Task Force Minutes

November 4, 2005

• Campus reports
• Regional Alliance initiative
• Previous meetings
• Resource database
• Off-campus study paper
• Buyers' cooperative
• Collaboration paper
• Future steps for engagement

Attending: Shiwei Chen (Lake Forest College), Gary De Coker (Earlham College), Robert Entenman (St. Olaf College), Joan Ericson (Colorado College), Elizabeth Hayford (Associated Colleges of the Midwest), David Kelley (Oberlin College), Joan O'Mara (Washington and Lee University), Daniel Sack (Associated Colleges of the Midwest), Rujie Wang (College of Wooster)

The meeting began with introductions and brief campus reports.

• Joan O'Mara reported that Washington and Lee has lost its East Asian Studies major, in favor of a major in East Asian Languages and Literature, leaving East Asian Studies in limbo. Language study, particularly Chinese has surged, with twenty-six students taking first year Chinese; the university is considering adding a second faculty line in Chinese.
• Robert Entenman is the temporary chair of Asian Studies at St. Olaf. The department has added some positions, joint appoints with other departments. Language enrollments are up, especially in Japanese, which Robert attributes to the popularity of anime. There are forty students in first year Japanese and thirty in first year Chinese. The college has received grants from ASIANetwork and the Freeman Foundation. Off-campus study in the region is popular.
• Rujie Wang said that the College of Wooster is about to vote on abolishing the Asia-focused Cultural Area Studies major, because it has been called "amorphous." It has been a contentious issue in the faculty.
• Shiwei Chen reported that Asian Studies is growing slowly but steadily at Lake Forest. There are three faculty members and two language teachers. The college offers 30-35 courses a year, cross-listed with other departments. There are fifteen majors and 16 minors. Between 2003 and 2005 103 students have taken Chinese and 82 Japanese. There are no full-time language teachers, but the department is hoping for a tenure-track position in Chinese. The college sent fifteen students to China in the summer of 2005. Lake Forest is working with the Beijing Program of Asian Studies, an off-campus program that offers 20-25 courses in English plus internships. The end of the Freeman grant is a challenge to the college; it is considering creating an International Center.
• Gary DeCoker said that student interest has led Earlham to strengthen Japanese teaching. There are two tenure-track language teachers, plus people teaching literature, film, history, politics, etc. Eight to ten students graduate a year in Japanese Studies. They are developing a team taught introductory course. They are also looking to hire someone to teach Chinese. They are experiencing some tension with Comparative Languages and Linguistics, however. For Japan Study, Gary noted that increasing numbers of Waseda students are interested in coming to the United States, mainly from the university's new liberal arts college. They are sending forty to sixty students a year to eighteen colleges.
• Joan Ericson reported that Colorado College has a major and minor in Asian Studies, intentionally including other Asian languages and culture, such as India and Mongolia, which has been popular with students. Asian Studies is predicated on entrepreneurial individuals and networking to convince administrators of its importance. The department has endowment money given for tenure-track lines, plus seven people with interests in the region. There are no language majors, but twenty students are studying languages in their first year, and seven are writing senior theses on Asia.

Dan gave an overview of the Global Partners Project and the regional alliance initiative. The key idea behind the regional alliances is that collaboration can help small colleges engage with a particular region in a more effective and efficient way, including off-campus study and other issues. The France task force is looking at a region that almost everyone is involved in, but maybe not efficiently. The Eastern/Southern Africa task force is working with a region that has received little attention fro colleges but has a lot of potential. The East Asia task force is facing a region that is attracting growing interest but presents challenges to colleges. The task forces were set up not to create new programs but to assess current work and possible collaborative possibilities. The France task force has talked about ways to share library collections, and developed a model for sharing exchange programs. The Africa task force has developed a paper that argues for the importance of study in and of Africa. The consortial staff has collected data about off-campus study in these regions and resources for teaching these regions on campus.

In previous meetings the East Asia task force has talked about what our colleges and the consortia are currently doing and identified some needs. We have found that there is general interest, but colleges are at widely varying levels of engagement. Language study is increasing, faculty being hired, and there are more off-campus study opportunities. As is always the case with small colleges, however, there is not enough resources or faculty time. The task force has suggested that collaboration could help address these needs. There is already collaboration for the region, most notably Japan Study and ASIANetwork; we don't need to duplicate their efforts. At the last meeting we laid out three approaches to collaboration:

• Off-campus study: Japan is well covered by Japan Study. There is a lot of interest in China, and a growing number of programs. The task force proposed creating a report that would evaluate programs in China, and perhaps recommend building a relationship with a provider.
• Resource database: The task force moved to collect information about resources for teaching about the region-library materials, faculty, majors, etc.-and make that information available broadly.
• Faculty development: To get non-specialists interested in the region, the task force proposed organize seminars along the model of NEH seminars.

The last idea didn't get very far, but the first two did. Task force members received the reports ahead of the meeting.

Dan noted that the Global Partners Project ends in December. The main goal of this meeting is to look at the results of these initiatives and think about what to do next. He noted that the resource database was assembled by the Japan Study staff and has been posted on the web. Japan Study has tentatively agreed to maintain the database for the next few years. Gary noted that the data is hard to update, but could be useful. He has heard from people who have used it for a variety of purposes. Joan O'Mara said that ASIANetwork has some of this information, but not all of it, and does not have the staff to collect it. It would have been useful if this database included information on requirements for majors. Elizabeth Hayford wondered how we might alert a potential audience to the database's existence. Joan O'Mara suggested that it could be announced in ASIANetwork's newsletter and web site.

Discussion then turned to the paper on off-campus study in China. Dan contacted the colleges that send students to China, asking faculty and off-campus study administrators their opinions of the programs they use. He identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the most-used programs and the marks of an ideal program in China. Student and college needs vary, so there is no one program that is perfect for every situation. The paper could be helpful for advising students considering study in the region. It recommends that the consortia consider making an arrangement-a buyers' cooperative-with CET. He has also written a short paper on the idea of a buyers' cooperative, which would have colleges or consortia identify a program or program provider as a good program for liberal arts students in one or more regions and negotiate a reduced price in exchange for a preferred status.

Task force members had a variety of responses to the papers. David Kelley agreed that one program does not fit all students; limiting the number of programs used is a good idea, but they need to accommodate different needs. Most East Asian Studies students need programs that teach languages, for instance, but other students look at different programs. Joan Ericson added that faculty often have relationships with specific programs; the paper would be useful, however, for colleges that don't have such relationships already. Elizabeth suggested that the ACM office could offer the paper because it has credibility related to off-campus study. Shiwei said that Lake Forest is satisfied with the Beijing program, largely because of student evaluations. It is useful for a college to have its own program, he argued. He suggested that program providers be invited to present the virtues of their programs. Robert proposed a web site with a list of preferred programs, as a resource for advising. Dan offered to reformat the report to make it available for advising; it would include links to programs but remove the names of colleges cited. Robert suggested also including student comments about programs. Shiwei saw an advantage in a centralized evaluation of programs, like the Better Business Bureau.

Gary said that even with a buyers' cooperative colleges would still need to be able to use other programs. Someone would need to regularly manage a buyers' cooperative and to keep it visible with the colleges and with the chosen program; perhaps the consortia could identify that program as "affiliated". Elizabeth added that we would also need an advisory committee made up of faculty to continue and evaluate the relationship. Joan Ericson noted that we would need to evaluate programs very carefully before rejecting them. Robert noted that colleges have different cultures for off-campus study; St. Olaf, for instance, likes to own its programs. He concluded that the idea of a buyers' cooperative is a good one, but that faculty would not support it. Elizabeth observed that an arrangement with a provider need not be permanent. Robert noted that colleges have different cultures for off-campus study; St. Olaf, for instance, likes to own its programs. He concluded that the idea of a buyers' cooperative is a good one, but that faculty would not support it.

Gary proposed making a deal with a provider that would involve more than just one region, which might result in greater efficiencies. Dan noted that a GLCA staff member proposed the same idea, without preferring programs. Joan Ericson said that the approach would avoid the question of ranking. Robert pointed out that this would recognize that one program is not right for all. Gary suggested that a program might or might not offer a discount, but it might help fund programming for the consortia. Elizabeth concurred, suggesting that it would enrich programs, if not necessarily contain costs. Gary also noted that programs might actually welcome such an arrangement, since it would reduce their recruiting costs.

Elizabeth said that the crucial issues were cost, faculty and curricular development, and program quality. Gary wondered what would happen after the end of the Global Partners Project. Elizabeth replied that ACM has an interest in China, and could make the buyers' cooperative a consortial responsibility. She wondered, however, who had the authority to move forward with the idea. Many colleges, for instance, have a list of approved programs; would they need to approve this relationship? Robert replied that it would depend on the Chinese language faculty. David said that such an arrangement would have institutional implications, so deans and off-campus study directors would need to sign off on the idea. Joan Ericson added that we shouldn't undermine college-run programs. The idea sounds potentially interesting, but it would require a good deal of groundwork; we couldn't approach the provider without support from the colleges. Elizabeth replied that some colleges might sign on at first, while others might not use such a relationship at all. Joan O'Mara suggested that we talk with international program directors on each campus, and maybe deans and Chinese instructors, before moving forward.

Dan then asked the task force about the paper he had drafted on collaboration in East Asia. It is designed to summarize the task force's discussions. It discusses challenges facing engagement in East Asia, the potential advantages of collaboration, some concrete ideas for collaboration, and obstacles to collaboration. Elizabeth added that with the end of the Freeman grants collaboration is all the more important. There are a number of ways for colleges to work together, at varying levels of engagement. There was general agreement that the paper accurately summarizes the state of the field. Joan Ericson suggested that deans would only read the paper if there was something in it for them. She added that collaboration is easier for colleges that are adjacent. Robert described the joint effort at library collection development at St. Olaf, Carleton, and Macalester. He noted, however, that the colleges have drawn the line at sharing classes. Joan O'Mara identified other collaborative efforts, including ASIANetwork, the Asian Study Development Project at the East-West Center, and Education About Asia.

Gary noted that deans have probably thought about collaboration, but they need to have a reason to consider it further. Elizabeth suggested that we send the paper to deans and to East Asia faculty, asking them to get together on campus to discuss the ideas. Joan O'Mara added asking East Asia studies faculty who else should get the paper. Dan observed that the consortia could also be an audience for the paper, and recommended that it go to the deans' meetings. Elizabeth suggested that Global Partners take the collaboration paper to the consortial offices and ask them to take it to their deans and international program directors; it might pay off. Gary wondered if there would be one Global Partners paper that would synthesize all these discussions; it would be more effective to take a single paper to the deans.

The final agenda item was considering future steps for engaging East Asia as the Global Partners Project ends. Joan O'Mara suggested that each college should join ASIANetwork; it especially serves well colleges without strong programs. Elizabeth added that the consortia could supplement ASIANetwork initiatives. Joan said that the consortia can bring the ASIANetwork consultancy program to the attention of the deans, especially for accrediting and strengthening Asia programs.

Joan Ericson pointed out that Japan Study is another collaboration. Gary said that there had been some talk about the Associated Colleges of the South getting involved with Japan Study, but it was not pursued. Elizabeth observed that it would not be difficult for ACS students to participate in Japan Study, but the Development Fund activities would be more difficult.

Joan Ericson also noted that deans are getting student inquiries about other languages, including Korean and Hindi, and wondered if the collaboration paper could discuss the study of Asia more broadly. Elizabeth pointed out that Kalamazoo was looking into offering Kiswahili via distance technology, and wondered if that could be a model.