5: Global Engagement Model

Globalization emerges as the process by which nations merge, effectively eliminating national sovereignty to make markets more movable and fluid. It operates on the premise of global capitalism, which relies on transnational flows of goods, labor, people and capital. Globalization is important to remember because it has, to a large extent, emerged from the possibilities and opportunities offered by digital technologies (Castells, 2000).

Internationalization is a facet or by-product of globalization and is the process of transforming something to become global, or international. Land grant universities changed their repertoire as globalization became prevalent, beginning particularly in the 1980s and gaining momentum in the 2000s. Various commissions have reviewed the Morrill Act and deemed it unsuitable for modern needs. In other words, globalization has etched itself, perhaps permanently, into the university framework or architecture. We can reframe this as universities internationalizing in congruence with the aims and realities of globalization. De Wilt & Altbach (2020) suggest that post-secondary institutions have been rapidly internationalizing, which refers to applying principles of globalization to their operations and functioning.

The network society refers to the idea that information and communication takes place, largely in a digital sphere, in comprehensive networks. Internationalization is in-line with massification, the shift from a national to a global knowledge economy, greater autonomy, academic freedom, the value of reputation, and the changing economic and political climate. The networked society is a direct result of globalization and relies on the knowledge economy.  As a result of the spread of networked, digital information and communication technologies, network society emerged in 1991 as a term for the social, political, economic, and cultural changes occurring. According to Castells (2000), information technology is driving a new economy. In this society, internationalization and globalization are priorities (Castells, 2000). Globalization came out of a variety of rationales and motivations that changed over time.

A knowledge economy is an economic system based on production and consumption of knowledge. It refers to the ability to capitalize on scientific discoveries and basic and applied research. This idea has come to represent a large part of all economic activity in most developed countries (Hayes, 2021). Effectively, the ‘capital’ or currency found valuable in the knowledge economy is knowledge itself, which emerges and re-emerges, constantly reproduced, primarily in the digital sphere. The knowledge economy means, for instance, that governments (and arguably higher education) must offer citizens increased access to content and skill-building (Harris & Ormond, 2018).

While labor was predominantly manual in the past, the labor market has experienced a shift with increasing skills-based work. The OECD (2001) suggests that businesses are looking just as much for technical skills as work competencies (OECD, 2001). This is an indicator that the knowledge economy has become a vital concept in the 21st century.

Local context refers to systems and organizations located in proximity and often defined by a civic group of town, city, state, or region. In some cases, particularly with discourse on globalization, local can also mean national. According to Johnstone & Proctor (2017), local contexts remain distinct from global contexts (Johnstone & Proctor, 2017), but often provide opportunities to produce knowledge and research.

International refers to a global or world context. This concept is different from local and distinguishes itself on this definitional basis. Institutions are international when they engage with a broader world community. Johnstone & Proctor (2017) suggest that universities or organizations may have distinct reasons for engaging within international contexts, including absorbing demand (i.e., from international students), political and social integration, forming alliances, increasing reputation and producing new knowledge.

This research adopts Carnegie Foundation’s definition of community engagement: Community engagement describes collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity. Engagement can occur locally and globally, through local/global inflows, communication and dissemination of knowledge, research, capital and entrepreneurship.

Relationship is the way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave toward each other. Reciprocal relationships are mutually beneficial connections. They tend to be meaningful, based on shared beliefs, respectful and long-lasting. Stakeholders wishing to collaborate should be mindful of maintaining positive relationships, in addition to formal partnerships. “Business relationships, which provide information, training, referrals, intermediate inputs, and other services, are potentially central” (Cai & Szeidl, 2017).

An organization and its partners can collaborate in the form of a partnership. By dividing labor as agreed upon between all parties, this relationship aims to reach shared goals. Developing practical solutions to societal and community problems is the goal of partnerships. Partnerships frequently occur either between academic institutions (i.e., two or more HEIs) or between HEIs and other organizations (i.e., community organizations, global organizations, NGOs, etc.). Cai & Szeidl (2017) note organizations experience limits to managerial skills and borrowing. Forming partnerships can be a good way for them to move forward within a complex, globalized HEI system.

Networks occur when there are more than two partnerships, and typically involve integration of local and global initiatives, propositions, programs, etc. Integrating local/global means combining these realms in a network, where stakeholders can access databases, resources, tools and can communicate with each other. Land grant universities engage in networking to help strengthen their global and local reach, promote engagement and tailor to student populations (both international and domestic). Croft (2019) notes extension, research and teaching are at the heart of networks within the post-secondary education environment (Croft, 2019). Extension and research both require comprehensive networks, often involving multiple partnerships within one network, or several networks spanning organizations.

Connector role is the function of linking an individual, academic unit, system, school, and/or organization with another person or entity. Integrating local/global means combining these realms in a network, where stakeholders can access databases, resources, tools and can communicate with each other. Land grant universities engage in networking to help strengthen their global and local reach, promote engagement and tailor to student populations both international and domestic.

A central connecting point across systems or organizations where developing scholarship is its main goal. Scholarship understood in Boyer's (1990, 1996) terms: Discovery, Integration, Application, Teaching, and Engagement. 

A bureaucratic organization is composed of multiple departments, each with policy- and decision-making authority. The purpose of any organization is to achieve certain goals and authority figures are charged with aligning people’ behaviors to institutional goals. In this type of organizations there is a vertical chain of command. (Bolman and Deal, 2013)

The man-machine interface is the point at which different, often unrelated, systems come together and interact or communicate. Intermural refers to the relationship between two institutions. Intermediate means simply the connection between two things, while extramural means outside of the boundaries of regions, such as towns or cities. Interfaces serve to connect various parts of universities and academic institutions on local, national and even global levels. Donnelly (2007) suggests that partnerships help those who may receive inspiration from acting independently (Donnelly, 2007). In today’s complex world, however, independent work is not as effective at securing organizational goals.

Institutionalization or structuration is used interchangeably following Barley & Tolbert’s (1997) theory that emphasizes the degree to which institutions vary in their normative power and their effect on behavior. Barley & Tolbert define institutions “as shared rules and typifications that identify categories of social actors and their appropriate activities or relationships” (p.96) and they expand: “One can think of institutions as abstract algebras of relations among members of social sets. From this perspective, institutions are to social action as grammars are to speech.” (p. 96). Thus, institutions (or structures) are both a product of human action and a constraint on behaviors.

Institutions are enacted through ‘scripts’ that are “observable, recurrent activities and patterns of interaction characteristic of a particular setting.” (Barley, 1986, p. 98). In this context, the institutionalization of global engagement is understood as the longitudinal process by which university actors create tangible and tacit structures and act in relation to those structures.