academy, 24/7 cable, social media, and other major news outlets could balance the situation by having top academic leaders immediately and visibly respond. Otherwise, these charges might go unanswered. Then we all will be the losers.

 

Read Full Post »

A story in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education reported that some educators have come to believe that it is not necessary to use a passport to have a global experience.

The argument in the story is that with the multicultural diversity of the US population it’s not necessary to cross national borders to give students intercultural skills. Today some 40% of Americans are members of racial or ethnic minority groups, and one in 10 is foreign-born.

This thesis, however, misses two important realties:

(1) While it is true that producing globally minded students on campus is both possible and essential, nothing takes the place of also actually being there.

I co-taught a class on international communication for many years with a scholar from India. And yes, I have many friends from India right here in North Texas. I have attended Indian cultural events in Fort Worth. And I have seen many films about India. But none of this comes even close to what I experienced when I found myself wandering the streets of Mumbai and talking with Indians in India! Experiencing a foreign culture on campus is important. But actually traveling and spending time there is essential if you want to become a global citizen and leader.

(2) The second reality has to do with the implications of higher education becoming a global industry. Student migratory patterns are changing. More undergraduates will be choosing to attend foreign universities. Faculty career opportunities are becoming more global. Fund raising is becoming much more international.

These forces will change the competitive situation of most institutions, no matter how small or how local. These questions will have to be addressed: When will our best undergraduate student prospects also be considering an Asia-based education in English at the same cost? When will our donors also begin choosing international visibility and naming opportunities related to their growing global interests?  Will our students have access to the same quality foreign experiences as our competitor’s students?

The bottom line is this:  Preparing for a successful global future will require both on-campus cross-cultural experiences and genuine living-learning abroad opportunities.

Read Full Post »

I recently participated in a conversation about how cities might be able to help solve international problems. At the conclusion I came away thinking that this was a real possibility. So I made a list of the reasons why:

(1) City administrations tend to be more nonpartisan than national governments.

(2) Many city mayors, managers and their executives have serious problems right down the street and therefore tend to be very pragmatic.

(4) Many of those problems are related to poverty and unemployment in nearby neighborhoods

(5) Young immigrants, sometimes second and third generation, tend to live in those neighborhoods and can become disillusioned about their future. Extreme groups offering a future coupled with adventure can sound very appealing and persuasive.

Great universities and great cities tend to have mutual interests in community problem solving, greater visibility, and internationalization. If terrorism is to be successfully addressed it must be addressed in city neighborhoods, and universities certainly can help.

Cities must addresses the root causes. But universities can provide the essential research, project interventions, job training, and leadership education.

In the final analysis, city government officials and university leaders in the great cities of the world just might be more effective in curbing terrorism than most national governments, which tend to get paralyzed by ideology and unbridled egos.

Read Full Post »

The Transition Academy: Seizing Opportunity in the Age of Disruption, is now available at… http://www.case.org/books

CASE Books is an educational publisher serving everyone involved in advancing educational institutions around the world. Today this includes professional advancement officers as well as institutional executives, faculty, staff and the many others who are concerned about the inevitable disruptions of a coming sea change in the industry.

Significant changes in government support, uses of technology, and the globalization of everything, are already underway. Government priorities are different in different countries. Some are focusing on building prestige, some on leading science and technology development, and others on generating and filling jobs. And a good number of these are likely to include overall funding cuts.

Digital technology is producing change inside institutions and out. New on-line programs are addressing unmet needs, and the best ones are solving many of their early quality problems. Technology is also changing how we teach and deliver educational experiences in traditional residential institutions. And simultaneously with all this the economic impact of globalization is changing most everything.

For the academy this goes well beyond study abroad. Undergraduate students will consider enrolling in institutions in many different places in the world. For example, US students will be able to study in English, experience other cultures, and pay no more than at home. The best faculty will have teaching opportunities in other parts of the world, and are likely to move several times during a career. Foundations and businesses that have focused their philanthropic interests locally will have new and enticing opportunities for international visibility and impact.

The question is not whether all this will happen, but how soon will it affect you? Therefore, planning for global change and preparing constituents for a new day should already be underway.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

During Chautauqua Institution’s focus on Europe this summer, Ulrike Guerot, Director of the European Democracy Lab in Berlin, suggested that the EU should function much like a “united states of Europe.”

Dr. Guerot went so far as to suggest that United States of America’s “republic” could actually be a model for Europe. Each European country could elect representatives to go to Brussels specifically to make laws and regulations that insure the development of the EU into a solid economic and political power. She thinks achieving economic unity, and at least some measure of political compromise, is the only way to prevent future wars.

Just as in the US, she expects tensions would exist between the rights of each country and the collective needs of the EU. She also recognizes that the kind of extreme polarization which developed in the US also exists in the EU. But just as in the US, she argues this can be tolerated for a while, and addressed over time.

Many at Chautauqua found Dr. Guerot’s “big idea” a bit far-fetched. But it is an idea that could lead to an EU that would see benefit in longterm support for collaborative university research, teaching, and international problem-solving.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »