Model
Digital Document
Publisher
Florida Atlantic University
Description
Globalization, the integration of markets and the shrinking of boundaries both
figurative and real, provides the context in which institutions of higher education have
considered a change to their culture, curricula, and composition in recent years.
Increasingly, the response ofunjversities to globalization is to bring a greater
international dimension to their teaching, research, and service; a process known as
internationalization.
The purpose of this study was to identify the change strategies that allowed three
regional public universities to internationalize their campuses. The qualitative multi-site
research design incorporated a critical case strategy with participants who led, facilitated,
and/or implemented the change process. Data collection was obtained through interviews,
documents, and direct observation. The analysis consisted of pattern matching facilitated
by two-dimensional matrices. Leading change in higher education has been related to moving cemeteries and
herding cats and therefore may seem like a cruel hoax; but as this study reports it need
not be so. The study found that a highly integrated, non-linear change process Jed to
successful internationalization. An expanding number of champions who constantly
communicated a motivating vision and who opportunistically pursued creative strategies
to internationalize resulted in cascading layers of buy-in throughout the university. This
buy-in was not only an effect, but a change strategy in its own right; and was a primary
focus of those leading the change effort. These universities institutionalized change
through various structural and programmatic means. The change process concluded with
a transformed institution that incorporated an international dimension into the culture,
life, and work of the university.
The findings were compared and contrasted to Kotter's ( 1996) eight stages of
leading change and Eckel and Kezar's (2003) model for transformation in higher
education. Neither fully explained this study's cross-case findings, and a new model for
leading transformational change in institutions of higher education was proposed; one
which builds on the strengths of Kotter's and Eckel and Kezar's models, but which
addresses their limitations as well.
figurative and real, provides the context in which institutions of higher education have
considered a change to their culture, curricula, and composition in recent years.
Increasingly, the response ofunjversities to globalization is to bring a greater
international dimension to their teaching, research, and service; a process known as
internationalization.
The purpose of this study was to identify the change strategies that allowed three
regional public universities to internationalize their campuses. The qualitative multi-site
research design incorporated a critical case strategy with participants who led, facilitated,
and/or implemented the change process. Data collection was obtained through interviews,
documents, and direct observation. The analysis consisted of pattern matching facilitated
by two-dimensional matrices. Leading change in higher education has been related to moving cemeteries and
herding cats and therefore may seem like a cruel hoax; but as this study reports it need
not be so. The study found that a highly integrated, non-linear change process Jed to
successful internationalization. An expanding number of champions who constantly
communicated a motivating vision and who opportunistically pursued creative strategies
to internationalize resulted in cascading layers of buy-in throughout the university. This
buy-in was not only an effect, but a change strategy in its own right; and was a primary
focus of those leading the change effort. These universities institutionalized change
through various structural and programmatic means. The change process concluded with
a transformed institution that incorporated an international dimension into the culture,
life, and work of the university.
The findings were compared and contrasted to Kotter's ( 1996) eight stages of
leading change and Eckel and Kezar's (2003) model for transformation in higher
education. Neither fully explained this study's cross-case findings, and a new model for
leading transformational change in institutions of higher education was proposed; one
which builds on the strengths of Kotter's and Eckel and Kezar's models, but which
addresses their limitations as well.
Member of