9.3 Case study: University of Helsinki, Finland

Transcription

1 .3 Case study: University of Helsinki, Finland There is no physical International Office in Helsinki international activities have been incorporated into the Strategic Planning Office. This construction means that international research policy and international education policy are brought close together, in contrast to most classic International Offices, and there are no concerns about the office becoming isolated or overlapping with other units. The absence of an International Office paradoxically makes internationalisation even more visible. However, if you read between the lines, it becomes clear that Markus sees the Helsinki solution more as a phase than a definitive model. But then, isn t this true of institutional organisation in general? by Markus Laitonen Decentralised order or chaos in the making? Based on personal experience I have come to the conclusion that there are only erroneous or misconstrued ways of organising an International Office in the eyes of nonpractitioners. I mostly base this statement on the number of times the International Office has been reorganised at the University of Helsinki during the past 15 years, but also on similar cases at other European higher education institutions. Rather imaginatively, the current situation at the University of Helsinki is that there is no International Office. I will attempt to explain how this came to be, what the current situation is, and what kind of conclusions can be drawn from our approach to organising international affairs at the central level. In the past, when I have tried to explain our set-up to colleagues from other higher education institutions, I have received both doubtful and pitying responses. I admit it is quite difficult to explain it all and even more difficult to convince people that this can actually be made to work. At the very least I am hoping that you, the reader, will find the information interesting and perhaps educational. The University of Helsinki in brief: students: , including undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students international degree-seeking students: 1300 staff: 7500, approximately 50% academic staff and researchers SOCRATES students incoming: 550 SOCRATES students outbound: 410 Non-SOCRATES bilateral agreements: 80 86

2 History Prior to 10 the University of Helsinki had no International Office. There were certain individuals whose job description was predominantly international but they were few and scattered across different units within the central administration. There were some non- SOCRATES bilateral agreements in place, especially within Europe, but the activities therein were scarce. The International Office was first established in 10 and at around the same time the faculties began to hire their own international administrators. The Office was independent and reported to the Director of Administration. This period lasted until 15 and saw the opening up of ERASMUS for Finnish universities. Outbound exchanges flourished but it was All Quiet on the Western Front for incoming exchange students. Finland joined the European Union in 15, and the whole central administration at the University was restructured. As a result a new was established: Strategic Planning and Development saw the light for the first time. Within the new the first persons started working for European research programmes and later this resulted in establishing a Research Services Office within the. At the same time the International Office experienced considerable growing pains in becoming part of this larger. The ambiguous line between international matters dealt with by the Research Services and the regular International Office combined with difficult relationships between some key people were a fertile ground for yet another restructuring, this time within the. The International Affairs and the Research Services were combined into one office, designated Research and International Services in The idea behind this move was to do away with some overlapping areas of responsibility such as researcher mobility or international services for doctoral students. Almost ironically, in the same meeting the result of the latest restructuring was officially announced: news of an upcoming total restructuring of the whole central administration was brought to everyone s attention. Understandably this was a little demoralising for the staff, as there was an expectation of some major changes in the air. Thus the full potential of the new office was never totally realised. The major result of the restructuring was the merger between the old Strategic Planning and Development and the former for Academic Affairs, which also included the student services. The resulting structure, which is the current one, is featured in the organogram in figure.3. The end result has international affairs present in all the four units of the of Strategic Planning and Development (the retained its previous name despite the merger). Service related to student mobility and international degree students were placed in the Student Services, the development of teaching in English and academic staff and researcher exchanges within Academic Affairs, support for international external research funding within Research Affairs and the remaining international activities within Strategic Planning (academic staff and researcher mobility refers to exchanges within 87

3 figure.3 Central administration Financial General administration Department of Strategic Planning and Development Personnel Technical IT Strategic Planning Academic Affairs Student Services Research Affairs SOCRATES and the Nordic Norplus programmes as well as the University s bilateral agreements). The latter unit is responsible for the overall coordination of international affairs across all the units of the. In essence the traditional International Office is decentralised within the central administration. The function of the Head of International Affairs is to oversee the activities and to make sure that the actors within the units do not run their separate ways. A common feature of most of the re-organisations described above is the fact that they were not initiated by representatives from the International Office, and in some cases were not even supported by them. They were rather either a result of a reorganisation of the whole central administration or caused by simple power struggles. But, most importantly, the decisions and models have never been based on careful analysis of what would be an ideal organisational model for the University of Helsinki s international affairs. Features of the decentralised system The doubtful colleagues I mentioned above always ask how the coordination can be arranged, or rather how one can avoid total chaos among the different actors. Difficult as it may be, there are certain tools and mechanisms that facilitate this. 88

4 Firstly, apart from Research Affairs, which mainly supports itself through EU overheads, all the other units share a common budget for international activities and the Head of International Affairs coordinates the preparation of the budget and also monitors its usage. Secondly, there are several projects that bring the staff from different units together. The development of an Admissions Office for international degree students can be cited as an example, but there are others. Thirdly, the strategic planning and management of international affairs is structured. An Action Plan for Internationalisation has been approved by the University Senate and this key document provides straightforward guidelines for all the actors in the four units. Fourthly, there is a shared database, in which mobility activities, agreements and other key data are stored and therefore information is available for all. And last but certainly not least: the staff in the four units are dedicated and willing to cooperate and collaborate with each other in order to promote the internationalisation of the University of Helsinki. Some additional issues The main elements of success were listed above, but the current structure, especially at the time of creation, also benefited from other circumstances. After a little more than a decade of increasingly organised international affairs activities, the whole issue of university internationalisation has become widely accepted and consolidated throughout the University. Therefore, regardless of the organisational model, there was little risk of total abandonment of the core activities. In one sense it could be said that the situation was ripe for this kind of organisational model. Another key issue was the fact that the relatively small International Office in central administration found it difficult to get permission to hire additional staff. Therefore the alternative was, to some extent, to internationalise some of the previously domestically oriented people, especially in Student Services and in Academic Affairs. The Bologna process is a perfect case in point. The first information about it was received by the people in the International Office and for several years it was regarded as an international issue. Partly through planting people with international duties within Academic Affairs, the adoption spread to those who were really most relevant, who deal with degree regulations and related matters. For the Head of International Affairs, being placed at Strategic Planning has also opened up opportunities to influence the University s strategic plans beyond just being involved in formulating the internationalisation strategy. It is also very important to be aware of the general planning process and to be able to influence key decisions. Today the strategy for internationalisation is much better embedded in the general strategic documents, compared to before. Naturally, converting people to internationalisation would not have been possible without the heads of the four units being receptive to international affairs. Luckily, in the case of the University of Helsinki they were. Some of these key people really adopted the international agenda of the University and even became its strongest proponents. Having heard of similar cases going very wrong I cannot but believe that making sure that the relevant people in the organisation do not stand in the way is the single biggest key to 8

5 success for a decentralised system. These key people also include representatives of the University s leadership. Certain consequences of the decentralised model As a result of the reorganisation, the student services part of the previous International Affairs Office has been developed a great deal. Knowledge and insight on how service processes are developed and assessed have greatly benefited the coordination and development of student exchanges and activities related to international degree students. The process of, for example, changing staff job descriptions has been much improved. Somewhat paradoxically, the visibility of international affairs within the University has increased through not having an International Relations Offfice. These issues have become part of the discussion in forums previously almost entirely domestically oriented. As the coordination of international affairs in the central administration is the responsibility of the Head of International Affairs, but the actors are not his subordinates, there is an increased degree of trust that has to be placed on the individuals and their units. My role in, for example, hiring new staff has changed from that of the decision maker to more of a consultant. Conclusions Having merely scratched the surface of the changes that have changed the way international affairs are organised at the University of Helsinki, I think I can still offer some conclusions or suggestions for the reader. The decentralised system can be made to work. It is not impossible to have success adopting it. The ways and means of coordination should be well devised and clearly stated. The organisational model for international affairs of the University of Helsinki should not simply be copied by anyone. It is not inherently better than any other model, and institutional circumstances should be considered carefully before applying it. The single biggest challenge for continued success lies with getting the decentralised organisational model institutionalised, so that even if some of the key people in the organisation change, the processes and collaborative models are not threatened. If one is successful in implementing the decentralised model there are many advantages for both the international activities and possibilities for internationalising previously non-international areas. Even though much can be said about the way reorganisations have been done at the University of Helsinki, this is not to suggest that the organisational model should have never been changed; features and aspects of both the University and its surroundings have changed dramatically and continue to do so. These changes in the operating environment should be taken into consideration and the organisational model selected for a university and its International Office devised accordingly. 0

6 There is no guarantee that the current model is the end station. But where future development might lead is still a mystery. 1