The Forum Focus - November 2017

The

FORUM

Focus

November 2017 | Volume 4 | Issue 2

∙1∙

Confronting the Challenge of Rationalization in Education Abroad David English, Co-Founder, Study Abroad Mendoza Part 4: Control

I

n his book, The McDonaldization of Society, sociologist George Ritzer details four characteristics of the highly rationalized organizations that have become prominent in our increasingly globalized world: efficiency, predictability, calculability and control. Because controlling people is often considered essential to implementing and enforcing the first three characteristics, we now turn to the issue of control in this final of four essays outlining the challenge that rationalization presents to education abroad.

Ritzer says, “The great source of uncertainty, unpredictability, and inefficiency in any rationalizing system is people.” Thus at first glance, it would appear that better control of human beings could only help to ensure that we meet our field’s primary goal of student learning and development. Think of all the horror stories of loose cannon faculty on overseas programs taking decisions into their own hands without deference to administrative authorities back home, written guidelines, or standardized emergency protocols. Surely, many believe, the solution to various people problems in our field is the stricter control of individuals via computerized systems as well as rules, regulations, and manuals prescribing accepted procedures and techniques (all of which Ritzer classifies as “control technologies”).

At a Forum Standards Workshop last year, I sensed this strong desire for more control over personnel in education abroad when I stood up and asked if there were not at least some cases where the people best able to judge situations and make decisions on short-term programs are faculty leaders in-country rather than administrators back home. My question was met with wide-eyed disbelief and a resounding “No!” Those in the audience (which was mostly comprised of administrators who were apparently disgruntled with the antics of some of their own faculty leaders) might as well have shouted “Faculty? Those boneheads! We can’t trust them with anything.” ∙2∙

Ritzer explains that rationalized organizations emphasize mechanisms to control any type of person in any type of job rather than methodologies to carefully select people who can be relied on to independently make good decisions because of their skills and abilities. For example, fast-food restaurants have done away with the cook by developing simple routines that nearly anyone who can read and count can follow. Cooking at places like McDonald’s has effectively been reduced to connect-the-dots or paintby-the-numbers “food preparation.” This is considered more efficient and less risky since following prescribed steps eliminates the potential creativity and therefore the unpredictability of the chef. At McDonald’s, there’s zero risk of an overly salty, undercooked hamburger—or an exceptionally good one.

The originator of this control ethos is Frederick W. Taylor, the 19thcentury efficiency expert who pioneered the concept of scientific management at companies like Bethlehem Steel. Instead of relying on a laborer’s “rule of thumb” or a cook’s “pinch and a dash,” methodology, Taylor espoused careful measurement and documentation of all processes. His objective was to identify the “one best way” to produce a product or service, codify this knowledge into manuals, and then train and supervise (i.e., control) workers so that they rigidly followed his procedures and protocols.

The result was rational systems within which “any trained monkey,” as one Burger King employee told Ritzer, could perform a specific job. Henry Ford’s assembly line is one of the most famous applications of Taylor’s principles.

∙3∙

Of course, education abroad isn’t Bethlehem Steel, and The Forum on Education Abroad’s Standards of Good Practice, that encourage and disseminate best practices, aren’t in any way restrictive like Taylor’s and Ford’s principles of scientific management. Nonetheless, as with Ritzer’s other three characteristics of rationalized organizations, we must take care to apply control narrowly and in the right areas so that it does not threaten our field’s priority of student learning and development. While The Forum’s Standards like Policies and Procedures (Standard 6) serve as invaluable guidelines, their over-prioritization and misuse, although well-intentioned, could lead to the replacement of human judgment with the dictates of rules, regulations, and structures. And forcing talented human beings equipped with a wide range of skills and abilities to follow a script, and consult management when making even the smallest of decisions, has its downsides.

One of the major disadvantages of creating systems to control any trained monkey is that it enables and promotes “...As with Ritzer’s other the hiring of just about any monkey that three characteristics of can be trained. Control technologies renrationalized organizations, der it unnecessary to carefully select we must take care to apply workers that can be trusted without oversight to leverage their skills and abilities to control narrowly and in the best reach an organization’s primary right areas so that it does goals. So, the average quality of the worknot threaten our field’s force falls. This leads to a corps of highly priority of student learning trained but unskilled, uncreative and disand development.” empowered employees who find themselves at a loss for what to do when things go “off the script.” Should communication with management be cut in an emergency, or should the need arise for spontaneous decision-making based on unpredicted events, trained monkeys are less than ideal problem solvers. They can actually increase inefficiency, unpredictability, and risk as compared to relying on more able and talented personnel.

This phenomenon is known as the de-skilling of a workforce, and the ever more rationalized airline industry serves as a warning of its dangers.

Pilots who have become dependent on computers, autopilots and exhaustive checklists sometimes forget to fly their plane in an emergency because they are too busy consulting their computers and procedural manuals. A 2011 report by the Federal Aviation Administration found there had been 51 “loss of control” incidents over the previous five years, perhaps because commercial pilots spent on average only three minutes per flight manually controlling their planes. This should not be surprising, given that the report ∙4∙

also revealed airlines and regulators discourage or even prohibit pilots from turning off the autopilot and flying planes themselves. Talk about the irrationality of rationality!

If, as I intuited at the Forum workshop last year, a problem for our field is a lack of faith in the faculty who lead programs overseas, then we must select and train better program leaders rather than apply control technologies that limit human judgement and decision-making to such an extent that those who pilot our programs are effectively disempowered and de-skilled. No matter the quantity of policies, procedures, and bureaucracy, unqualified people will always have the potential to behave ineptly and increase risk. After all, rules are notorious for being easily and often broken—especially at a distance from administrative authorities.

By applying control in education abroad mainly in the selection and training of faculty leaders, precisely to get the types of leaders who don’t require much control, people problems would be addressed long before they turned into troublesome and difficult to solve situations overseas. The resulting freedom from control would give faculty the flexibility to respond creatively and appropriately in circumstances that no one can foresee, employ their skills and abilities that are so essential to student learning and development, and competently fly the plane full of students with which they have been entrusted. Of course, this might mean sending fewer students abroad, since the number of potential program leaders would be reduced and fewer faculty wanting to “If… a problem for our lead programs would be allowed to field is a lack of faith in do so. The quality of programs would the faculty who lead have to take precedence over the programs overseas, quantity of programs—in institutional then we must select contexts where more is often equatand train better ed with better and raw numbers are program leaders rather prioritized, despite the resulting peothan apply control ple problems. technologies that limit From the perspective of an inhuman judgement and country service provider with ten decision-making…” years of experience, in this series of essays I have attempted to raise questions important to our field. Is the field of education abroad, like so many organizations in our increasingly globalized world, going to be about efficiency, predictability, calculability and control, or at its heart will it be about student learning and development? Will it be about quantity or quality, entertainment or education, package tours or cultural immersion? I ∙5∙

have argued that, especially in a field where student learning and development is the stated priority, we must orient ourselves towards our reasoned goals rather than the more rigid, rationalized characteristics of entities like McDonald’s, thereby focusing on quality rather than quantity. I hope I have provoked thought and provided a starting point for a healthy and open debate that is beneficial to education abroad and the students it is our mission to serve.  Read parts 1-3 of David English’s series, “Confronting the Challenge of Rationalization in Education Abroad,” in previous issues of The Forum Focus.

CREATING GLOBAL CITIZENS: IS IT ENOUGH? Carlise Womack Wynne, Associate Director, Center for Global Engagement, University of North Georgia - Gainesville

I

ncreasingly within higher education, the call for an internationalized curriculum that fosters the development of global citizens who are able to embrace multicultural concepts, interact within a global community, and have the capacity for an awareness of their own identity within a global construct is finding its way into mission statements and university vision statements in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Over the past decade, many institutions have incorporated the concept into the very mission statement that guides all aspects of decision making for the institution, but the implementation of the concept is little more than a theoretical “As educators, we have framework. The concept is not a new one, though in recent years the emphasis on a responsibility to our creating a globally conscious curriculum society and our world to has gained new ground as students inprepare our students to creasingly need to develop the ability to be leaders, not simply interact with a variety of cultures, ethniciglobal citizens, but ties, and nationalities throughout the course of their chosen careers. Our world rather global stewards.” has become inseparably interconnected.

To that extent, how are we truly preparing our students to interact ethically in a global context? Simply providing students with awareness while lacking empathy, or without the motivation to act ethically or become a catalyst for change does little more than prepare educated bystanders. As educators, we have a responsibility to our society and our world to prepare our students to be leaders, not simply global citizens, but rather global stewards. ∙6∙

Whereas a global citizen has the awareness, ability and capacity to identify and understand the factors that impact the global community, they may or may not have the motivation to act on those understandings. Global stewards possess a higher level of self-awareness, which allows the steward to develop a sense of responsibility for acting ethically. Personal empathy motivates them to become a catalyst for change in unjust situations. This is a sharp distinction from the current philosophy of global citizenship. Global stewards would elect to seek solutions rather than allow others to act without individual responsibility or conscience. The emerging generation of global leaders must be equipped to identify societal, economic and governmental problems, have the skill set to interact in a multicultural environment, and the motivation to be catalysts for ethical and equitable change in an ever-changing Photo credit: University of Missouri world.

The shift from global citizen to global steward is not simply a vocabulary shift, but a culture shift in how we prepare students to take their place as global leaders. As culturally and globally conscious educators, we have a responsibility to teach our students how to engage in self-reflection and utilize that self-awareness to engage in responsible and ethical decision making that provides equity for all parties. Preparing students to become global stewards does not come without controversy. There are those who argue that national identity should supersede the desire to identify as a global culture while others suggest that we must strive to develop students who see themselves as agents of change rather than individual agents who view the world through a single construct which they impose on all situations. One also must be cautious not to relegate their global citizenship to a purely economic or specifically capitalistic characteristic unassociated with culture or society.

Arguments can be made that academics have no place in developing the moral compass of students, or addressing values within the curriculum.

While values-based education and global education are two independent concepts, they are not entirely separate entities. Many scholars have directly connected the concepts of multicultural education and internationalization within their respective curricula. Unfortunately, this connection is not pervasively internalized by the most internationalized campus or the most globally minded curriculum. Additionally, though the missions and ∙7∙

visions of institutions regularly include globalization, the culture of the institution and the curricular decisions made by the institution rarely systematically reflect this emphasis.

Shattle (2007) contends that some of the characteristics of global citizenship include global citizenship as a way of thinking, as social and political participation, as self-awareness and awareness of others, as cultural empathy, and as the cultivation of principled decision-making. Many of these characteristics are noble in theory, but if they are sporadically taught in our institutions or definitions of self-awareness and principled decisionmaking are interpreted widely, how do we ensure that we are developing global stewards that are prepared to effectively meet the challenges of the world in which they will lead? In an era where political attitudes and alliances are ever-shifting, and the geographical boundaries that define nationality are not always the same as the cultural bonds that define identity, the core definition of what responsibilities befall a global citizen need review and analysis. Shattle’s (2007) characteristics are highly relevant in modern society, though we must critically analyze the completeness of this ap“...We must develop a new proach to global education. Additionally, without explicitly taught content that algeneration of leaders who lows for self-reflection and critical analyembrace a deeply rooted sis, students will rarely voluntarily achieve sense of empathy and self-awareness on a global scale. We conscience, balanced with must begin to examine the very foundation of our curricular development and an understanding of the delivery to ensure that global stewards theories and practices of are an active product, not simply a bysocial justice as a catalyst product of select programs of study. for global change.”

While some curricular approaches do include self-reflection, social and political participation, global thinking, and ethical decision-making, and promote the development of cultural empathy, these suggestions seem to be only a shade of the level of activism that is needed to face the challenges of our world. Awareness without deliberate activism is not enough in our current global climate. Awareness of self, awareness of culture, and awareness of ethics only meet half of the need. When we create global citizens, we are failing our students. Indeed, we must develop a new generation of leaders who embrace a deeply rooted sense of empathy and conscience, balanced with an understanding of the theories and practices of social justice as a catalyst for global change. In order to meet the needs and challenges of our current and future world, we must develop leaders who have the analytical skills to both identify and pose solutions to our most difficult and complex problems. We must begin developing this and future generations as global stewards. ∙8∙

We must explicitly teach the pedagogy of the oppressed, white privilege, dominance of culture, and the impacts of those concepts on our ability to experience and interact with our own and other societies. We must also engage in dialogue with our colleagues about the inclusion of these concepts into the curriculum as a whole. Students cannot develop a culturally competent skill set without exposure to a variety of cultures, experiences, and viewpoints that will allow the student to engage in selfreflection and growth. As educators, we have a responsibility to explicitly teach empathy and social justice concepts in order to create a generation of global stewards and future leaders who will break from traditional systems of thought and engage in the process of solving social and economic problems. 

BRIDGING LEADERSHIP GAPS FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATORS Sarah E. Spencer, Director of Study Abroad, University of St.Thomas; Global Leadership League

G

ender dynamics are back and sharply in focus—in our national media, on our campuses, at our organizations, and in how we individually negotiate and integrate our work and home lives. If you started your international education career three decades ago, many of these conversations will be frustratingly familiar. For early or mid-career professionals, reading Sandberg’s Lean In or Gerzema and D’Antonio’s Athena Doctrine may have ignited reflection on gender equality and what skills you need to navigate your career path.

These reflections inspired a group of women in the field to ask each other, “What challenges do we face as women in international education?” Out of that conversation, the Global Leadership League was founded. The League is a vibrant membership organization designed to build the competency of current and aspiring women leaders in the field of global education for the benefit of their organizations and themselves. We do this through in-person and online ∙9∙

programs such as curated articles and colleague interviews, mentoring circles, free webinars, and local and national events with speakers from outside our field.

The good news is, we have a healthy list of challenges from voices in the field. 274 women responded to the first Global Leadership League survey last year. The top five Issues of interest to women in the field are (in no particular order):

Issue 1: Career Advancement in International Education Planning and building careers have shifted over the decades, from the ‘serendipity’ generation to the ‘intentional’ professionals. From current data, we know that women want to strategically plan their professional roadmap, and question if it has to end ‘at the top.’ Many women balance two career families, are place-bound due to a partner’s job or family commitments, and live in a job market with few education abroad positions and limited opportunities to advance.

Diversifying our professional workforce also weighs on their minds, as we recruit and retain women of color and men and adapt best inclusive practices. In roadmap planning, women want to be a competitive candidate for new opportunities, and question if a Ph.D. is necessary to advance.

Issue 2: Work-Life Harmony and Integration The relation between work and life is something we must decide individually, and it shifts throughout one’s career. ‘Harmony’, as opposed to ‘balance’, better represents the individual choice of where work fits into one’s overall life. As global educators, we have additional challenges when responsibilities align with the mission of student mobility. That is, we must travel for work, manage partnerships, familiarize ourselves with sites and review them periodically, and recruit students from various locations. Many women struggle to balance these travel expectations with children, aging parents and partners’ schedules. These factors leave women wanting to know how to draw better emotional and time boundaries, avoid burnout and ask for time away without feeling guilty.

Photo credit: Global Leadership League ∙10∙

An adjacent issue for women leaders is how to find new skills and tactics to manage increasing professional workloads. This is not a new challenge, as time and workload was named the number one challenge in the Pathways to the Professional 2008 survey. Obtaining additional resources was also the highest challenge in the AIEA 2012 and 2014 SIO surveys.

Issue 3. Advocating for Advancement and Building Skills Women in the League’s 2016 survey called out for acquiring and practicing new skills and competen“The number one skill cies, especially those not traditionalchallenge is ly found in international education. negotiation... Women Women seek improving their advowant to know the best cacy, strategic budgeting and influways to ask for what encing skills to impact organizational they want and to align leaders, especially those outside the with their organization’s profession. goals.”

The number one skill challenge is negotiation, particularly in the context of obtaining additional compensation, benefits and flexibility. Women want to know the best ways to ask for what they want and to align with their organization’s goals. The League is starting to address these skill challenges with programs in our webinar series, Getting a Good Deal: Negotiation Skills for You and Your Office and Negotiating for You: A Coaching Conversation.

Influencing others comes in a close second, and The Forum and Global Leadership League will take this up in one of the first Critical Dialogues, Women & Leadership: Building Influence & Blazing a Path, Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at The Forum’s Annual Conference in Boston.

Issue 4. Styles in Leadership for Gender Equality Recognizing that the work landscape continues to shift as it diversifies (and who better to skillfully navigate through different cultures than international educators?), women find perceptions of leadership and male and female styles a significant challenge. Women have many questions about gender roles and expectations, and if a woman’s personal leadership style comes across as “assertive, bossy or argumentative.” Women want to know how to advocate for themselves without feeling uncomfortable, and how to be the best influencer in their roles.

Women at universities want to know how to navigate rough waters, especially in higher education office politics. Universities may have extra challenges, with faculty who carry the confidence of tenure, and a potential status divide between administrators and professors. ∙11∙

Issue 5. Lack of Comprehensive, Field-Wide Data Collection The Forum on Education Abroad provides the only data available with Gender Bias and Salaries in Education Abroad, published in March 2014.

The survey honed the Institutional Resources and Programs Survey results and highlighted marked differences between women and men professionals in education abroad, including:  6:1 ratio male to female tenured faculty;  43% of males held Ph.D.’s, only 16% of females;  50% of all females held “assistant” positions, while only 16% of males did the same;  Several of the job categories are significantly populated by either males or females: hourly categories have more females; onsite program director, tenured faculty, faculty administrator, more males;  Fewer females on average received salary increases in each year.

The most important analysis suggested that there is a potential gender bias in education abroad salaries. After variables were controlled, men appear to have a salary that is approximately $9,962 higher than women at the director level. Although the sample size was too small to be generalizable, this is an indication that further data collection is needed.

Lean In, Step Up, and Move Ahead While this article focuses on the challenges as women leaders, the

Global Leadership League along with amazing organizations like The Forum on Education Abroad are focusing on solutions. We may not get to the endgoal immediately, however, we are committed to encouraging women and men to take note of these challenges, to grow in leadership skills, and, most importantly, to support each other on the journey. 

∙12∙

Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of The Forum on Education Abroad.

The Forum encourages responses to the perspectives in this issue.

Reflections, topic suggestions and other correspondence are welcomed, and all contributions will be considered for future publication.

Please send correspondence to: info@forumea.org

∙13∙

© The Forum on Education Abroad Dickinson College P.O. Box 1773 Carlisle, PA 17013 info@forumea.org +1 717 245-1031

∙14∙