Digging Through the Trash: Promoting Curriculum Integration through Garbage Can Decision Making by Kayla M. Johnson

Since the early 2000s, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the national organization for Education Abroad (EA) professionals has promoted Curriculum Integration (CI) as a cross-campus imperative for American colleges and universities. Defined as “a variety of institutional approaches designed to fully integrate study abroad options into the college experience and academic curricula for students in all majors” (NAFSA, 2015), CI implementation has become an integral part of the EA practitioner’s job. Using the “Minnesota Model” which uses strategic partnerships with academic units to effectively meet institutional goals to internationalize the curriculum (University of Minnesota Learning Abroad Center, 2015), a sizable number of universities have been working towards CI with the creation of Major Advising Pages, or MAPs. These MAPs have been created in conjunction with specific majors and serve to streamline the EA program search process for nearly every academic unit on college campuses (University of Minnesota Learning Abroad Center, 2015). Using Cohen, March, and Olsen’s (1972) garbage can model of decision making as a lens, this essay seeks to illuminate the intentionality of the use of MAPs to promote CI at some universities, with examples from an anonymous research institution serving as a model.

Historically, colleges and universities have inherently acted as organized anarchies, or organizations with diffuse goals, unclear processes and outputs, and varied involvement over time (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972, p. 2). Many units within the organization operate without shared goals and actors become mobilized for different reasons, for different lengths of time, and at different intensities. This irrational approach to organizational management yields an irrational approach to decision making, and Cohen et al. contend that such organizations are simply “[collections] of choices looking for problems” (p. 2), and that these compilations of problems and solutions are kept in “garbage cans” until they are either used or forgotten.

Just as many universities do, the mid-sized research institution focused on throughout this essay has recently undergone various curricular and organizational leadership changes. From the creation of new degree programs to the restructuring of current ones, this university has created a number of windows for change: instances that Cohen et al. call choice opportunities (p. 2). Each changing academic department was faced with a number of problems and solutions, and thus the garbage can had been set in place, and those in the office of Education Abroad (EA) at the university tossed CI into the mix as a solution waiting for a suitable problem to present itself. Because MAPs in particular are broad in scope and are intimately tied to every major on campus, their quick affixture to the problems faced by many of the academic departments was inevitable.

To show this particular garbage can in motion, I offer the following example. Following a strategic planning meeting about the restructuring of curricula in his department, the new department chair candidly approached the EA director and a number of other university administrators. He reiterated that his department was facing a number of difficulties, particularly with attracting top-quality students due to a less than rigorous curriculum. Therefore, they were working to restructure the curriculum to make it more academically demanding, and thus more attractive to the best and brightest students. His stream of problems focused on increased recruitment and with realigning the curriculum to make these goals a reality, and the university EA director, well-versed in the garbage can model, was quick to add CI by way of MAPs to what Cohen et al. call the stream of solutions (p. 3).

“[T]he two offices would create a MAP designed to assist students in selecting international programs that are tightly tailored to meet the graduation requirements of the degree program.”

The EA director noted that top quality domestic students at many institutions often self-select to study abroad, but that the department’s current course sequencing did not allow much wiggle room for students to do so, a missed opportunity that could be stifling enrollments. He then proposed that the two offices work collaboratively to create a curriculum designed to leave a semester open for more students to participate in EA programming without increasing their time to degree, which could in turn make the program seem more attractive. Then, the two offices would create a MAP designed to assist students in selecting international programs that are tightly tailored to meet the graduation requirements of the degree program. The MAP, as the Minnesota Model dictates, would provide students with timetables for participation, contact information for various programs, and scholarship information to further entice students to participate (University of Minnesota Learning Abroad Center, 2015). The director also conveyed that diplomacy plays a large role in EA programming, and that with more top-quality domestic students going abroad, the department would be increasing its chances for international partnerships and the recruitment of top-quality international students. The department chair leapt at the idea and adopted the MAP approach, providing an intense stream of energy through the problem-solution mix, an integral part of the process (Cohen et al., 1972, p. 3).

MAPs provided only a weak connection to the problems faced by academic departments at the university, but because their goals were so general and their processes for attaining them unclear, the EA director used this window of opportunity and was able to attach his pre-packaged solution to them. MAPs solved the issues of achieving CI and boosting study abroad participation in select majors, while simultaneously addressing concerns involving recruitment. However, it did not necessarily solve the initial problem of non-rigorous curricula; therefore, the choice was made both by resolution and oversight, a subtle, yet important distinction highlighted by Cohen, March, and Olsen.

In this scenario, the choice opportunity of curricular restructuring provided the window needed for EA administration to promote CI through the introduction of MAPs. Although MAPs, in this case, did carry the potential to solve some of the problems faced by academic departments, the decision to use them as a solution was not entirely rational. In fact, Cohen et al. warn that the garbage can process does not solve problems well (p. 16). Nevertheless, the energy put forth by the EA office to highlight the benefits of utilizing MAPs proved sufficient, and became the solution to a multitude of problems circling this particular garbage can. As more and more institutions attempt CI in this current period of economic uncertainty, creative ways of obtaining this goal will be necessary, and digging through the trash just might be the solution.

References

Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.

NAFSA. (2015). Curriculum integration: Best practices. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/findresources/Default.aspx?id=8352.

University of Minnesota Learning Abroad Center. (2015). University of Minnesota model of curriculum integration. Retrieved from http://umabroad.umn.edu/professionals/ curriculumintegration/general/minnesotamodel.

Kayla Johnson is a PhD student in Higher Education at Penn State University. She holds a Masters degree in Higher Education from the University of Kentucky. Her research interests include international student mobility and education abroad outcomes. She is currently a Teaching Assistant in Educational Theory and Policy.