U.S.-Mexico Higher Education Engagement

[Pages:72]CIGE Insights

U.S.-Mexico Higher Education Engagement:

Current Activities, Future Directions

ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education and may not be used or reproduced without the express written permission of ACE.

American Council on Education One Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036

? 2017. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

CIGE Insights

U.S.-Mexico Higher Education Engagement: Current Activities, Future Directions

Robin Matross Helms

Director Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement

American Council on Education

Jermain Griffin

Research Associate Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement

American Council on Education

CIGE Insights

This series of occasional papers explores key issues and themes surrounding the internationalization and global engagement of higher education. Papers include analysis, expert commentary, case examples, and recommendations for policy and practice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of a number of organizations and individuals to this report. Banco Santander/Universia provided funding for the project, as well as important preliminary data; the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC) also supplied data and helpful advice. Lucia Brajkovic, senior research specialist in ACE's Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE), contributed to research, writing, and editing. Heather Ward, CIGE's associate director, and Manuel S. Gonz?lez Canch?, assistant professor in the University of Georgia's Institute of Higher Education, provided invaluable editorial input and support. Finally, the authors would particularly like to thank the institutional leaders and staff interviewed for the project, whose perspectives and insights contextualized the data and informed our recommendations.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 An Inventory of Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Area 1: Student Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Area 2: Faculty Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Area 3: Curriculum and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Area 4: Research and Mexico-Focused Research Centers at U.S. Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Area 5: Institutional Outposts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Area 6: Public Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 High-Activity Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 U.S. Institutions: Five Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Mexican Institutions: Three Major Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The Role of Other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Type 1: Government Agencies and Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Type 2: Nonprofit and Non-Governmental Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Type 3: Higher Education Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Type 4: Networks and Consortia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Type 5: Accrediting Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Type 6: Specialized Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Putting It All Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Executive Summary

Academic ties have long been part of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. Focus on this area has increased in recent years, however, and a variety of new policies and initiatives aimed at further expanding and enhancing cross-border higher education engagement have emerged. At the national level, these include the 100,000 Strong in the Americas initiative in the U.S.; Mexico's Proyecta 100,000; and the Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research (FOBESII), which together have spurred a wide array of new programs and cross-border partnerships at the institution level. Given the attention and resources devoted to increasing collaboration, as well as a rapidly shifting political climate, the time is right for a comprehensive assessment of U.S.-Mexico higher education engagement. Supported by Banco Santander/Universia, this project endeavors to provide such an assessment. Specifically, this report includes a broad inventory of existing collaborative activity, an examination of trends and challenges, and data-based recommendations for policy and practice.

The inventory catalogues activity in six key areas: ? AREA 1: STUDENT MOBILITY ? AREA 2: FACULTY MOBILITY ? AREA 3: CURRICULUM AND TEACHING ? AREA 4: RESEARCH AND MEXICO-FOCUSED RESEARCH CENTERS AT U.S. INSTITUTIONS ? AREA 5: INSTITUTIONAL OUTPOSTS ? AREA 6: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

While the inventory focuses on institution-level collaborations and engagement, an important finding of the assessment is that a variety of non-institutional actors play a role in the U.S.-Mexico higher education relationship. The report includes descriptions and examples of six types of "other" organizations:

? TYPE 1: GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND ENTITIES ? TYPE 2: NONPROFIT AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ? TYPE 3: HIGHER EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS ? TYPE 4: NETWORKS AND CONSORTIA ? TYPE 5: ACCREDITING BODIES ? TYPE 6: SPECIALIZED SERVICE PROVIDERS

A cross-category analysis of the inventory data, supplemented by interviews with institution representatives, yielded five key conclusions that summarize the current landscape of U.S.-Mexico higher education engagement: ? Although an array of institutions are represented, bilateral collaboration is notably concentrated in par-

ticular subsets of the U.S. and Mexican higher education systems. ? Student mobility is a cornerstone of U.S.-Mexico engagement, but issues of sustainability, safety, access,

and reciprocity are key concerns. ? There is substantial engagement with Mexico among the U.S. professoriate, but the onus is largely on

individual faculty members to undertake collaborations, research, and other projects.

5

? Administrative structures and support are important scaffolds for Mexico-focused activity at U.S. institutions.

? There is limited coordination among U.S. institutions around their engagement with Mexico. These conclusions suggest a number of policy and programmatic recommendations, aimed at the collective U.S.-Mexico higher education community and discussed in detail at the end of the report, for further strengthening bilateral collaboration: ? Focus on sustainability. ? Build upon exisiting connections. ? Diversify partners and participants. ? Engage in advocacy.

6

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download