Quality Over Quantity: Evaluating Partnerships

Georgia State University (GSU) knows a few things about active partnerships. The university’s first Fulbright Scholar in Residence, in 2022–23, was a Brazilian scholar of movement analysis and neuromuscular rehabilitation who worked with the physical therapy department of GSU’s nursing college. The visit led to study abroad, research, and scholar exchange programs with the Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), as well as a cross-cultural community health fair that brought together faculty, staff, and representatives of the Brazilian consulate to support Brazilians living in Atlanta in September.

“It has grown into good things for us,” says Kike Ehigiator, director of international partnerships and agreements at GSU’s Office of International Initiatives. “It’s beginning to morph into a partnership where we’re engaging multiple colleges, faculty members, the community, [nongovernmental organizations], and government health agencies.”

As institutions move away from measuring success by the sheer number of international partnerships, “there’s been a move to really thinking strategically around what a partnership is,” says Kalpen Trivedi, vice president for global affairs and director of the International Programs Office at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (UMass-Amherst). “How do we think intentionally and strategically around how the agreements are formed and how we evaluate and assess them, both on the front and back end?”

“How do we think intentionally and strategically around how the agreements are formed and how we evaluate and assess them, both on the front and back end?” —Kalpen Trivedi

The shift from quantity to quality isn’t new, but many institutions are now finding ways to operationalize this philosophy by creating systems and criteria to develop a deeper understanding of their partnerships. Doing so, international educators say, can provide a richer understanding of the full portfolio of partnerships and how it fits into broader internationalization efforts.

“As long as a university looks at partnerships with structure and criteria, they will be successful,” says Janaka Yasantha Ruwanpura, vice provost and associate vice president of international research at the University of Calgary. “You will have a much broader perspective.”

A ‘Forced Pause’—and an Opportunity

The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for institutions to rethink how partnerships fit into their overall mission. “It was a tumultuous time, but as a result of the student mobility hold, we had a forced pause where we were able to assess programmatic health,” says Annette Roberts Webb, dean of University of California-Merced Extension.

Institutions also discovered that many of their partners faced similar disruptions during the pandemic, forcing the need to reassess their external relationships. “Changes in personnel and job duties, restructuring and closure of offices, and economic and political shifts have created a very different landscape that we must work together to navigate and best serve students while meeting organizational goals,” says Emily Kirsch, director of international relations and partnerships at University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) Extension.

And evolving legal, regulatory, and ethical considerations—including geopolitical shifts and efforts by institutions to forge more equitable relationships with partners elsewhere in the world—require new, more intentional approaches.

“Changes in personnel and job duties, restructuring and closure of offices, and economic and political shifts have created a very different landscape.” —Emily Kirsch

“One of the big things that is changing in terms of the [global] North-South paradigm is moving away from partnerships that are not beneficial for all parties involved,” says Samia Chasi, manager of strategic initiatives, partnership development, and research at the International Education Association of South Africa.

Together, these factors have forced a rethinking of partnerships beyond sheer numbers. Institutions have used the focus on offering more intentional, strategic partnerships to pare down their portfolios. The University of Calgary, for example, once had more than 400 international partnerships. Yet, when Ruwanpura asked his team who its top 10 partners were, “they couldn’t tell me,” he says.

To address this, Ruwanpura’s team launched a partnership rating index in 2018, with the goal of identifying the partnerships that had the greatest potential for growth. Now, he says, the institution will not enter a memorandum of understanding (MOU) until an evaluation against the index is done. To make this shift, Ruwanpura says, “you need criteria and data.”

Strategies and Systems

Developing tools to assess, evaluate, and make decisions about partnerships requires data and deliberation—and it also requires time. “I think the most successful strategy is patience,” says Lewis Cardenas, EducationUSA REAC for South Asia. “Agreements are not overnight, and partnerships can take years to cultivate.”

Among the steps to building systems for stronger partnerships:

1. Align partnership goals with institutional strategies.

International offices at many institutions have aligned their objectives with broader institutional strategies, but now some are bringing the same lens to bear on their partnership portfolios.

At GSU, for example, the Office of International Initiatives is aligning its partnership strategy with the university’s strategic plan, which is currently being revised. Connecting partnership objectives with institutional goals can help identify “low-hanging fruit and the unusual opportunities that present themselves,” Ehigiator says.

It’s also important to bring institutional partners together to determine partnership goals. At the University of California-Riverside (UC-Riverside), a global partnership action team created in 2021 brought together six academic divisions to act as a central coordinating body to pool resources, share MOUs, and develop a campuswide partnership strategy, according to Webb, who worked at the institution for 24 years.

“If growth is on the table, a clear plan and value proposition should be in place.” —Emily Kirsch

Such connections can allow a more clear-headed approach to evaluating the “why” of partnerships, according to Kirsch. “Maybe growth is not the goal, but rather, institutional resources and staff energy should be spent on strengthening and deepening existing relationships,” she says. “If that's the case, identifying current partners that could benefit from additional resources may become a priority. If growth is on the table, a clear plan and value proposition should be in place.”

2. Capture information about partnerships.

International offices have also become more intentional about collecting data about international activity across the institution to evaluate existing partnerships and identify opportunities for new ones. “One of the reasons to do a data project is to not have a scattershot approach,” Trivedi says.

UMass-Amherst’s international office took a gradual approach to understanding faculty partnerships, introducing Google forms around five years ago with simple questions about faculty’s goals and, in the case of existing partnerships, what had proven valuable about the experience. Over time, these intake and partnership assessment forms were revised to collect significantly more information—“almost a fact-finding interview,” Trivedi says.

“One of the reasons to do a data project is to not have a scattershot approach.” —Kalpen Trivedi

At the same time, the international office worked with the university’s research office to identify additional metrics—including travel patterns, grant proposals, and publications—to identify “nodes of activities,” such as faculty members in different disciplines working in the same country or with the same institution.

“By overlaying these different data points, in some cases they overlapped with historic written agreements, and in others, they revealed activity where we didn’t have formal partnerships,” Trivedi says.

In similar fashion, University of South Florida (USF) international office staff monitors research publications to identify areas of collaboration between faculty and international colleagues that aren’t within the scope of a formal partnership. “They present an opportunity,” says Kiki Caruson, vice president of USF World.

Since much of this data collection relies on voluntary participation by faculty and other collaborators, it’s essential for international leaders to strengthen relationships across the institution to understand the full scope of partnerships and opportunities.

“What can you do to preemptively build relationships with the involved departments on campus to open the door to these inevitable conversations?” Kirsch asks. “Understanding the possibilities and limitations within your organization will help you understand the ways in which you can successfully collaborate.”

3. Establish criteria—and use data to measure them.

Once information is available, international staff can develop criteria to evaluate potential and existing partnerships. At GSU, staff use data from voluntary faculty applications to group partnerships into three tiers based on the level of activity and engagement. But doing so required first coming up with a working definition of a strategic partnership—multiple activities across disciplines, colleges, programs that support institutional goals such as internationalization. That definition was then built out with additional criteria, including faculty engagement, supportive structures, evidence of active programming, and measurable outcomes, among others, according to Ehigiator.

Criteria can be quantitative and qualitative, but they should align with broader institutional values. An institutionwide global engagement plan can provide guidance and targets that can be used to develop goals, criteria, and data to evaluate partnerships, according to Ruwanpura.

In developing criteria, international leaders must also recognize that partnerships have different objectives—from specific research outcomes or student exchange targets to less quantifiable goals such as internationalization or developing global perspectives. Creating a consistent set of criteria requires looking across the full scope of international activities.

“Some partners are superstars in one area, like student exchange,” says Caruson. “Or you could have a lot of research going on, but not as many opportunities for student mobility. Those are the things that require a more nuanced look at what partnerships are doing.”

“Something might sound like a good idea, but if you don’t model it out, you might spend time on something that’s not as [beneficial].” —Annette Roberts Webb

Criteria should also be informed by inward-looking data, including the institutional resources needed to support and sustain partnerships, such as curricula, capacity, and time to implementation. Webb also points to opportunity costs—the risks involved in devoting time and resources to one partnership that could be allocated elsewhere. “Something might sound like a good idea, but if you don’t model it out, you might spend time on something that’s not as [beneficial],” she says.

While challenging to develop, criteria can help institutions make a wide range of decisions. For example, GSU’s tiered criteria help the Office of International Initiatives to determine where to allocate seed funding to foster growth in targeted partnerships and identify opportunities for interdisciplinary research. And, in some cases, using criteria may suggest alternatives to formal partnerships, such as limiting international office activity to visa support, according to Trivedi.

International leaders should also find a way to capture an intangible element of partnering: the strength of the relationships. “How else can we evaluate success in partnerships?” Kirsch asks. “The work that we do is completely relational, and the human connection is of utmost importance.”

4. Set a cadence for evaluating partnerships.

Data and criteria aren’t just important at the beginning of a partnership. “Getting to the signing of an agreement is an endeavor, but it’s just the beginning,” Caruson says. “The real work starts when you’re cultivating this and ensuring people remain engaged.”

While many institutions evaluate partnerships at their conclusion, regular assessment can help make course adjustments that keep them working well. “A partnership must not function as a unilateral operation,” Cardenas says. “There should be periodic checks and balances, including yearly program participant and stakeholder assessments.”

“Getting to the signing of an agreement is an endeavor, but it’s just the beginning. The real work starts when you’re cultivating this and ensuring people remain engaged.” —Kiki Caruson

Regular evaluation can be used to monitor whether engagement has fallen off or a program has languished, but it also can identify opportunities to bring other partners or groups on board to strengthen relationships. To that end, UMass-Amherst is developing criteria for midterm evaluations, which will consider targets and metrics established at the onset of the partnership and determine whether they remain the right outcomes or if the partnership should pivot.

The benchmarks used to evaluate ongoing partnerships should be informed by the criteria used to establish them in the first place, according to Webb. “Agreements need to be practical in stating expectations, roles, responsibilities, outcomes, and enrollment patterns,” she says. “It helps set the [key performance indicators] so you can monitor.”

It’s also important to recognize that different kinds of partnerships will have different goals—some of which lend themselves to “one and done” arrangements, Trivedi says. “You could have a specific project with deliverables which is successful even if it doesn’t renew,” he says.

And the reality is that assessing partnerships will ultimately lead to the decision to end some of them.

“Considering the increasing costs of education and the growing disparities in costs between two institutions, it is essential for schools to reevaluate their historical models, reset the equilibrium, reexamine the criteria for their partnerships, acknowledge their successes, and close the chapter on those that have been unsuccessful,” Cardenas.

5. Develop structures and tools to manage partnerships and data.

A more intentional approach to evaluating partnerships requires structures to support it. Many institutions have created a manager of partnerships within their international office. Caruson makes the case for doing so: “It’s hard in a large university where you have multiple stakeholders and activities going on,” she says. “If you have a central global partnership contact, then that person can shepherd these agreements to a fruitful plan.”

Many international offices are also developing new tools to support the collection and use of data involving partnerships. For example, the University of Calgary has developed a research collaboration scorecard. This tool measures metrics at the country level, including research funding, alignment, and level of risk. It also collects data at the institutional and individual researcher levels, in areas such as existing partnerships, the number of postdoctoral scholars who have come to the university, and more.

At GSU, international office staff have taken data collected from faculty applications to create a knowledge base of faculty and international engagement. Doing so, Ehigiator says, has allowed the office to understand where partnerships are happening organically and what opportunities exist to make them more active and intentional.

Support can come from beyond the international office. For example, UMass-Amherst is leveraging the institution’s Salesforce platform and customer relationship management tools to create a database to track partnerships and global connections. And GSU works with its provost’s office to administer its seed funding for promising partnerships and with the university’s marketing office on a communications strategy to showcase partnerships across the institution.

The Bottom Line

An intentional focus on evaluating partnerships can yield positive results. At UC-Riverside, postpandemic assessments resulted in prioritizing extension partnerships such as academic pathway programs that could “focus scarce resources on higher ROI [return-on-investment] program offerings so we could rebound,” Webb says.

Even when evaluations curtail partnerships, the results can be beneficial. Kirsch recalls a recent email from a potential partner saying that a collaboration wouldn’t be a good fit on their end, reflecting, “A partnership has to work for both parties involved… Rather than being disappointed the relationship didn't work out, I was appreciative of the potential partner's clear evaluation of their goals and capabilities, our programs' place in their market, and how these priorities coincide.”

At the same time, some things haven’t changed about partnerships. “It’s important to key into emotional intelligence when working with partnership building,” Webb says. “As we work together with other organizations, it’s sometimes smooth and sometimes complex and messy. Having a good relationship helps us get through the different professional dynamics that might occur.”  •