A word about rankings

While rankings can sometimes be useful in assessing potential partners, they can also be dangerous and misleading. Differences in institutional mission, student audience, and relationship to local and national development have created a wide range of valuable, effective, and excellent institutions in Japan and the United States. Many ranking systems ignore this, choosing one or two criteria for their ratings, usually research output and the academic achievements of incoming students. As Mayumi Ishikawa (2009) points out, such rankings establish a single model of academic excellence, when a multi-faceted model is more appropriate. Such rankings mask the many forms of excellence that exist, and they can blind colleges and universities to some of the most appropriate potential partners.

Establishing Selection Criteria and Procedures

Strategic partnership strategies include criteria for evaluating potential new partnerships, as well as procedures for deciding which to pursue. There is much variation from institution to institution on these matters. Before signing any agreements, many U.S. institutions now engage in lengthy internal deliberations involving faculty, departments, the international office, legal counsel, the chief financial officer, and the upper administration. A central element of early discussions with possible partners should include describing what criteria and procedures operate at each institution.

Criteria for evaluating potential partnerships generally include some combination of the following:

General institutional compatibility
- Similar missions, aspirations, and values
- Similar students in terms of background and degrees sought
- Similar (building synergies) or complementary (filling gaps) academic offerings and areas of excellence

Specific institutional compatibility in terms of international goals
- Advances specific goals for international teaching, research, civic engagement, and/or institutional advancement
- Fits with the role assigned to international partnerships at the institution

Good fit with existing partnership portfolio
- Builds on areas of strength
- Fills gaps
- Does not stretch resources too thinly

Quality and integrity of potential partner in terms of
- Accreditation
- Ranking
- Academic programs
- Business and partnership practices
- Capacity for collaboration with your institution

Geographical location
- Reflects civic or commercial links of your local community
- Complements the locations of existing partnerships
- Would appeal to and serve the interests of students and faculty

Some faculty or departments are already engaged with the proposed partner
- Support the idea of expanding the engagement across your institution
- Have strong connections that can be used to build the partnership

Proposed partnership will engage a range of students, faculty, and programs at your institution, not just one

Productive discussions with the potential partner have taken place (see Taking the Time to Learn about Each Other)
- Trust and rapport have been built
- Mutual understandings (including what partnerships mean) have been reached
- Common projects and interests have been identified
- Level of commitment has been determined
- Possible roadblocks and negative impacts have been identified and addressed
- Resources and financial arrangements have been negotiated
- Regulatory issues have been addressed
- Language issues have been addressed

Resources and structures exist to support the partnership over time
- Faculty and departmental commitment exists
- Funding for travel is possible
- Financially supportable exchange structures can be arranged
- Course articulations are possible, if relevant
- System of regular communication can be established
- Each side has person, team, or office to manage its part of the partnership
- Capacity exists (or can be developed) to provide language instruction, as well as cultural and national framing for students and faculty

Proposed partnership has undergone the required levels of discussion and review at your institution; all relevant parties approve

Partnership will be of mutual benefit to all partners
- Each side will gain something of equivalent value
- Potential exists to develop something together that neither partner could develop on its own

Next up: Defining Your Strengths »