HOW UNIVERSITIES IN TRANSITION COUNTRIES CAN BECOME MORE

INTEGRATED IN THE GLOBAL ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

 

 

 

 

 

Stuart Umpleby

The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

and

Otabek Hasanov

University of World Economy and Diplomacy,

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

 

 

 

 

 

Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning

The George Washington University

Washington, DC  20052 USA

Email:  umpleby@gwu.edu

otabekUZ@yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

 

August 16, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for the annual meeting of the Alliance of Universities for Democracy

Yalta, Ukraine, November 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOW UNIVERSITIES IN TRANSITION COUNTRIES CAN BECOME MORE

INTEGRATED IN THE GLOBAL ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

 

 

 

Stuart Umpleby, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA

Otabek Hasanov, University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

 

Abstract 

In the spring semester of 2005 fifteen visiting scholars from the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia conducted a Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) exercise at The George Washington University. We also included by email over a hundred observers and participants around the world. Through the PSP exercise we demonstrated the group facilitation methods called the Technology of Participation and developed plans to guide the home universities of the participants toward more interaction with other universities at home and abroad. The results suggest several actions to work on in the coming years:  improve interuniversity contacts, find new sources of financing, promote faculty self-development, increase faculty oversight of the university administration, improve university infrastructure, and strengthen academic publishing. 

Key words: global network of universities, participation, strategic planning, group facilitation, transition economies. 

Introduction 

Universities in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia are rather well developed.  They have good facilities, experienced faculty, and a tradition of excellence in education.  However, these universities are currently not well integrated in the global network of universities. The transition period that started in the economy in the early 1990s is now passing through academia. There are ongoing changes in the system of higher education in these countries. These changes are motivated in part by the transition toward a market economy, which requires changes in employee skills and in education.    Some of the trends causing change in higher education in all countries were explained in an earlier paper. (Prytula, et al., 2004) 

Method 

To understand the changes our universities are facing and to increase our ability to help our universities make the needed changes, we conducted a Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) activity from January to March 2005. Two groups of people were involved in the weekly sessions.  The first, ‘face-to-face’ group consisted of fifteen visiting scholars from the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia together with a few George Washington University (GWU) faculty members. The second, ‘distance’ group consisted of 91 Junior Faculty Development Program (JFDP) scholars then in the U.S. and about 100 alumni of the JFDP program at GWU.  

Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) is part of the Technology of Participation, a set of group facilitation methods developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (Umpleby, et al., 2003).  These methods can be used with any group of people who share a common interest. A facilitated problem-solving or planning activity involves people in identifying problems as they see them and in devising solutions that they believe will work (Umpleby, 1994).  

We had five group discussions on the following topics: 

1.      “The Focus Question,” the point of reference for all subsequent discussions.

2.      "Practical Vision," a picture of the desired future in five to ten years.

3.      "Underlying Contradictions," the obstacles preventing realization of the vision.

4.      "Strategic Directions," strategies for removing the obstacles to achieving the vision.

5.      "Implementation Timeline," the schedule of actions needed to carry out the strategies. (See Figure 1)

Each step of the PSP process uses the “Consensus Workshop” method. This method involves five steps:

1.      Context -- The facilitator provides background on the method and task.

2.      Brainstorm -- The participants write their ideas on cards.

3.      Cluster -- The facilitator and participants group the cards according to similar ideas.

4.      Name -- The key idea in each cluster is identified.

5.      Resolve -- The facilitator asks if the ideas generated are complete and represent a good description. (See Figure 2)
 

The Participatory Strategic Planning exercise began with an introductory conversation among the participants. The goal of our first session was to define a Focus Question to provide direction to the planning process. The focus question that emerged from our conversation was, “How can JFDP fellows (and others) cooperate to make our universities more integrated in the global academic community?"  (See Figure 3.) The second session was dedicated to defining a vision. (See Figure 4.) The focus of the third session was finding the contradictions or obstacles impeding progress toward the vision. (See Figure 5.) The fourth step was to define strategies to remove the obstacles to achieving the vision. (See Figure 6.)  In the last step we created an “implementation timeline.” (See Figure 7.) We defined four quarters in the year 2005.  During the first two quarters the participants were still at universities in the U.S.  In the second two quarters they were at their home universities.  So in the first two quarters the participants would do research and prepare.  In the second two quarters they would implement the plans at their home universities.            

Use of a ‘distance’ group 

Compared to last year’s Participatory Strategic Planning exercise (Prytula, et al., 2004) we received only a few suggestions from our alumni. We found that holding meetings each week rather than every two weeks provided less time for communication with alumni. There were about two suggestions for each step from people outside Washington. Nevertheless, several people who did not send suggestions said that they found the exercise interesting and thought-provoking and thanked us for including them in the process. These comments indicate that a Participatory Strategic Planning exercise that seeks to involve other participants via email can, without much trouble, have a positive effect beyond the immediate group.  

Conclusions 

The benefits of group facilitation methods, as noted by Rosabeth Moss Kanter are:

1.      The specific plans themselves – strategies, solutions, action plans;

2.      Greater commitment – ability to implement decisions and strategies;

3.      More innovation – a larger portfolio of ideas;

4.      A common framework for decision making, communication, planning, and problem solving;

5.      Encouragement of initiative and responsibility. (Spencer, 1989)

 

Participatory Strategic Planning experiences can help universities improve their performance and become more involved with other universities both at home and abroad. These methods can be particularly helpful for universities in transitional societies, since they emphasize participation and data-driven decision-making. Consequently, they stimulate local initiative and improve accountability. 

Acknowledgement

Research for this article was supported in part by the Junior Faculty Development Program, which is funded by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State, under authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 as amended and administered by the American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS. The opinions expressed herein are the authors’ own and do not necessarily express the views of either ECA or the American Councils.

 

The authors wish to thank Samuel Kim for his assistance in preparing the article. 

References 

1. Prytula, Y., D. Cimesa, S. Umpleby, (2004). “Improving the Performance of Universities in Transitional Economies.” (www.gwu.edu/~rpsol/), Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, the George Washington University, Washington, DC. 

2. Spencer, L. (1989).  Winning through Participation.  Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 

3. Umpleby, S. (1994).  “What is to be Done:  Learning Democracy while Improving Organizations,” Cybernetics and Systems,  25(6):  827-836.  

4. Umpleby, S., T. Medvedeva, and A. Oyler. (2003). “The Technology Of Participation as a Means of Improving Universities in Transitional Economies.”  World Futures, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 129-136.