This extremely interesting topic requires an inquiring mind more than absolute proscriptions and it is in this manner that I approached this topic. At the outset, I should acknowledge that there is a real bottom line to this discussion: the well being of overseas advising services in a number of locations. I will not add "as we know them" because their continuation as we have known and loved them is probably not an option. The changes in their operations are already occurring. Thus the need to become entrepreneurial and the concern about continuing to function in an ethical manner while obtaining financial support from new, sometimes not yet identified, sources.

I should say at the outset, in the interest of maintaining my own personal integrity, that there are no clear and easy answers but there are some concepts and directions that I think might be useful. I have searched the literature, engaged in a little soul searching, and really thought about the questions that have been raised by many of you in an effort to create a way of thinking about these issues. I have discovered, in the process, that a lot of the literature on ethics is astonishingly boring and largely unrelated to how we make decisions in real life. Let me begin by laying some tracks for the discussion.

The day I became "Margaret Witch" was my baptism into dealing publicly with ethics in business. Some years ago, at a reception during a NAFSA annual conference, a colleague I had known for some time asked if I would be willing to publish a book he was thinking of writing. (I was then President of Intercultural Press, Inc.) I politely engaged him in a discussion about the focus of this book (linguistics) and the content (rather technical). It became very clear that the book simply failed every test for being published by the Press. It was not even remotely intercultural, it was extremely academic and promised to be a bit ponderous, and it did not meet the interests of our audience. So, after listening patiently for some time and having a few other people join the conversation (urging acceptance of his idea), I asked, "Will it sell?" And he replied, "How did nice Peggy Pusch suddenly become Margaret Witch?" Although he clearly implied that I was a Wicked Witch, I chose to think of myself as the Wonderful Witch. We would not have done this colleague any favors by accepting the project. It was a bad fit. Someone else could better shape and market the book.

Decisions on whether to publish a proposed book or not was based on criteria that was a combination of being fiscally responsible and being responsible to authors and our clientele. The criteria were fairly simple:

Be clear about your purpose, mission and audience: do only what you do well.

Be sure you can successfully develop and market the product.

Be sure you have the resources to sustain the project until completion.

Be certain this is a contribution to the field.

Be clear that you are the best publisher for this book (or other product).

We were known for referring authors to other publishers if we felt that would best serve their needs.

You, in fact, have to apply similar criteria to decisions for advising centers and I will elaborate on that in a moment. I would first like to briefly review what brought us to this situation, define some central terms, lay out in outline form the context of international education and the current conditions, list the constraints we are facing, and then share some of the thoughts I have on how to function ethically in the new environment.

How we arrived here

Josef Mestenhauser, in his article in the latest International Educator, commented that this field "got a new lease on life when the Cold War ended." However, as practitioners and scholars searched for new definitions for their work and as countries began outlining new directions for their public diplomacy, "the paradigm that emerged..... appears to be one of economic competitiveness.

Indeed it seems that this paradigm has invaded international education to a remarkable degree. According to Mestenhauser, and I tend to agree with him, "The more important goals of international education, namely improving quality of life and creating a more peaceful and understanding world, may be muffled" in an environment that is defined by trading blocs. Indeed the language of trade has become common among competitors in the field of international education: "getting our market share" "assessing the economic impact of foreign students on institutions and their communities" are commonly heard phrases. Education as an export is now openly discussed in the United States. One would think that the services of overseas advisors would be perceived as critical!

More than ever there is a critical need for more interface between people of different cultures. There is, however, a failure to see this as an educational priority and we are seriously moving toward a reliance on technology, distance learning, and the media to construct the world view of our students. As Harriet Mayor Fulbright so clearly stated in her International Educator article, "High technology and mass communication are no substitute for face-to-face immersion in another culture." So the "business" we are about has considerable relevance in today's world, a world that is dealing with problems and issues that simply do not stop at borders but slop over to effect and impact everyone. We are faced with the paradox of being interdependent and competitive in a global economy and ecological system. As Dr. Abadi-Nagy stated earlier in the plenary, the ability to function in an international setting is essential, and we are all catalysts for internationalism.

In this environment, there is a network of interrelated colleagues and institutions in international education that form the context for the work in which you are engaged.

The International Education Context

U.S. UNIVERSITIES/COLLEGES

Concerned with, among other things:

Managing student enrollment

Maintaining standing in the world as a world class academic institution

Providing a global experience for local students on campus.

Retaining strong relationships with overseas advisors and others who help students study in the U.S.

Balancing student needs with government agency relationships especially with regard to sponsored students.

International student offices are having to justify their existence and develop "income producing" programs. Those offices may be understaffed, misunderstood, and have fewer resources than needed.

U.S. GOVERNMENT wants to:

Cut costs

Strategically invest funds to further international priorities and goals. At least that is the case according to a letter I received from Senator Olympia Snowe (R, ME) just last week.

USIA: continue it services and support international education; balance interests of its "clients" (all of us) with government priorities.

We have all engaged in advocating for USIA over the last few years and now face the move of this agency into the State Department.

NAFSA exists to:

Further the "cause" of international education-getting the message out is very important.

Provide professional development opportunities and information to professionals in the field.

Maintain good relationships with government agencies, organizations, and others engaged in higher education/international educational exchange, and

advocate for it as many circles as necessary.

Within NAFSA, OSEAS has been very active; OSEAS is clear about what it is doing and has a strong voice and wants to "belong" in and stand with the association. OSEAS also maintains a set of ethical and practice standards.

ADVISING CENTERS AROUND THE WORLD exist to:

Facilitate international educational exchange. ("Catalysts for internationalism.")

Provide information and services to potential students (returning students?)

Maintain relationships with institutions, government agencies (largely USIA and the embassy in locale) and others who are engaged in international educational exchange in the home country

Provide information to colleagues at universities and colleges in the U.S.

Constraints in the Environment

1. Reduced support from USIA to the overseas advising centers, exchange programs and NAFSA. Less support means:

a. the use of advising processes that are heavily reliant on technology which may be less than effective in many cultures. Many institutions rely on web sites to "advertise" their degree programs. Accessing a web site does not help the student make good choices or prepare for study in the U.S.

b. long travel for many students to reach the advising centers (depending on the student's location and the location of the centers) and long days for many of the advisors.

4. The lack of a national education scheme in the U.S.

5. The lack of national policy for international education in the U.S. except as established by regulatory agencies in reaction to an ethnocentric mood in the United States. The Fulbright and similar programs form a core of belief that, it appears, has less and less influence.

6. The context shows that there is a need for and pursuit of new funds to support international education in universities/colleges, within NAFSA (national and regionally), and in the advising centers. There is potential for overlap in fund raising although the guidelines within NAFSA reduces this overlap within the association.

IN OTHER WORDS, ENTREPRENEURISM IS NECESSARY IN EVERY AREA. And competition is the prevailing paradigm. We are all in the same boat.

7. The need to leverage the goals and mission of this field into funding opportunities. There has been a great deal of emphasis on advocacy and those skills, for those of you who do not think you are fund raisers, are essential to finding new sources of funding.

8. The need to search for a way to turn the constraints that we are facing into new opportunities--the need, indeed, to be amazingly creative. Or as a colleague said recently, "an opportunity to cooperate and work creatively together."

Definitions

Several words have been used here that may have different meaning for each of us. Let me define them.

I just said "entrepreneurism" is necessary for all of us. Peter Drucker, a well known management expert who has written many books, talks about the entrepreneur as one who is opportunity-minded and takes advantage of change. It is not a special gift, according to Drucker, but a habit that can be established by decision and strengthened by practice; a habit of looking for things that are not working as well as they could, of looking for needs that are not being met, and of looking for promising beginnings. It is a risky thing to do though it can be very satisfying.

In comparing the truly entrepreneurial environment with

a bureaucratic, or fully funded, one, significant differences emerge:

risk replaces financial certainty, that is, uncertainty about the sources of support replaces assured source of income

the need to clearly identify the market (students and others) and the way it can best be served replaces a clear set of rules, mission, and purpose that is widely shared and understood (one need not give up the mission and purpose but find ways to restate it and use it often),

the need to seriously scan the environment (which includes all those included in the context) and plan ahead vs. continuing operations as usual.

the need to rearrange priorities, job descriptions and make other changes to accommodate fund raising or other income producing activities instead of focusing only on the primary mission.

Secondly, what do we mean by "ethics"?

We are not talking about morals (although it might influence our thinking) which are judgements that are made according to some perceived standard of good and evil, often related to spiritual beliefs of some sort.

It does involve values because ethics derive from values (basic assumptions about what is important-the shoulds of the society). Values are those basic assumptions about what is good, important and desirable in a society; the "shoulds" of a culture. Values become apparent when we said things like "We should really do something."

Professions tend to create their own cultures and to build standards of practice that fit the values of the members of the profession and create a value system of its own. This can be particularly challenging if the professionals are from many cultures as international educators tend to be. However, it has been done in this field.

Ethos is the Greek root of the word ethics and refers to the character and sentiment of the community.

Ethics are the principles of conduct governing a profession so there is some conformity in standards of behavior within the profession. The ethics of a profession are shaped by and reflect the character and sentiment of the professional community.

Belonging to a profession means we profess certain beliefs and have established standards of practice and we have a commitment to the profession with all that implies.

Values relate to Context. We have looked at the context in which decisions have to be made and know what is important across the full range of "players" in the field.

There are three options for making ethical decisions:

1) Dualistic: Impose absolute behavior at all times. Right and wrong is clear. There is no middle ground.

It could be assumed that the OSEAS Code of Ethics can be imposed absolutely (although it is written to flex between cultures).

2) Multiplicity: Allow ethics to vary situationally. Do essentially whatever you want and justify your actions as "being acceptable in my culture or community."

We could assert that since we all work in different cultures, that ethics will vary given the situation and there are no universal standards. OSEAS would stand for very little and everyone would do whatever they can get away with.

3) Context, relativity and commitment.

I would suggest the third approach, being aware of our context, and practicing relativity in commitment. We are committed to the overarching principles and standards that we have agreed upon and apply them in ways that are appropriate to our local environment.

Practical Ethics (Gordon F. Shea) lays out six stages of ethical development;

At Stage One, people behave ethically because they fear punishment by authority figures. Life at stage one is limited, cluttered with dualistic rules, and obscured in its vision.

Stage Two is full of distractions because the largest concern is "what's in it for me?" While concern for others exists, it is largely on the basis of reciprocity. "This is a materialistic stage," familiar to many who see "human welfare and life in terms of economic worth." I can see how it might be easy to get stuck in this stage because there is suffering, there are loses, and it is hard to refrain from complaining. But, stuck in this stage, it is hard to deal with change. When we are preparing people to go abroad, we suggest that they be careful in selecting another expatriate as a friend and informant-avoiding people who are terribly negative because that makes it more difficult to find ways of learning the culture. This can be applied here, the cycle of complaint is not a fruitful place to be. I must add that people at this stage do try to be fair because everyone should get what they want but in conflict situations, they expect others to see the situation from their perspective.

At Stage Three, pressures to conform, to get along with folks like us, and to be accepted as a good member of the group is paramount. The desire to conform may be useful because we are like-minded and accepted within this group and this means, for us, having a circle in which there is loyalty and trust by doing what is expected. One can behave in a goodhearted manner or "mean well" but we all know the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Highly cohesive groups can make disastrous decisions and engage in self-defeating behavior to prove their loyalty to the group. Their view can become very restricted. However, it is possible to expand the circle to global proportions at this stage.

Stage Four places great emphasis on "law and order" to hold a society or profession together. This tends to be a very sterile stage-this stage does not prepare people to adapt to change of any sort. Following the Rules (or the Law or a Code of Ethics) becomes far more important than what is fair or just. There is a tendency to defend our values emotionally and to rely on custom, "the way it has always been done," instead of thinking outside the box. And the "we versus they" syndrome can become very strong, shutting out any conflicting views or concerns. However, it is at this stage that people are open to analyzing the ethics of the decisions that are being made.

Stage Five: The main value of Stage Five reasoning is that it frees us from the stagnation of earlier stages. Here we move from "conventional" ethics to a "tolerance for independent thinking and beliefs." There is an awareness that we live in a world in which new ethical issues arise constantly and there are processes (not procedures) that people use to struggle with the issues knowing that they can find ways to make a difference. It is clear that only a struggle with the issues leads to their resolution. Ethical principles are more than a specific set of rules; they can be derived only after the values that are important have been debated. There is bound to be conflict among the interests of various groups, but it is possible to think through them instead of falling back on the "rules" or practices of the past. To construct the OSEAS Code of Ethics, it was necessary to discover and debate the values of the field even if we failed to name it as a values debate. I found this even with the by-laws for OSEAS Europe which is another document that states ways in which we can ethically work together.

Stage Six has been described as the belief or conviction that all groups have fundamental rights. There is a search for universal ethical principles that can be applied across cultural lines although there may be differences in the practices that are used in each culture. To some degree, the Code of Ethics that OSEAS has recently revised falls into this category. There is recognition that different civil law and ways of behaving will influence the services provided and operations in each location but there is overarching agreement on the ethical principles within which everyone will act. We know who we are and what we stand for in Tel Aviv and Helsinki and London and Moscow. This is something we can depend on but it requires a deep empathy for others and a sincere desire to engage in win-win behavior.

Excellent organizations do more than talk about ethics, they dig deep to determine what is important and consciously think about how the ethics can honestly and consistently be applied to their practices. And know when they are not!

If look back at the criteria of the Wonderful Witch, it can be applied here with some modification:

Two need no modification: be clear about your purpose, mission and audience: do only what you do well. But look ahead and envision what your center will look like in the future under the changing conditions. Vision is not just a catchy term: it is important.

And be certain you are making a contribution to the field.

If you are altering the services and products of your Center, be sure you can successfully develop and market them. Ask yourself, "Does this really make sense?"

Be sure you have the resources to sustain the project until completion. Don't start down a new path, pursuing a product or set of services that are designed to attract a clientele but lack a solid foundation. New ideas can be seductive; you need to be sure of long term viability.

Be sure that you are the best office or organization to provide a particular service or product. At the Intercultural Institute we have a basic rule: if someone else is doing it well, go on to something that is not being done. Don't waste resources duplicating effort.

I was struck by the words of a businessman who walked by me in O'Hare Airport last weekend as I was working on this speech. He was talking into his cell phone and clearly said, "If it is worth doing, it is worth doing for money." And I thought, "you have to be certain it is worth doing."

Not long ago I received a Positive Leadership Newsletter which contained a small and slightly different "ethical checklist":

When contemplating an issue, ask yourself:

1. Is it legal? Will I be violating organizational policies or even civil law?

2. Is it fair and balanced? Are all the people involved in the situation being treated fairly, both in the short and long term. And, of course, you want to determine if an action will hurt anyone?

3. How will you feel when it is done? How will you feel about yourself? Will you be proud of what you did? If your decision and the subsequent action were published in the NAFSA Newsletter or even your local newspaper, would you feel good about your friends and family reading it?

This raises the question of personal integrity, something I mentioned at the start of this presentation (this is the real "bottom line"). Integrity has been defined as "an uncompromising adherence to a code of moral, or other, values" and involves "utter sincerity, honesty, and candor - the avoidance of deception, expediency, artificiality, or shallowness of any kind." It requires a personal integration and completeness that is essential to being a fully ethical person. In the end, you have to live with yourself and have to engage in behavior that you are proud of and can feel good about.

Bertrand Russell offered Ten Ethical Commandments. I will not go through all of them but I would like to mention two that were especially intriguing:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2. Do not be afraid of being eccentric, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

This may not provide all the answers to the issues that you are facing and this is difficult when you are in what William Bridges calls the "neutral stage" of transition and yearn for clear answers. Change can come quickly; moving from the previous way of doing things to a new paradigm is much slower. For some, it is an immediate reality. Others are watching the struggle of colleagues and thinking ahead to a time when they will face similar challenges. There is generally a significant period during which we are testing new practices, discussing how to move forward and searching for the new manner of professional practice. It seems to me that we are now in that neutral zone. There is no wonderful way to describe what this means but usually this is a time of struggle, people take wrong turns and make corrections because they are searching for that New Beginning.

When we find that new beginning, the surge of energy and a new sense of direction not only allows us to move forward but to do so with confidence and excitement. Hurrying the neutral stage rarely helps; getting stuck in it is not particularly constructive. Acknowledging that it is a bit of a wilderness out of which we are finding a way-and that will happen -allows us to stay with the struggle, celebrating every small step, and knowing that something new will emerge, perhaps a way of engaging in our "business" that we haven't yet imagined.

This is a time to let the ideas flow and the possibilities emerge. This is a time to explore. This is a time to be a little comfortable with ambiguity knowing that we are growing as professionals and as individuals engaged in this profession.

Entrepreneurism is not an unprincipled way of grabbing for money. Most of us who have been entrepreneurs have functioned ethically and with integrity. It does mean looking at your environment and field in a new way and being, as someone put it, more diplomatic with colleagues. But these are skills that you all have and can use. You have learned to be diplomatic in the best sense of the word: you are caring, sensitive, and honest, and professionally talented. The hardest part is thinking about who you are professionally and what this field is all about in a different way and I would suggest that in that thinking lies the keys to a very interesting and successful future.

References Quoted:

Crescenzo, Steve, Editor. Positive Leadership. Chicago, IL., 1998.

Hencke, Paul, Editor-in-Chief. Business Ethics. New York: National Institute of Business Management, Inc., 1987.

Shea, Gordon F. Practical Ethics. New York: American Management Association, 1988.

The American Heritage College Dictionary. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1993.

© Margaret D. Pusch, August 3, 1998

Back to OSEAS-Europe conferences
Back to OSEAS-Europe home page