Goals and Objectives For

Goals and Objectives For



2.Internationalization at Brock prior to 19991

3. Historical context precipitating changes in 20011

4. Rationale for consolidation of Brock's international activities into one unit2

5. Creation and Evolution of the Office of International Cooperation4

I. Constituent Units4

II.Development of a harmonized budget structure4

III.International Cooperation Programs and Services: goals and responses5

IV. Organizational Structure, Personnel Deployment, and Decision Making units8

V. Changes in the structure and operation of the Office of International
Cooperation since May 200210

6.Programs and Activities12

I. Responses to the Planning and Priorities Report

a)International Initiatives Fund (established 1999)12

b)Programs for Visiting Academics (established 2000)12

1.Visiting International Professor (VIP) program 12

2. Visiting International Scholar (VIS) program12

3. University Mentorship (UM) program12

c) Revision and update of the International Cooperation website13

d) Notification of international funding and project opportunities:

the International Opportunities e-mail network13

e) Brock International Advisory Committee (BIAC)14

f) Study Abroad Policy 14

g) International Course Support Fund 15

h) Regularization of course and credit loads for Brock students
on international exchange15

i) Policy for Language Study-Abroad Programs 16

j) Policy and guidelines for dealing with Academic Agents 16

II) The BrockUniversityLongRange Planning Report19


Expansion of international exchange and study abroad opportunities

for students, staff and faculty20

i) Opportunities for Brock students21

ii) Opportunities for International Students21

iii) Opportunities for Brock Faculty and Staff21

iv) Opportunities for International Faculty and Staff22

III. International Recruitment: Towards a cohesive strategy23

IV. Role and Activities of International Services23

i)Objectives & Priorities24

ii)Ongoing Activities25

iii) Concerns25

V. New Exchanges, Linkages and Agreements26

VII. Proposals and Tenders27

VIII. Official Institutional Visits28

IX. International Event Administration and Support31

a) International Snackfest / International Development Week31

b) ‘Brock Welcomes the World’ Receptions31

c) African Heritage Month31

d) Brock/WUSC Refugee Student Sponsorship31

X. Strategic Directions and Future Initiatives31

a) Articulation of a cohesive policy framework for international

activities at Brock 32

i) A clear mandate for the Office of International Cooperation32

ii) A clear mandate for the Associate Vice President,

International Cooperation32

iii) The development of a university-wide policy on

international activities32

b) Collaboration with the Office of Research Services to promote

International Research32

c) Ratification of the Travel Bursary Policy 32

d) Ratification of the International Faculty and Staff Exchange Fund 34

e) Reintroduction of the Headspace Initiative34
f) Instructional Development Workshops on Internationalizing the Curriculum35

g) ‘Passport to the World’ information pamphlet35

XI. Publications, Resources and Conferences since September 200036


Appendix 1: The Planning and Priorities Report Mandate39
Appendix 2: Goals and Objectives for Internationalization40
Appendix 3: Summary of the roles and activities of Brock International 41

Appendix 4: Summary of participants in Visiting International Professor, Visiting
International Scholar, and University Mentorship Programs, 2000 – 200342

Appendix 5:Enhancement and Integration of ESL services with other

International Cooperation activities 56

Appendix 6: Regularizing Fee Payments for Students Studying Abroad in

Cost-RecoveryUniversity Programs58


Figure 1: Office of International Cooperation Formal Reporting Structure, May 20028

Figure 2: Personnel deployment in the Office of International Cooperation, May 20029
Figure 3: Functional decision-making units in the Office of International Cooperation,

May 200210

Figure 4: Sample screen shot from office of International Cooperation website, under

development by Charles Voth of iLUSTREn Web Designs in May 200213


Table 1: Goals for international programs and services, and responses resulting
after the formation of the Office of International Cooperation6

Table 2: New Exchanges, Linkages and Agreements – September 2000-June 200226

Table 3: Proposals and Tenders involving Brock International, 2000-200227

Table 4: International Institutional Visits facilitated by Brock International,

2000-2002 (arranged by institution)28

Table 5: International Visitors to Brock hosted by Brock International, 2000-200229

POLICY ISSUE 1: Mandate Assumptions


  1. Introduction

Prior to 1999, Brock’s international profile was unassuming, and there was little coordination of international endeavour across the institution. The period of 1999-2004was marked by unprecedented growth and activity of international initiatives at BrockUniversity. International student enrollments grewdramatically, increasing by more than five-fold. Vigorous new programs for visiting academics have been initiated, attracting some 60 international scholars to Brock between 2000 and 2004. Numerous new exchanges and linkages have been forged, and significant administrative and structural changes were implemented to deal with Brock‘s internationalization mandate.

Dramatic expansion on the international front has also occurred in other sectors of the university, perhaps most notably in the substantial growth of entrepreneurial graduate programs and in the commercial testing activities of the Intensive English Language Program. Though generally positive and desirable, this rapid growth has led to a number of substantive university-wide policy issues around internationalization which require analysis and resolution. These issues, though occasionally troubling in a proximate sense, must be viewed in the broader context of an institution which has made dramatic progress in a very short period. The concerns and issues which occupy our attention at the present time are a sign of institutional maturation, a result of Brock’s ‘coming of age’ as a comprehensive, multifaceted, international university.

2. Internationalization at Brock prior to 1999

At least seven different reports on internationalization at Brock were produced between 1991 and 1998. These included Wilson (1991): Report of the Task Force on International Programs and Activities; Morris (1995): Internationalization Policy; Jordan (1995): International Student Enrollment; Siegel (1997): Workshop on Internationalization at Brock; Shute (1997): A Review of International Activities at Brock University; Bird and Pedler(1998): Students from Foreign Lands, and the March 1998 Report of the Sub-Committee on Internationalization from the Task Force on Institutional Planning and Priorities. All are available for review upon request. The most influential were Shute (1997) and the Report of the Sub-Committee on Internationalization (1998), which consolidated and formalized a number of recurring themes in previous reports.

3. Historical context precipitating changes in 2001

BrockUniversityundertook its watershed university-wide Planning and Priorities exercise in 1998-99. The planning exercise was overseen by the President's Task Force on Planning and Priorities, which was ultimately responsible for drafting the final planning document. The specific terms and conditions of the Task Force are listed in Appendix 1. The resultant Goals and Objectives for Internationalization, excerpted from the resultant 1999 Planning and Priorities document, are presented in Appendix 2.

One of the main outcomes of the Planning and Priorities exercise was a recommendation for the creation of an administrative unit called Brock International to co-ordinate and support international activities and programs, to be administered by a Director reporting to the Office of the President. Brock International was formally established in July 1999. Its first Director, Dr. David T. Brown, and Assistant Director, Ms. Sheila Young, were appointed to the office at that time.The First Annual Report of Programs and Activities – Brock Internationalwas released in August 2000.

The Planning and Priorities document described the university's internationalization objectives in broad (though somewhat general) terms. Through a series of meetings with the President and other international stakeholders at Brock, a more focussed mandate for Brock International was articulated. A summary sheet describing the role, activities, and mandate of Brock International was prepared in late 1999 (see Appendix 3).

The Office of International Cooperation makes the following fundamental assumptions about internationalization at Brock:
It is the mission of BrockUniversity to welcome and support international students and faculty and to encourage exchange programs and collaboration with universities in order to promote international understanding and cooperation. All international activities at BrockUniversity are in place to support the core mandate of the university (i.e., as defined in the Mission Statement, Planning and Priorities report, and Long-Range Planning report), through the provision of international opportunities for:
  • Teaching
  • Learning
  • Research
  • Creative endeavour
  • Professional development
  • Other allied academic initiatives.
The Office of International Cooperation will use the above three documents to guide its activities, operations, and policy development, and assumes that its mandate encompasses active engagement with the above areas of international activity.

4. Rationale for consolidation of Brock's international activities into one unit

Over the two-year period following the establishment of Brock International, much progress was made in identifying and coordinating the activities of the various stakeholder units involved in international activities at Brock (i.e., the Intensive English Language Program, the Office of International Services, international activities in Recruitment and Liaison Services, and the activities of Brock International). However, it became clear that a more integrated administrative structure would be desirable. In consultation with relevant stakeholders, the following rationale was advanced by the Director of Brock International in support of a more consolidated international presence at Brock:

  • Identity and Image: A single integrated 'umbrella' unit has a clear identity, a distinct profile within the university, and provides one window for contacts pertaining to all international activities. This would lead to less confusion amongst students, staff, faculty and the community about who to deal with on international issues.
  • Evidence of Progressive Change: Creation of a single international unit provides evidence that a meaningful, discernable, and logical change has been made in Brock's organizational structure, showing our institutional commitment to internationalization.
  • Timeliness: Announcement of a new international unit with a clear mandate was perceived to be opportune, given the task force deliberations which had occupied the Brock community between 1999 and 2001. It was recommended that the role, responsibilities, personnel, and (if at all possible) physical location of the unit should be announced once and for all, rather than making repeated changes over time.
  • Integrated Nature of International Endeavour: International research initiatives, faculty exchanges, student exchanges, work/study placements, English language training programs, international curriculum development and international recruiting are all tightly integrated and interdependent. To maximize effectiveness, efficiency, and proactive planning, this integration should be recognized and mirrored by corresponding institutional structures.
  • It is impossible to disarticulate the student service needs of exchange students from the administration of the exchanges themselves. It is also unwise to differentiate, in policy or practice, between international exchange students, fee-paying visa students, and students enrolled in entrepreneurial programs, as such disparities will lead to confusion and misunderstanding within these administratively separate but otherwise integrated student communities.
  • For non-English speaking nations, the distinctions between 'student' and 'faculty member' may blur. Many faculty members with substantive disciplinary expertise become students at Brock, either for upgrading their English skills or for further accreditation in their subject area. These same individuals then become critical players in future collaborative research, teaching, recruitment, and student or faculty exchange initiatives when they return to their home countries.
  • Multilateral development projects (e.g., CIDA, World Bank) frequently incorporate reciprocal student training and exchanges, as well as research and collaboration opportunities for faculty members. Reciprocal upgrading of language skills for participants in long-term projects is becoming increasingly desirable on the list of criteria for a successful proposal.
  • Building on existing skill bases: Considerable expertise had been developed over the years in specific sectors (e.g. international student services, international recruiting, grantsmanship, and faculty exchanges) which were housed (somewhat arbitrarily) in different administrative units. Retention of these existing administrative boundaries was counterproductive to integrated international endeavour. However, redistribution of these mandates across existing boundaries without careful regard for existing expertise would impede collegiality and result in isolation of personnel, lack of clarity about duties, hypersensitivity over job descriptions, and the adoption of a reactive approach rather than a proactive approach to international activities on campus.
    The best way to address these challenges was perceived to be through consolidation of international activities and definition of duties based upon substantive skill sets and preferences of stakeholders.
  • Internationalization always involves an administrative dimension, a service dimension, and an entrepreneurial dimension, inextricably interlinked. Individuals whose primary responsibilities lie in one or another of these areas may ultimately report to different executive overseers, but their daily activities should be governed by the collective needs and collaborative demands of the University's internationalization mandate. Excessive rigidity in job descriptions or reporting pathways impedes effectiveness and the possibility for adaptive management.
  • Ideally, combining all international stakeholders should ultimately involve consolidation of physical space and resources. In 2003, the physically disparate office locations of International Cooperation staffers were consolidated along one corridor in Decew Residence, and a new International Workshop facility was constructed.

The formation of the Office of International Cooperation in April 2001 opened a new chapter in internationalization at BrockUniversity.

5. Creation and Evolution of theOffice of International Cooperation

The Office of International Cooperation (IC) was established in April of 2001, merging four previously unconsolidated units: the Office of International Services (IS) and the Intensive English Language Program (IELP) - both in existence for more than 20 years - and Brock International, a new unit established in 1999 in response to the university’s Planning and Priorities exercise, plus the international recruitment component of Recruitment and Liaison Services.The first two years of operation of the Office of International Cooperation (2001-2003) were distinguished by unprecedented growth in international activity, record numbers of international students and visiting faculty, and the emergence of an evolving vision for internationalization on campus.

I. Constituent Units

In April 2001, the Office of International Cooperation was established, consolidating the following units:

  • Brock International
  • Intensive English Language Program
  • International Recruitment
  • International Services

In addition to retaining directorship of Brock International, David T. Brown was appointed Associate Vice President, International Cooperation.

II. Development of harmonized budget structure

In May and June 2001, a new International Cooperation (IC) budget was proposed and approved by senior administration. The new budget structure encompassed and superceded the following budget streams:

  • Brock International
  • Office of International Services
  • International portion of Recruitment and Liaison Services
  • Collaborative facets of Intensive English Language Program

In 2000-2001, all of the above units were running either just at maximum capacity (International Services) or beyond their capacity (Brock International, International Recruitment, recruitment and homestay components of IELP). Despite best efforts, responsible management, and very good performance given available resources, this was evidenced by budget overexpenditures, personnel shortages, significant opportunity costs, and sub-optimal programs and services in some international sectors.

The resultant revised consolidated budget proposal reflected

  • an aggressive institutional commitment to internationalization
  • the development of university-wide capacities in key areas, instead of competing sectoral initiatives (e.g., coordinating procurement of accommodations and homestay for visa students, IELP students, and visiting international academics)
  • movement towards providing high-quality international services which are accessible to all international recruits at the university (exchange students, visa students, entrepreneurial program registrants, IELP students, visiting academics, etc.)

The new IC budget followed a new funding formula which keyed overall IC funding at Brock to the number of international recruits at the university. This provided an ongoing feedback mechanism which ensured that sufficient resources were available to provide excellent programs and services as demand and enrollments increased over the years.

This approach also: a) identified, clearly and unambiguously, the cost for international programs and services, b) clearly identified international recruitment targets necessary to cover the costs of international programs and services, and c) provided a clear incentive to continue aggressively promoting internationalization and international recruitment at Brock.

After discussion, the new consolidated budget structure was endorsed by the President, the Vice Presidents Academic and Administration, and the Associate Vice President for Student Services.

The new IC budget reflected some efficiencies due to the consolidation of complementary activities (e.g., joint international recruitment for regular programs and for IELP), but provided a greater budget base in order to set up and deliver programs and services which will meet our institutional mandate for internationalization.

Changes in university-wide budgeting procedures since 2002.
With the appointment of Steven Pillar, the new VP for Finance and Administration in 2002, sweeping changes were introduced into the financial operations at BrockUniversity. The need for this process was indisputable, since Brock’s size and complexity were no longer compatible with the existing outmoded financial management practices. However, a central tenet of the new budget development process was the removal of any direct formulaic linkages between growth parameters (e.g., number of students, growth in revenue) and the amount of money allocated to a given unit through the budget allocation process. Therefore, the previously-lauded IC budget approach was no longer usable.

Though the new budget development process introduced by the VP Finance and Administration in 2003 helped to standardizebudget application and approvals procedures, considerable confusion resulted for IC due to the presence of a number of non-standard but critical budget components in our budget request. These included: tuition waiver entitlements in undergrad, grad, and IELP programs; setaside funding for study-abroad travel assistance;and funding for key internationalization programs which was previously keyed to overhead revenues from entrepreneurial grad programs. The net result of this confusion was to delay the budget approval process until the midyear budget review in October 2003.
III. International Cooperation Programs and Services: goals and responses