Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020179 www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Article
International Partnerships in University-Level Music
Education: Principles, Pivots, and Possibilities
Patrick K. Freer
School of Music, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA; pfreer@gsu.edu
Abstract: This article reports an analytical review of research and policy concerning the qualities
that create, sustain, and enliven academic partnerships between universities in different countries.
This review provides context for a discussion of the development of the institutional partnership
between the Universität Mozarteum Salzburg (Austria) and Georgia State University (United States
of America). A scoping review of the literature suggests that such partnerships are viewed differ-
ently by those responsible for the legal agreement establishing the partnership, the faculty and stu-
dents who are tasked with implementing the partnership, and outsiders who view the results of the
partnership via publications, presentations, and performances. This review situates the analysis of
the partnership with the identification of themes consistent with the broader literature, including a
reflection on cultural awareness, access and equity, institutional and human capacity building, and
ethical dilemmas. Implications include a reflection on the collaboration’s COVID-19 era develop-
ment, with the suggestion that the shift to virtual communication enhanced the partnership even as
it disrupted the planned implementation.
Keywords: international; higher education; music education; partnerships; policy; scoping review
1. Introduction
This article reports an analysis of the development of the institutional partnership
between the Universität Mozarteum Salzburg in Austria and Georgia State University in
the United States of America. The Mozarteum is a public doctoral institution with an en-
rollment of 1800 students located in Salzburg, Austria (city population of 157,000). Geor-
gia State is also a public doctoral institution, with an enrollment of 52,000 students located
in Atlanta, USA (city population of 497,000).
The partnership’s development is situated within a review of research and policy
pertaining to international partnerships in higher education. The purposes of this analysis
are two-fold. First, the article provides a descriptive report of the partnership between the
music education faculties at the two universities. The scoping literature review that
grounds this article established that descriptive reports of institutional partnerships are
largely absent from the music education literature base. Second, it is hoped that readers
may identify strategies and resources that might be assistive when seeking to establish
similar partnerships in music or in any other content area within education.
2. Background of the Partnership
The Mozarteum–Georgia State partnership can be traced to a research presentation
given by the author in Leuven, Belgium, at the 2013 conference of the European Associa-
tion for Music in Schools. The Head of the Mozarteum’s music education program initi-
ated a conversation that resulted in the author’s visit to the Mozarteum in 2017. This in-
cluded the presentation of research at a Mozarteum-hosted academic conference and lec-
tures for Mozarteum’s students in music education. The faculty-level partnership grew
Citation:
Freer, P.K. International
Partnerships in University
-Level
Music Education: Principles, Pivots,
and Possibilities.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14,
179. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci14020179
Academic Editors:
Kittisak
Jermsittiparsert, Ismail Suardi
Wekke, Oytun Sozudogru
and
Jamaluddin Ahmad
Received: 26 November 2023
Revised: 5 February 2024
Accepted: 6 February 2024
Published:
9 February 2024
Copyright:
© 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 2 of 10
from that point forward, culminating in the February 2020 approval of a formal partner-
ship between the two universities.
The Mozarteum/Georgia State relationship is a collaborative venture with origins no
more formal than the introductory conversation described in the previous paragraph. As
the partnership conversation continued, the administrative leadership at both Universi-
ties was consulted to determine institutional interest and feasibility. At the time, the Mo-
zarteum had no partner university in the United States and was eager to identify a collab-
orating institution. Georgia State University was seeking to continue its growth as a lead-
ing research institution by expanding its global reach; the collaboration met both sets of
needs. The collaborative agreement centers on the wording of a legal agreement between
the two universities. The agreement was developed during the Fall 2018 semester while
the author was in residence as a visiting professor at the Mozarteum. The core of the agree-
ment facilitates a one-to-one exchange of students (equal numbers from both institutions)
for limited periods of time in support of their progress toward degree completion. Stipu-
lations address issues such as entrance requirements, the language of instruction, the ac-
ademic calendar, and processes necessary to ensure academic progress. The agreement
addresses related topics, including student responsibilities and expenses, visa require-
ments, insurance, housing, employment, and compliance with the rules and regulations
of both the sending and host institutions/countries.
The partnership’s institutional agreement does not address the involvement of fac-
ulty at either institution. As evident in the following discussion of the related literature,
this omission may facilitate the embedding of the partnership within the participating
curricular areas, but it may also affect the sustainability of the agreement as faculty, their
positions, and their research interests change over time. The following literature distills
these issues both broadly—at the institutional level—and specifically—within music and
music education programs. This article concludes with a discussion of if and/or how prin-
ciples of successful and self-sustaining partnerships are evidenced within the Mozar-
teum–Georgia State relationship.
3. Methodological and Conceptual Frameworks
The scoping literature review reported here followed procedures developed by
Arskey and O’Malley [1]. Scoping review methods are appropriate for when a broad topic
is identified, but key concepts are unknown. Unlike a systematic review, there are few
keyword limits, and the types of literature (peer-reviewed, dissertation, etc.) are often not
specified a priori [2]. Arskey and O’Malley emphasize the “charting” of key information
(p. 26), including synthesis and interpretation, to reveal key issues and themes [3]. These
then give eventual rise to the structure of the resulting report.
This review was limited to the 15 years from 2007–2022. The date boundaries were
established by two influential reports concerning international activities in higher educa-
tion. In 2007, Brandenburg and Federkeil contributed to the growing need to measure and
evaluate higher education’s international work [4]. The authors distinguished between
“internationality,” or the current state of an institution’s international activities, and “in-
ternationalism,” or the process and plan whereby an institution seeks to grow its interna-
tional work. Brandenburg and Federkeil concluded that many universities report interna-
tionalism (which is broad-based at the institution level) when the correct term should of-
ten be internationality (based on the work of individual faculty and staff). Brandenburg
and Federkeil proposed measures for both concepts. In 2022, González-Bonilla, et al. drew
on the earlier report to analyze internationalization in 85 European institutions of higher
education [5]. The study noted a contradiction between internationalization as an institu-
tional priority and what faculty and staff do in practice. Where “faculty members are
aware—even proud—of the significance of their individual performance and personal en-
gagement … they often feel overwhelmed by institutions’ excessive reliance on their indi-
vidual voluntarism” (p. 64). The authors concluded that many higher education institu-
tions “maintain internationalization activities by force or habit” (p. 64) rather than by
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 3 of 10
effective strategic planning, professional rewards for faculty and staff, and recognition of
individuals’ efforts.
These two reports highlighted that regardless of an institution’s intentions of becom-
ing internationalized, any progress toward this goal is driven by the efforts of individual
employees. This frequently involves coordination with like-minded faculty and staff col-
leagues at institutions located around the globe, generated by research goals, shared in-
terests, and friendships. These are the internal, or “inside,” factors that determine the ex-
ternal or “outside” measures by which the university is deemed to be more—or less—
internationalized. The sections that follow highlight these internal (“inside”) and external
(“outside”) factors. To provide further context, this article continues with an examination
of the literature concerning higher education partnerships in music and music education.
4. Music and Music Education in Higher Education’s International Partnerships
Topics specifically addressing music within higher education’s international partner-
ships have not been widely explored. A 2021 issue of Arts Education Policy Review of-
fered some of the first research-oriented analyses of the current state of music-focused
teacher education policy in international settings, with some authors extending that view
toward international partnerships in higher education [6]. As the journal’s guest editor
wrote, the analysis of these common concerns indicated that “further international collab-
oration is called for, indeed, required by the awareness of our shared issues … it has be-
come impossible to ignore what is happening with music teachers worldwide” (p. 3). In-
deed, the communication paradigm upended by the COVID-19 pandemic presented op-
portunities to establish partnerships that moved beyond the typical isolation of music and
music education programs to encompass a broad spectrum of music educators at all lev-
els. Professional discourse involving these newly empowered individuals yielded unique
philosophical views, diverse pedagogies, and innovative research approaches. As elemen-
tary and secondary music teachers came to embrace the virtual opportunities necessitated
by COVID-19, so too did faculties and administrators in higher education worldwide. This
broadening array of opportunities was designated as an anti-isolationist, pro-music edu-
cation response to the pandemic [7], resulting in the development of partnerships, a wel-
coming of formal and informal initiatives, and a strengthening of complementary projects
in research, pedagogy, and policy.
Karlsen reported an analysis of interviews with university faculty concerning lead-
ership challenges in the creation and sustenance of international partnerships in music [8].
Some challenges were found to be common, including linguistic and cultural differences,
as well as occasionally divergent expectations between partnership participants. Other
challenges were those requiring the monitoring of political issues and the implementation
of interventions while cautiously maintaining respect for individual university contexts.
Though the participants each represented university music departments, the contents of
the report were not unique to music settings. Indeed, findings from the study mirrored
those of international partnership work in general. Kertz-Welzel’s critical analysis of
higher education’s ambitions of intercultural and international music education similarly
concluded that “understanding international encounters as intercultural encounters calls
for intercultural understanding and a global mindset” [9] (p. 198). Again, this echoed
broad themes in the related literature on international partnerships.
Timonen chronicled one music-focused intercultural project purposed toward this
type of mindset [10]. It is unclear whether this Nepalese–Finnish collaboration specifically
involved universities from both countries. Of interest is that the project leaders developed
strategies for traversing the potential challenges presented when working in intercultural
contexts. For instance, participants quickly identified needs for shared statements of val-
ues and goals; these later guided the development of curricular materials and reporting
documents. Problems that arose became opportunities to consult related research about
cultural-political contexts as well as global philosophical perspectives on music education.
Obstacles became pivot points for professional growth so that the project leaders could
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 4 of 10
adjust the goals and continue moving forward through collaborative and individual crit-
ical reflexivity.
Faculties in music and music education may accordingly begin consideration of in-
ternational partnership work through the exploration of similarities and/or dissimilarities
in music teacher education policies between two or more countries. One helpful distilla-
tion, a discussion of which lies beyond the scope of this article, can be found in Potter’s
review [11] of the 2017 book Policy and the Political Life of Music Education [12]. Another
resource is the analysis of worldwide trends and issues in higher music education headed
by Minors and Burnard [13]. Writing before the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors pointed
specifically toward the partnership opportunities afforded by digital technologies and
“[what they offer] to us and to our students, most particularly in terms of democratization,
inclusion, and gender” (p. 464).
5. Views from Inside Higher Education’s International Partnerships
Gatewood and Sutton [14] note that international higher education partnerships
“span the full breadth of the academic enterprise—teaching, research, service, and insti-
tutional development” (p. 3) and identify goal setting and alignment as paramount to suc-
cess. Anderson et al. [15] and Umoren et al. [16] both offer that the aims and basic pro-
cesses of partnerships need to be established early, with contributions from as many stake-
holders as possible. In Anderson’s project, the agreement charter allowed and encouraged
all participants to not only “get the work done” but also to be conscious of how the work
was being done. By making explicit the potential problems of international work and the
“inter- and intranational institutional barriers to successful collaboration” (p. 4), the agree-
ment enhanced the possibility of a meaningful result from the partnership. As Anderson
wrote, “this document obviates the need for one charismatic person to lead the partner-
ship. Participants can refer to ‘charter principles’ to frame conflicts or create new pro-
posals and help future collaborators understand the considerations for project success”
(p. 5). Conversely, a partnership agreement’s lack of specificity threatens the long-term
sustainability of any collaboration between international higher education entities [17].
In a cost-benefit analysis of several international university partnerships, Burg [18]
cautioned that academic units be entrusted with academic work, not with the clerical or
financial responsibilities of the partnership. Burg found that successful academic partner-
ships are embedded within the curriculum that professors teach and that their students
experience. Academic partnerships are less successful when they do not become part of
the daily pedagogical and research work of professors. If partnerships are to involve stu-
dents and faculty, Matthews [19] offers five principles for successful practice: (a) foster
inclusive partnerships, (b) nurture power-sharing relationships through dialogue and re-
flection, (c) accept partnership as a process with uncertain outcomes, (d) engage in ethical
partnerships, and (e) enact partnership for transformation (p. 2). Such practices lead to
higher productivity and scholarly input among faculty involved in international partner-
ships [20].
International partnerships in higher education often begin with a single conversation
between individuals at a conference or meeting, just as the 2013 conversation in Leuven
presaged the Mozarteum–Georgia State relationship [21]. Hamrita [22] examined an in-
ternational partnership between the University of Georgia and the Tunisian higher edu-
cation system, highlighting that “the most effective international linkages, regardless of
their size, scope, goals, and context, begin with people who put the common good before
their own and cut across barriers to pull together whatever it takes to form that bridge”
(p. 7). A study of a partnership between West African and U.S. institutions [23] found that
the American faculty members were chiefly motivated by pedagogical and student-ori-
ented curricular opportunities. Faculty at the partner university held personal interests
and the furtherance of individual research agendas as prominent. Still, the identification
of mutual goals is essential to avoiding a partnership that unequally favors one entity over
the other, regardless of individual faculty motivations [24].
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 5 of 10
Aka defined partnerships as strategic alliances or relationships between two or more
people or institutions exhibiting qualities of trust, equality, mutual understanding, and
obligations [25]. Building on this definition, Kaguhangire-Barifaijo and Namara examined
the role of power relations in international academic partnerships and how they affect the
qualities of harmony, cohesion, success, and the sustaining of the partnership’s relation-
ships [26]. The authors concluded that the lack of clearly written agreements exacerbates
problems created by power differentials within higher education’s international partner-
ships. Such power differences can be seen in the political environment of organizing meet-
ings, inequities of resources between the partner universities, the adherence to institu-
tional structures, and the basic academic orientations of the faculty and students as evi-
denced in an autonomy-control or Master–Servant continuum.
6. Views from Outside Higher Education’s International Partnerships
Many of the concepts identified within partnerships are echoed in the goals and rec-
ommendations of organizations charged with fostering cooperative agreements between
institutions of higher education. The evolution of international partnerships in higher ed-
ucation has roots in the post-World War II era’s focus on cooperation between nations
[27]. A recent analysis examined the oft-stated goal of fostering world peace through the
development of such university-level partnerships [28], and another offered that the goal
must be to “impact a disruptive future” [29] (p. 23). One policy analyst identifies that a
university’s expectation of global impact “is now an expectation, not simply a hope or
aspiration” [30] (p. 45).
The American Council on Education developed a project to examine the guidance
policies and operating standards of higher education’s international partnerships in order
to identify common themes and make recommendations for practice [31]. The relevant
statements of five conglomerate organizations were examined, including the Council of
Europe, the Forum on Education Abroad, the International Association of Universities,
the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, and the Organization for Economic
Co-Operation and Development/UNESCO. Two thematic categories emerged. The first
thematic category identified by the content analysis was Program Administration and
Management, with subthemes of transparency and accountability, faculty and staff en-
gagement, quality assurance, and strategic planning/role of institutional leadership. These
subthemes are consistent with the earlier-noted recommendations regarding the im-
portance of developing and adopting clear guidance documents for partnerships [15,16].
The second thematic category was Cultural and Contextual Issues, with subthemes of cul-
tural awareness, access and equity, institutional and human capacity building, and ethical
dilemmas/“negotiated space.” These subthemes are supportive of the “within partner-
ship” views mentioned earlier [18,19,26], specifically concerning the issues of scholarship
and the navigation of power relations/administrative structures.
The subtheme addressing ethical dilemmas and negotiated space [31] reflects several
dangers of international university partnerships. One of these dangers can occur in part-
nerships where the universities and/or their countries differ substantively in wealth and
income levels [23]. Without oversight, these partnerships can generate “parachute re-
search studies” characterized by a power imbalance where the players from one institu-
tion take unethical advantage of the other to quickly produce multiple journal articles [32].
A team of 13 journal editors recently offered a set of ethical standards to subvert this prac-
tice. The guidelines address multiple issues, including recognition of an editor’s “power”
to influence equity and justice, the designation of primary and secondary authorship, the
documentation of ethical conduct in research, and the dissemination of research via open-
access forums [32].
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 6 of 10
7. Findings, Analysis, and Implications
The inquiry for the American Council on Education, reported by Helms [31],
revealed two thematic categories of factors contributing to the success of international
partnerships in higher education. The first category, Program Administration and Man-
agement, appears to be supported by the language in the current agreement between the
Mozarteum and Georgia State University, though with limited text addressing the en-
gagement of faculty and staff. The agreement was drafted by Georgia State University
personnel, signed by the Dean of the College of the Arts, and subsequently signed by
Mozarteum representatives. The document is entirely focused on the functional imple-
mentation of the student exchange program, with only a brief introductory sentence al-
luding to a rationale of improving “the educational experiences and cultural understand-
ing of their students and faculty.” However, neither these purposes nor the faculty is men-
tioned elsewhere in the agreement. This, then, is not supportive of the second category of
factors found necessary for international partnership success, Cultural and Contextual Is-
sues [31]. This factor is aligned with the conclusion of González-Bonilla, et al. (2022), that
support for individual faculty members is often secondary to the crafting of institutional
goals statements in these types of academic partnerships [5]. This also reflects Branden-
burg and Federkeil’s distinction between internationalism at the university’s corporate
level and internationality at the faculty level [4].
Yet the vision for an academic partnership between the two universities continues
and flourishes. The partnership endures because there is a formal letter of cross-institu-
tional agreement, but not because of any element within the agreement itself. The agree-
ment was finalized during a week in February 2020 when the virus-causing COVID-19
surged throughout Europe and in the days before it became a crisis in the United States.
There had been plans for a Mozarteum graduate student to study at Georgia State Uni-
versity in the Fall 2021 semester, but those plans were repeatedly delayed as the pandemic
developed. Student exchanges were halted as travel between Andalusia and the United
States was banned. A planned May 2021 visit of Mozarteum faculty to the Georgia State
University campus was canceled. It seemed as though the partnership would cease activ-
ity entirely.
Instead, the reverse occurred. The partnership was reimagined as faculty became
newly mobile through virtual conferencing technology. Within months, the Mozarteum
music education faculty began developing a series of conversations with their Georgia
State University colleagues about how the partnership could be reimagined in a virtual,
digital space. Over time, the faculty began to address the cultural and contextual issues
missing from the written institutional agreement as a way to move forward with the part-
nership [31]. This is consistent with Burg’s finding that the personal investment of faculty,
beyond any legally required letter of agreement, is a necessary component of successful
and sustained academic partnerships [18]. Helms’s review of successful international
partnerships identified four cultural and/or contextual elements necessary for sustainabil-
ity [31]. These four elements were also identified in the analytical process of the scoping
review models used for this study [1,3]. The elements are presented below, with examples
of how the current Mozarteum/Georgia State partnership is positioned to address them
as higher education’s international partnerships continue to recover from the COVID-19
pandemic.
7.1. Cultural Awareness
Music education faculty from both institutions visited the other campus in 2018 and
2019. These involved extended residencies, one lasting three months and the other of one
month in duration. The residencies included travel to present at conferences and other
universities, observations of music education in public school settings, opportunities to
become involved in ongoing grant-supported music education university/community col-
laborations, guest lectures to students and faculty peers, and the development of research
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 7 of 10
projects that would persist after the visit had concluded. Most important, perhaps, were
the opportunities for fellowship and travel; both faculty members visited with friends and
family of their host. Conversations became grounded in the day-to-day experiences of
living in and teaching music in a new country and in reflection of cultural factors unique
to the time and the location. This level of cultural awareness became critically important
to understanding the possibilities and problems inherent in the coming shift to virtual and
digital interaction as the COVID-19 era descended. A challenge remains, however, as the
partnership-related cultural awareness is not yet shared by multiple faculty at either in-
stitution. The ongoing success of the partnership will be dependent upon faculty goodwill
in the near future. This highlights the need for those organizing such partnerships to be
proactive in the formal and informal sharing of information among all colleagues, includ-
ing those not directly involved in the collaborations.
7.2. Access & Equity
The shift to virtual instruction involved the closing of the physical doors at both uni-
versities, but it also opened doors to a broader number of students than envisioned by the
authors of the current cross-university agreement letter, away from “a multicultural col-
lection of elite actors,” and toward “a hub for diverse backgrounds and perspectives” [17]
(p. 92). The student exchange no longer operates solely as the traditional one-for-one se-
mester-length exchange defined within the agreement [33]. Instead, the involved faculty
from both institutions have identified opportunities for student exchange that can occur
both formally or informally and represent any duration or level of depth. This is a mani-
festation of the finding by Bautista, Stanley, and Candusso that the COVID-19 era has
strengthened, rather than reduced, the opportunities for collaboration between music ed-
ucation students regardless of geographical or financial constraints [29]. For instance, all
interested doctoral students in music education have become involved in virtual partner-
ships designed to provide support for, extension of, and potential collaborations within
their research areas. This level of involvement would likely not have occurred pre-pan-
demic, as both institutions were rooted in a face-to-face paradigm of doctoral instruction.
7.3. Institutional and Human Capacity Building
International university partnerships require frequent communication, often involv-
ing faculty traveling between institutions. The United States was viewed as having restric-
tive travel and visa policies during the period in which the Mozarteum–Georgia State
partnership agreement was developed. Otto wrote, “By injecting complexity, uncertainty,
and legal disincentive into the process of traveling to and lawfully remaining in the US,
the effectiveness of many types of [higher education institution] international partner-
ships has been limited” [27] (p. 171). The sequestrations and lockdowns of the COVID-19
era added further to the complexity of the Mozarteum–Georgia State partnership.
The faculties of both the Mozarteum and Georgia State University became more in-
volved, rather than more isolated, as the COVID-19 era has developed. One goal of an
institutional partnership may be that faculty can do more in collaboration than they can
in isolation [7]. The shift to virtually mediated communication and instruction opened
access to the cross-university partnership across the entire university faculties. Georgia
State University faculty from the schools of music, art, and FMT (film, media, theater)
have worked with the Mozarteum’s School of Music and Arts Education faculty to plan
and/or actualize the presentation of workshops, lectures, concerts, and research findings
in real-time and in direct collaboration with their colleagues. Examples of activities in-
cluded the shared presentation of virtual concerts of piano faculty; a research forum be-
tween both sets of music education faculty; doctoral student research colloquia; presenta-
tions on how to adapt music-focused classes to virtual instruction; percussion master clas-
ses; the exploration of appropriate performance practice of vocal literature written by Af-
rican American composers; an overview of neuroscience and music education; what fu-
ture elementary music teachers can learn about storytelling; and the role of movement in
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 8 of 10
the choral rehearsal. In short, both the Mozarteum and Georgia State University were
strengthened by the expertise of the partner faculties, with the shift to virtual instruction
broadening access to both faculty and students.
7.4. Ethical Dilemmas and “Negotiated Space”
The Mozarteum–Georgia State University partnership has not yet engendered the
types of ethical dilemmas envisioned by Helms [31]. The socioeconomic context of the two
universities and their countries are similar. Still, there are potential issues of imbalanced
resources (i.e., the funding structures for both institutions are vastly different) or how ac-
ademic freedom is valued in the other institution or country. Other ethical dilemmas may
arise when considering student or faculty roles in shared research or creative activities,
the role of funding to support specific faculty-generated partnership projects, or when
culturally specific and/or sensitive issues arise during research, artistry, or academic
scholarship. In those situations, Helms [31] holds that successful institutional partnerships
require a careful negotiation about how such dilemmas will be addressed rather than an
exclusive focus on the dilemma itself. The faculty-level negotiations themselves are nec-
essary to fully understand, appreciate, and then move forward from any ethical dilemma
encountered in the partnership.
One model for facilitating open conversation among faculty can be seen at 15:00 each
Tuesday as the Mozarteum music education faculty gather around a large table to share
coffee and baked goods, discuss current academic issues, and share news about coming
scholarly events. These meetings have become a time for the music education faculty to
join as a situation-based “family” with shared interests, goals, and projects. These mo-
ments of goodwill can help guide faculties when they need to negotiate how to address a
dilemma, ethical or otherwise. For instance, the topic of partnership-generated publica-
tions was the focus at one of these roundtable faculty meetings during the author’s resi-
dency. The result was a plan that has guided the development of multiple research and
pedagogical projects and publications. Some of these have been co-authored, with the as-
signment of primary authorship following the plan. Others have been single-authored
and represent the views of the individual author and/or institution.
The faculty and students involved in the Mozarteum–Georgia State University part-
nership would be wise to broadly emulate this model of collaborative decision-making
and planning. Etling and McGirr [34] address additional models, guidelines, clarifying
questions, and task checklists that may be of interest to individuals beginning to explore
partnerships between international higher education institutions.
8. The Partnership: Analysis and Implications
This review has outlined several research-supported principles for the efficient and
sustained working of the institutional partnership between the Mozarteum and Georgia
State University. Specifically, the partnership highlighted the requisite levels of cultural
awareness needed by all participants in the project. While the Mozarteum and Georgia
State music programs were similar, both sets of faculty members needed to call on each
other as colleagues to assist when identifying COVID-era opportunities for continuing—
and even enhancing—the cooperative relationship. Though the formal agreement is be-
tween the universities, the informal agreement is much stronger and reaches far more
broadly. The informal agreement is an often-unspoken understanding between faculty
members that the partnership holds value, is sustainable, and is worthy of time and effort.
The informal agreement between the two universities is strong; it is resilient, as demon-
strated by the changes occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sustainability of
the formal agreement rests entirely on the sustainability of the informal agreement. It is
to the credit of both sets of university faculties that the partnership exists and has matured
within the very few years of its existence. It is now the responsibility of those faculties to
sustain the partnership such that it continues as a permanent feature of music education
courses of study in the two institutions.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 9 of 10
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Arskey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
2. Lathren, C.R.; Rao, S.S.; Park, J.; Bluth, K. Self-compassion and current close interpersonal relationships: A scoping literature
review. Mindfulness 2021, 12, 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01566-5.
3. Khalil, H.; Peters, M.D.J.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C.M.; Munn, Z. Conducting high
quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 130, 156–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009.
4. Brandenburg, U.; Federkeil, G. How to Measure Internationality and Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions: Indicators
and Key Figures; Working Paper; CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung: Berlin, Germany, 2007; p. 92.
5. González-Bonilla, A.; Carrasco, M.B.; Collado, G.C.; Urquía-Grande, E. Embedding internationalization in European higher
education institution’s strategies: Easier said than done? Papeles Eur. 2022, 33, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.5209/pade.70172.
6. Stanley, A.M. AEPR special focus issue: An international view of policy and music teacher professional development. Arts Educ.
Policy Rev. 2021, 122, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1756019.
7. Bautista, A.; Stanley, A.M.; Candusso, F. Policy strategies to remedy isolation of specialist arts and music teachers. Arts Educ.
Policy Rev. 2021, 122, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1746713.
8. Karlsen, S. The politics of intercultural collaboration in higher music education. In The Politics of Diversity in Music Education,
Kallio, A.A., Westerlund, H., Karlsen, S., Marsh, K., Sæther, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 203–214.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65617-1_15.
9. Kertz-Welzel, A. Internationalization, hegemony, and diversity: In search of a new vision for the global music education com-
munity. In The Politics of Diversity in Music Education, Kallio, A.A., Westerlund, H., Karlsen, S., Marsh, K., Sæther, E., Eds.;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65617-1_14.
10. Timonen, V. Co-constructing an intercultural professional learning community in music education: Lessons from a Nepali and
Finnish collaboration. Nord. Res. Music Educ. 2021, 2, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.23865/nrme.v2.3028.
11. Potter, D. Policy as an international concept: A review of “Policy and the Political Life of Music Education”. Arts Educ. Policy
Rev. 2019, 120, 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1531798.
12. Schmidt, P.; Colwell, R. (Eds.) Policy and the Political Life of Music Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.
13. Minors, H.J.; Burnard, P.; Wiffen, C.; Shihabi, Z.; van der Walt, J.S. Mapping trends and framing issues in higher music educa-
tion: Changing minds/changing practices. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2017, 15, 457–473. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.3.09.
14. Gatewood, J.; Sutton, S.B. Internationalization in action: International partnerships. American Council on Education, 2016.
Available online: https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/IIA-Intl-Partnerships-Part-1.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2023).
15. Anderson, F.; Donkor, P.; de Vries, R.; Appiah-Denkyira, E.; Dakpallah, G.F.; Rominski, S.; Hassinger, J.; Lou, A.; Kwansah, J.;
Moyer, C.; et al. Creating a charter of collaboration for international university partnerships: The Elmina Declaration for Human
Resources for Health. Acad. Med. 2014, 89, 1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000384.
16. Umoren, R.A.; James, J.E.; Litzelman, D.K. Evidence of reciprocity in reports on international partnerships. Educ. Res. Int. 2012,
2012, 603270. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/603270.
17. Lanford, M. Long-term sustainability in global higher education partnerships. In Successful Global Collaborations in Higher Edu-
cation Institutions; Al-Youbi, A., Zahed, A., Tierney, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25525-1_9.
18. Burg, D. International University Partnerships: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southamp-
ton, UK, 2017. Available online: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/417788/ (accessed on 24 November 2023).
19. Matthews, K.E. Five propositions for genuine Students as Partners practice. Int. J. Stud. Partn. 2017, 1, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3315.
20. Payumo, J.; Moore, D.; Evans, M.; Arasu, P. An evaluation of researcher motivations and productivity outcomes in international
collaboration and partnerships at a U.S. research-intensive university. Interdiscip. J. Partnersh. Stud. 2019, 6, 4.
https://doi.org/10.24926/ijps.v6i2.2012.
21. Cozza, B.; Blessinger, P. Pioneering approaches in university partnerships. In University Partnerships for International Develop-
ment; Cozza, B., Blessinger, P., Eds.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120160000008001.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 179 10 of 10
22. Hamrita, T.K. Building a holistic international educational partnership: Collaboration between the University of Georgia and
the Tunisian higher education system. J. Community Engagem. Scholarsh. 2011, 4, 5–14. Available online:
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A267714281/AONE?u=nysl_oweb&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=66b4c6b0 (accessed on 24 No-
vember 2023).
23. Mlambo, Y.A.; Baxter, A. “What can I offer America?” A postcolonial analysis of faculty motivations and perceptions in North-
South university partnerships. FIRE Forum Int. Res. Educ. 2018, 4, 33–55. Available online: https://fire-ojs-ttu.tdl.org/FIRE/is-
sue/view/1 (accessed on 24 November 2023).
24. Leng, P. Mutuality in Cambodian international university partnerships: Looking beyond the global discourse. High. Educ. 2015,
72, 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9952-0.
25. Aka, P.C. NEPAD and the movement for popular participation in development (MPPD) in Africa. Hum. Rights Glob. Law Rev.
2009, 3, 79–148.
26. Kaguhangire-Barifaijo, N.; Namara, R.B. International partnerships in educational institutions and their intricacies: Are institu-
tions getting the right “deal” in the partnerships? Rev. High. Educ. Afr. 2012, 4, 1–39. Available online: https://jour-
nal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/rhea/article/view/2183 (accessed on 24 November 2023).
27. Otto, J.M. The impact of evolving transatlantic relations on international partnerships in higher education. J. Comp. Int. High.
Educ. 2021, 13, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v13i5.3657.
28. Ma, L.; Subbiondo, J.L. Goals, models, and practices of international partnerships in higher education: Toward global peace and
harmony. Beijing Int. Rev. Educ. 2022, 4, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539-04020001.
29. Hamdullahpur, F. Global citizens for the Twenty-First Century: The role of international partnerships in university education.
In Successful Global Collaborations in Higher Education Institutions; Al-Youbi, A., Zahed, A., Tierney, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Hei-
delberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25525-1_3.
30. Taylor, J. Understanding international partnerships: A theoretical and practical approach. Perspect. Policy Pract. High. Educ. 2016,
20, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2015.1062056.
31. Helms, R.M. International higher education partnerships: A global review of standards and practices. American Council on
Education, 2015. Available online: https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/CIGE-Insights-Intl-Higher-Ed-Partnerships.pdf (ac-
cessed on 24 November 2023).
32. Morton, B.; Vercueil, A.; Masekela, R.; Heinz, E.; Reimer, L.; Saleh, S.; Kalinga, C.; Seekles, M.; Biccard, B.; Chakaya, J.; et al.
Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partner-
ships. Anaesthesia 2022, 77, 264–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15597.
33. Atalar, A. Student exchange: The first step toward international collaboration. In Successful Global Collaborations in Higher Edu-
cation Institutions; Al-Youbi, A., Zahed, A., Tierney, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25525-1_7.
34. Etling, A.; McGirr, M. Issues and procedures in forging international university partnerships. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2005, 12,
15–21. https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2005.12202.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
