| 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 of universities 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 led 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. |
