REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
President John V. Lombardi
William L. Flinn, Executive Director
Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities, Inc.
Earl D. Kellogg, Executive Director
Consortium for International Development
January 26, 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Statement of the Context and Terms of Reference for the Review ..... 2
II. Approach to Implementing the Review .............................. 3
mI. Observations ........................ ..... ............... 5
A. Faculty Support for an International Dimension ................. 5
B. Perceptions of the President's Leadership .................... 5
C. Perspectives of Colleges and Institute Administrators .............. 6
D. The Role and Status of the Office of International Studies and Programs . 7
E. Program Direction and Leadership ......................... 9
IV. Recommendations ........................................ 9
A. Need for Central Office at The University Level ................ 9
B. Need to Communicate Role and Status of the Director of International
Studies and Programs .................................. 10
C. Organizational Alternatives and Recommendation for International
Studies and Programs ................................. 10
D. Exploration of Policy Changes at University, College or Department
Levels ................................... ........ 14
E. Consortia Relationship ................................ 16
F. Suggested International Topics With A Comparative Advantage ....... 18
G. Other International Topics of Importance for the 1990s ............ 19
APPENDICES ............................................... 21
CONSULTANT'S ITINERARY ................................... 21
CONSULTANTS BIOGRAPHICAL DATA ............................ 25
EARL D. KELLOGG ..................................... 26
WILLIAM L. FLINN ................... .................. 27
CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ................. 29
MIDWEST UNIVERSITIES CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .. 29
I. General Statement of the Context and Terms of Reference for the Review
The charge given to the review team in a briefing with President John V. Lombardi on the
first day of the review included several aspects:
A. Give an outside, expert perspective on what the University of Florida (UF)
needs to know in order to develop an international agenda and increase its
B. Explore collaborative activities among University units, as well as the linkages
between these units and international agencies, as needed to make the
University of Florida a great international university.
C. Address changes in organizational structure that will assist the University to
achieve a higher level of international involvement without disturbing
successful programs already in place.
D. Examine the University's Mission Statement on International Studies and
Programs as well as recommend subject matter areas where the University has
a comparative advantage.
E. Suggest an ideal organizational model or models for International Studies and
Programs irrespective of current constraints.
In our view, the rationale for examining these issues arose from an underlying feeling that
the University's international programs had-done very well in the era of the 1960's, when
international development emphasized agricultural production. International Programs in the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) became well established and flourished
under the direction of Professor Hugh Popenoe. In international studies, the Latin American
Studies Center received world-wide acclaim, and African Studies established an excellent
In the past few years, as international projects have become more complex, extremely large,
interdisciplinary in nature, and funded by non-U.S. government sources, the University has
not been as competitive in international programs, particularly with respect to development
projects. Previous self-studies have identified program fragmentation, suboptimal levels of
cooperation among university units, lack of organizational and program focus in international
studies and programs, fewer linkages with international agencies, no formal membership in a
US consortium, and budgetary constraints as major barriers to improved performance.
At the same time, many positive changes have occurred recently, including the commitment
of the President to international studies and programs, the success of the Tropical
Conservation and Development Program, the development of the Architectural Preservation
Institute, the hiring of young faculty in the the Asian Studies area, the addition to the faculty
of well known internationalists such as Professor Uma Lele, and a number of deans and
administrative appointees with international interests.
As a consequence and in spite of a number of internal and external reviews including the
recent Board of Regents Area Studies Review, a futuristic approach to international studies
and programs seemed appropriate. Unlike many earlier reviews, the current effort is not an
evaluation of the successes or failures of past programs. The mission is to observe the
University in its present state and to explore future possibilities and organizational structures
designed to capitalize on the "new realities" for international programs in the 1990s.
I. Approach to Implementing the Review
The overall approach to the review was to analyze written information about the University
of Florida's international programs, and to interview people who had been and currently are
involved in international activities. Contacts in the broader international community also
allowed the review team to include ideas about others perception of Florida's international
programs and possible opportunities that the University might pursue.
The written information received consisted of materials sent to the review team shortly
before the review, materials gathered during the review, and one letter received after the
review team had left the campus.
The schedule of the campus visits is attached as Appendix A. The review team requested
-that a meeting with several faculty members be added to the schedule. That meeting was
held at 4:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10.
To obtain the perspective of faculty regarding the future of international programs at the
University of Florida, the review team met with University-level officials -- the president,
provost, dean of the graduate school, director and associate director of international studies
and programs, and the chancellor emeritus. Interviews were also conducted with
administrators from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, College of Law, College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences, College of Business Administration, College of Architecture,
College of Veterinary Medicine, and the College of Medicine. The directors of the Center
for Latin American Studies and the Center for African Studies were also interviewed. The
review team met with a group of faculty who represented several departments and other
This report results from an analysis of information received, our knowledge of several
universities' international programs and the current international scene in relation to
universities. We realize that any university's organization and program content develop from
its unique history, which can be difficult (or impossible) to fully understand in only 2 1/2
days. We therefore offer our observations and recommendations with the realization that we
have not completely understood how things were, are, or should be at the University of
Florida. For our effort to be successful, others must evaluate the report's recommendations
and implement its findings in a fuller context of understanding of the University, its history,
and its mission.
A. Faculty Support for an International Dimension
One of the most striking features observed by the review team was the faculty's
enthusiasm for international activities. The faculty was pleased and excited about an
expanded international dimension at the University. This support was undoubtedly
due to the excellent backgrounds of the faculty whom we interviewed. Many have
been recruited from leading institutions that stress international affairs. In fact, they
often expressed a need for the University to add a fourth dimension to its land-grant
mission: teaching, research, extension, and international. Practically everyone felt the
need for an expanded and more comprehensive University Mission Statement for
B. Perceptions of the President's Leadership
Another highly visible feature was the overwhelming support for the leadership of
President Lombardi in all areas of university administration, but especially in
international studies and programs. In response to questions on how well the faculty
members feel the President communicated his position on international programs, the
faculty indicated that the President showed his strong support for international
programs by actions rather than statements. While the international faculty were
laudatory about support at the higher levels of the university administration, they felt
that support at the departmental level remains much weaker. Many felt that a self-
study of the international dimension at the departmental level was needed. Some
mentioned the study program undertaken by Purdue University on integrating the
international dimension in all levels of the University. (The Challenges of an
International University: Operational Plan for Internationalizing .Purdue University)
While the level of support for the current administration was high, there was a
tendency on the part of the faculty to see this review as something they had done
before with little or no follow through on previous recommendations. In order to
maintain faculty support, some immediate actions need to be taken, including perhaps
quick dissemination of parts or all of the current report.
C. Perspectives of Colleges and Institute Administrators
The review team met with the leadership of seven colleges and institutes. Most of the
college administrators interviewed felt there was considerable fragmentation of
international activities at the University. In almost all cases, college leadership felt
there was a need to have some kind of campus-level office. There were concerns
expressed, however, about the terms of reference for such a campus-level office. One
of these concerns was that some international units within the colleges might be
directed to report to the director of international studies and programs. No college
leader suggested that any college unit should report directly to a university-level
director for international programs. There was also concern that a campus-level
office might regulate and control international academic and research activities. Other
concerns had to do with whether the campus-level director would try to commit
colleges to certain activities without full discussion or attempt to influence the content
and location of study abroad programs. One widely recognized weakness was that
there had been no campus spokesman or contact person, until recently.
In almost all cases, the review team found that college leadership had given
considerable thought to the international dimension and had taken specific actions to
enhance international activities at the college level. However, many college
administrators that we met had a limited vision of the potential richness of the
international dimension. This was particularly true of the potential for international
D. The Role and Status of the Office of International Studies and Programs
There is considerable confusion at all levels of the University about the role
Professor Uma Lele is to play in the position of Director of International Studies and
Programs and the rights, authority, and obligations associated with this position. In
addition, many faculty believe that the vision of the President and the Provost are not
always the same with regard to this matter. This probably results from a different use
of jargon by these individuals.
With regard to the conflicting views of the position, the lack of precise
communication and indeed conflicting communication has complicated the situation
greatly. One communication refers to the position as the Director of International
Studies. Thus some faculty have interpreted the role as limited to responsibilities
associated with student and faculty exchanges, and study abroad programs.
According to their interpretation,a counterpart, perhaps from IFAS, will coordinate
university-wide international projects and programs.
Another view sees Professor Lele as chair of the Council on International Studies and
Programs and Director of International Studies with her major responsibility being the
former. In this view she is to consolidate the exchanges and study abroad programs
in one office and cajole cooperation between various program areas where needed. In
addition, there is a perceived role of enhancing the international dimension of the
University; when this task is completed in three years, it is believed that she will
return to being a full time faculty person.
Yet a third view posits Professor Lele as leading the Council and presenting the "big
picture" by playing a role in identifying the university's comparative advantages in
international programs. She would not work on the nitty-gritty of exchanges, but
rather advise the administration with the Council's assistance on a course of action for
international studies. Thus, her role would be similar to other positions created by
the Provost such as Special Advisor on Health Policy and Chair of the Council on
Faculty Development, which are part-time positions and not permanent in nature.
Finally, others see the position as encompassing both programs and area studies.
Under this scenario Professor Lele's position would become permanent and by
necessity full-time. Holders of this view point see the advantages of such a position
as developing common policies, creating a logical organizational structure, and
ridding the university of duplications in the student services area. In addition, the
office would have a stronger hand in bringing together proposal writing teams,
publicizing the University's international involvement, attracting foreign visitors, and
inventorying the strengths of the University. This office would then mobilize the
University's resources along these lines. On the other hand, both faculty and
administrators expressed concern that such an organization could introduce yet another
new set of rules and regulations. In doing so, such an organization might forget its
facilitating role and become a control mechanism only. In addition, there was
concern that more infrastructure implies more cost without a necessary increase in
benefit to the various units. In any case, it is very clear that an organizational chart
will be necessary to define these relationships as these evolve over time.
Obviously, these were not the only positions expressed, and there were many
combinations of those previously discussed. Adding to the problem is the confusion
over who is a member of the Council of'International Studies and Programs. Many
individuals were unaware that a new Council had replaced the previous Council.
If this confusion continues, there will be negative reactions from the faculty and
administrators, not just the confused reaction that presently exists. There is an
immediate need to develop a clear and consistent position description for international
program leadership and communicate it to the faculty and staff. (See recommendation
E. Program Direction and Leadership
Professor Lele represents a rich resource for the University. She is a highly
respected scholar and has many contacts in various countries and donor/lender
institutions. Dr. Lele has provided, and will continue to provide, energetic leadership
as director of international programs and studies. She has a vision for aggressively
moving forward within the University and State to increase the involvement of the
University in international activities and affairs.
As a distinguished professor, Dr. Lele has ambitious plans for leading a graduate
study and research program focused on important international economic topics. But
even with her energetic leadership, the development of the campus-level office will
require substantial time. The review team is concerned that the rapid growth of her
distinguished professorship program, and the continued development of a campus-
level international office, may not be sustainable for even a three-year period for one
A. Need for Central Office at The University Level
There is a critical need for a central office of international studies and programs at the
University level. Even though the University established the Office of International
Studies and Programs in 1985, there is a general feeling that much remains to be
accomplished, especially in the area of collaboration among the numerous
international programs. Although many faculty have appreciated the collaborative
spirit of both Terry McCoy, the Director of the Latin American Studies Center, and
Hugh Popenoe, the director of international programs in IFAS, there is general
awareness that all American Association of Universities (AAU) members with large
international programs have such centralized offices to deliver specialized services and
coordination of international activities.
We believe that such a central office with consolidated and expanded functions is
necessary for the University of Florida.
B. Need to Communicate Role and Status of the Director of International
Studies and Programs
There is a clear need to communicate the President/Provost's vision of the
responsibilities, authority, and obligations of the director of international studies and
programs, and the duties of the position.
It may be that these conditions can only be specified for the short run, and that, over
time, the exact nature of the position will evolve through interactions with the Council
of International Studies and Programs and with the various area studies centers and
collegiate units. The review team believes such a statement in itself would be viewed
positively by the faculty, if clearly stated, distinctly communicated, and consistently
C. Organizational Alternatives and Recommendation for International Studies
There are several models of international program organization among AAU
universities in the U.S. Two types include:
1. A centralized model with a vice president or.dean of international
programs. Various academic and service units report to that individual
and faculty are appointed to various area study centers or an
international topic study center within the central international unit.
Typically, these offices have responsibility for foreign student and
faculty affairs and study abroad programs.
2. A decentralized model with a director or associate vice president of
international programs. Typically, no academic units report to this
individual, but he or she performs a coordinating, visionary role and
acts as the campus-level contact for various institutions or individuals
interested in the university's international expertise and capabilities.
Study abroad and/or foreign students and faculty affairs may or may
not be a part of this office.
The recommended organizational pattern, duties, and responsibilities of the
University's office of international studies and programs are as follows:
a. There should be a university-level office that provides
leadership, vision, coordination, facilitation, and representation
for international activities. It should carry out, among other
things, the following activities:
1) Distribute information throughout the University
regarding international studies, programs and current
2) Represent to the outside world the University and its
international studies, programs, and capabilities.
3) Coordinate and encourage multidisciplinary approaches to
4) Provide information about opportunities for funding and
participation in state, national, and international
5) Serve foreign faculty and students regarding entry into,
and life within, the U.S.
6) Develop and administer a fund for supporting innovative
and promising activities that could result in increased
funding or new academic programs.
7) Represent the University to specific donor/lender
agencies and other institutions involved in international
project activity, such as a university consortium.
8) Represent the international dimension within the
University on such matters as curriculum modification,
study abroad activities, and pay and promotion
procedures. This would entail efforts to develop
appropriate university policies relative to the international
b. Each college should name a contact person for efficient
communication between colleges and the university-level office,
and among colleges.
c. An administrative council or committee should be made up of
deans and directors of the various colleges and institutes to work
with the university-level office. The basic focus of this
committee would be:
1) Serve as the primary, two way communication link
between the university-level office and the collegiate
2) Provide oversight of the work of the university-level
office to insure that it does not engage in activities that
counter or contradict the work of the colleges and to
insure that the university level office maintains its
3) Provide a forum through which the decisions of the
university (especially from the President and Provost)
can be systematically communicated and implemented
with respect to international programs.
4) Provide a continuing forum for the cross-fertilization of
international programs among colleges and across
d. An outside advisory committee should be established composed
of representatives from business, private voluntary organizations
(PVOs), state government, and national and international
agencies that are heavily involved in international affairs. These
members should be appointed by the president. The basic duties
of this outside committee should be to:
1) Advise the University on the current international issues
as seen by public and private sectors.
2) Reflect on how these issues might affect curricula,
research, and continuing education programs.
3) Assist in finding flexible funds to use as seed money or
as match for larger grants.
D. Exploration of Policy Changes at University, College or Department Levels
The review team recommends that the University should:
1. Develop incentives to encourage faculty participation in international
a. Consider salary increases. Such increases for administrators at
the departmental level, for example, may be linked to the
development of departmental international programs. The
Michigan State incentive plan concerning salary raises should be
explored as an example.
b. Assure that salary savings generated by faculty going on
overseas assignment are returned to the departments or to the
department whose international contract produced the released
c. Reward faculty for teaching courses in international
development. Such courses should not be an extra duty on top
of existing course loads.
d. Find methods to reward faculty who drop everything or "bum
the midnight oil" to meet very short deadlines when writing
proposals. This is especially important for faculty on soft
2. Develop a clear consulting policy statement for each department, each
college, and the university, and reexamine these policies to encourage
3. Explore the sharing of indirect costs so that a portion of the indirect
costs are distributed to the department and to the faculty members
whose programs generated these funds.
4. Provide a mechanism for cross listing courses with international and
interdisciplinary content in such a manner that the respective
departments and teachers receive credit for the teaching loads and a
slare of the instructional funds.
5. Offer flexible scheduling for courses to accommodate foreign lecturers
who are excellent additions to the university's course listings, but who
cannot stay an entire term.
6. Provide for the prior and timely clearance of courses taught by foreign
lecturers in foreign universities for the study abroad programs,
especially in areas such as business. Perhaps the rest of the university
could learn from the law school, which has recently developed a
institutionalized system for the acceptance of law credits earned abroad.
7. Establish a mechanism for truly joint faculty appointments between
departments with similar international needs.
8. Conduct self-studies at the departmental level to explore barriers to
faculty participation in international programs and create imaginative
incentives to encourage participation by both the faculty and the
9. Identify and establish five or ten tenure track positions with an
international focus that fits the University's comparative advantage;
these might be funded by the Provost's Office. This system has
worked well at both Michigan State University and Cornell University
for the immediate development of an international presence.
E. Consortia Relationship
The review team recommends that the University explore association with a formally
organized university consortium. For this association to be most productive,
however, it is essential that a solid administrative structure be developed to represent
the University in the consortium and to enable the University to respond quickly to
opportunities that are made available through the consortium.
There are several advantages to being involved in a consortium. First, many
opportunities for university involvement are embedded in very large projects that can
be too complex for one university to manage. Second, program development
activities to identify, track, and write proposals can be more expensive than a single
university can accommodate. Third, the negotiation, implementation, procurement,
auditing, and financial management of international projects have become increasingly
complex, requiring specialized expertise. The contractual and financial exposure in a
large project may be more than is desirable for a single university. Last, the ability
to develop longer-term relationships in international activities with other U.S.
universities provides a way for a single university to continue to learn and grow in
terms of its international dimension.
One option that the University could explore is to form a new consortium. There are
other large, high-quality universities that might join such a consortium in the region,
such as the University of Alabama, Duke University, University of North Carolina,
University of Virginia, or Johns Hopkins University. This kind of consortium could
be very competitive for projects in various subject-matter areas and would contain
some natural complementarity among university members.
There would be, however, some sizable disadvantages to organizing a new
consortium. First, it takes several years for institutions and people to develop a
common understanding and trust about working together productively. Second, initial
costs would be high to establish a working executive office that could provide services
and internationally competitive leadership. The review team does not recommend that
the University initiate a new consortium.
Another option that is available is to join a consortium with a specific subject-matter
focus. Certain faculty groups may want to participate in these efforts for specified
periods of time. However, this option is not recommended for university-level
membership. The University of Florida, as a large comprehensive university, should
seek association with a broadly-based university consortium. The review team
recommends that the University explore association with the Midwest Universities
Consortium for International Activities, Inc. (MUCIA) and/or the Consortium for
International Development (CID). These two consortia are the largest in the U.S. and
have project portfolios that are diversified in terms of subject-matter, geographic
focus, and donor/lender institutions. Each has offices in Washington, D.C. and other
cities, as well as experienced staffs. It is recommended that the University discuss
with these consortia the possibility of attending various functions as an
observer/participant. If formal membership is not possible, some kind of association
with MUCIA and CID should be explored. This association could be formed so that
the University could receive information about project opportunities, join project bids,
and participate in project implementation.
F. Suggested International Topics With A Comparative Advantage
The University of Florida, because of its unique geographical position needs to
explore and exploit its comparative advantages. Some of these areas include:
1. Human and animal health issues related to tropical medicine. The
university already has excellent programs in veterinary medicine and
could capitalize further on the large amount of funding available for
2. Natural resource and environmental issues related to tropical areas.
Under the direction of Professor Sanderson, the Tropical Conservation
and Development Program is establishing an excellent reputation with
interdisciplinary research teams studying environmental problems in
Brazil. This could be expanded to other regions of the world.
3. Issues related to international migration patterns. Florida is a
natural laboratory for research and training on issues that affect not
only the state and the U.S. but other nations as well.
4. International trade. The University of Florida is in a unique
geographic position to provide research and training on international
trade issues, especially with its physical proximity to Central and South
America and the Caribbean area. In the near future, the possible
opening of Cuba will provide a rare opportunity.
5. Democratization. This issue is a priority with the United States
Agency for International Development and the United States
Information Agency for which the University, through its African
Studies Center, has developed credentials. Few other U.S. universities
have done so.
6. Tropical Agriculture. The University has developed an excellent
reputation in this area through the Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences. Research topics are shifting to more of a biotechnology focus
and will require changes and additions in university staffing.
7. International Law. Most of the areas discussed previously have legal
issues associated with them. The University's law school has twenty
years of international experience and a wealth of knowledge on
G. Other International Topics of Importance for the 1990s
There are certain topical areas where there seem to be strong demands for
international project activity, but where the review team found little organized
strength at the University for quick international response. This is not to say that the
University does not have expertise in these subject-matter areas, but that there appears
to be no organized focus for these topics in terms of international projects. The
University should consider whether it would be useful to organize its strengths in
these areas for international activity.
The first of these high-demand topical areas is science and technology, especially in
relation to institution building. Large projects will continue to emerge that will focus
on training, teaching, research, and management of institutions, particularly in the
sciences, such as physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and engineering. These
projects are often large efforts that combine graduate training, technical assistance,
and academic program development and are particularly suitable for implementation
by universities, as contrasted to implementation by private consulting firms.
Another subject-matter area that is again receiving increased attention is education.
Many opportunities will be available for substantial projects in improving elementary,
secondary, and higher education systems in developing countries. In addition, much
attention will also be paid to technical and special education projects that focus on
certain sectors such as agricultural or industrial training.
Management improvement will be a high priority area for many low- and middle-
income countries in their development plans for the next decade. There are
management aspects to all the topics mentioned above -- agriculture, natural
resources, environment, science and technology development, and education. There
should be excellent opportunities for projects offering management training in the
U.S. and in host countries, as well as institutional development of management
The review team believes that the University has potential strengths in these topical
areas, but has considerable work to do to organize and present these capabilities in an
effective way for project proposals and implementation.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
DECEMBER 9 11, 1991
DR. WILLIAM FLINN
DR. EARL KELLOGG
Sunday, December 8. 1991
Arrive Gainesville after 6:00 p.m.
Reservations at the University Holiday Inn
Monday. December 9. 1991
Dr. Hugh Popenoe, Director, IFAS,
3028 McCarty Hall
Dr. John Lombardi, President,
University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall
Dr. Madelyn Lockhart, Dean,
Dr. Chris Andrew, Director,
International Trade and Policy Center
Dr. Gerald Zachariah, Vice President,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
1008 McCarty Hall
Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, Dean,
College of Law
Dr. Willard Wayne Harrison, Dean,
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Dr. Larry Connor, Dean, Resident Instruction, IFAS,
Dr. Terry McCoy, Director,
Center for Latin American Studies
Tuesday. December 10. 1991
Dr. Andrew Sorensen, Provost,
Dr. Peter Schmidt, Director,
Center for African Studies
Dr. John Kraft, Dean,
College of Business Administration
Dr. Wayne Drummond, Dean and
Dr. Richard Schneider, Associate Dean,
College of Architecture
331 Architecture Bldg.
Dr. Uma Lele, Director,
International Studies and Programs
Dr. E.T. York, Chancellor Emeritus,
University of Florida
106 Mowry Road
Dr. Phillip Kosch, Associate Dean, and
Dr. Michael Burridge, Chairman,
College of Veterinary Medicine
Dr. Peter Hildebrand and
Ms. Lisette Walecka, International Training Center, IFAS,
Meeting with Faculty
Ronald Cohen, Anthropology
Martin I. Meltzer, School of Veterinary Medicine
Charles H. Wood, Sociology
Loy V. Crowder, Agricultural Education & Extension
E. Paul Gibbs, School of Veterinary Medicine
Richard Andrew Norval, School of Veterinary Medicine
Chris O. Andrew, Food and Resource Economics
Kenneth L. Buhr, Agronomy
Clyde F. Kiker, Food and Resource Economics
Peter E. Hilderbrand, Food and Resource Economics
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Dr. Hugh Popenoe, Director
Dr. Daniel Shankland, Assistant Director
Dr. Kenneth McDermott, Scientist
Wednesday. December 11. 1991
Dr. Richard Downie, Associate Director,
International Programs and Studies
Dr. John Lombardi, President,
University of Florida
Dr. David Challoner, Vice President,
H102 Medical Science Building
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Dr. Hugh Popenoe, Director
Dr. Daniel Shankland, Assistant Director
Depart Gainesville Wednesday afternoon.
CONSULTANTS BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
EARL D. KELLOGG
Dr. Earl Kellogg is Executive Director for the Consortium for International Development and
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arizona. In
February, he will become Senior Vice-President for Winrock International Institute for
Agricultural Development. Dr. Kellogg has had extensive experience in agricultural economics
research in developing countries as a part of multidisciplinary agricultural research teams. He
was a research leader for the farming systems project at Chiang Mai University in Northern
Thailand for two years. Subsequently, Dr. Kellogg has consulted for farming systems projects in
Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. Dr. Kellogg also has extensive experience as an economics
policy advisor and in agricultural sector analysis. He has worked in this capacity in the
Caribbean and in Africa. As a result, Dr. Kellogg has been invited to participate in and lead
various symposia and workshops on agricultural policy related to developing countries. He has
helped design, administer, and evaluate several AID projects. Dr. Kellogg also has worked
extensively on the development-and operations of developing countries' agricultural research,
extension, and education systems. Dr. Kellogg serves on many administrative committees that
are oriented toward the study and improvement of international programs.
EDUCATION: Ph.D., Agricultural Economics and Development, Production Economics,
and Mathematical Statistics, Michigan State University, 1971.
B.S., Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, 1963.
June 1987-Present Executive Director, Consortium for International Development
Dec. 1985-June 1987 Associate Executive Director, Consortium for International
1977-1985 Professor of Agricultural Economics and Associate Director,
International Agriculture, University of Illinois
1975-1977 Research Officer, Ford Foundation in Thailand
1973-1975 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of
1972-1973 Special Consultant for Rural Development, Office of Secretary of
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
1970-1972 Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of
1967-1970 Research Associate, Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
WILLIAM L. FLINN
Dr. William L. Flinn has been the Executive Director and President of MUCIA since 1980.
Before then, he was Associate Chairman of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology in
the College of Agriculture and Home Economics. Currently, Flinn is also Professor of
Agricultural Economics ana Rural Sociology and a Professor of Sociology. He was awarded
a Fulbright Lectureship in Sociology at the National University of Bogota, Colombia in 1964
and was Chief of Party on the University of Wisconsin/Agency for International
Development (AID) Contract, in Colombia between 1970 and 1973 where he studied change
in seven rural communities. From 1977 to 1979 he conducted a Rural Poor Study in El
Salvador for an Ohio State/AID Project.
Flinn was a Professor of Rural Sociology for ten years and also served as Chairman of the
Sociology Extension Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. While at
Wisconsin, he was presented the Outstanding Teaching Award in 1970. In 1980, Dr. Flinn
was elected President of the Rural Sociological Society. He was also presented the
Outstanding Researcher Award for the College of Agriculture at The Ohio State University
and was named, by the Council of Graduate Students, as the Outstanding University
Administrator in 1979. He has served as the major professor for 26 doctoral dissertations.
EDUCATION: Ph.D., Rural Sociology/Agricultural Economics, the Ohio
State University, 1966
Attended Iowa State University, 1962
M.S., Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, 1961
B.S., Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University,
1980 present Executive Director of the Midwest Universities Consortium
for International Activities, Inc.
Professor of Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University
Professor of Sociology, The Ohio State University
1975 1980 Professor and Associate Department Chairman of
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology and Professor
of Sociology, The Ohio State University
WILLIAM L. FLINN (CONT'D)
Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Extension, the
University of Wisconsin Madison
Chief of Party of the Wisconsin Project in Colombia
Assistant Professor of Extension, the University of
Chairman, Department of Extension Sociology, the
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Assistant Professor the Land Tenure Center, the University
Assistant to the Dean of International Studies and Programs
and Director of the Center for Developing Nations,
University of Wisconsin
Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology, the University of
Guest Lecturer, Ibero American Studies Program and the
Department of Rural Sociology, the University of
Fulbright Professor and Director of the Social Research
Center, Faculty of Sociology, National University, Bogota,
Teaching Assistant, Department of Anthropology and
Sociology, the Ohio State University
CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
For more than twenty years, the Consortium for International Development (CID) has offered
outstanding research, education, and extension programs that help solve problems faced by
developing countries. CID is a nonprofit corporation representing eleven publicly supported
universities in the western United States: University of Arizona, California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona, Colorado State University, University of Hawaii at Monoa, University
of Idaho, New Mexico State University, Oregon State University, Texas Tech University,
Utah State University, Washington State University, and University of Wyoming. CID
performs all phases of international development work: problem assessment and project
development, design, planning, implementation, reporting, and evaluation.
MIDWEST UNIVERSITIES CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities, Inc. (MUCIA) is the
oldest of the multiuniversity associations devoted to international education. Established in
1964 with support from the Ford Foundation, it now has nine members: the University of
Illinois, Indiana University, the University of Iowa, the University of Minnesota, Michigan
State University, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue
University, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Since the expiration of the Ford
grant, MUCIA has contracted for large-scale technical assistance contracts and other
educational programs, carefully chosen from two areas: long-term institution building
projects and educational exchanges of faculty.