Clarifying Narrative Direction Before a University Commits to Global Expansion

Context

A mid-sized research university with a long-established legacy in a highly developed Western country was preparing to expand its global presence through the creation of a satellite campus abroad.

The proposed location was a rapidly globalizing West Asian city with a growing international academic ecosystem and significant geopolitical visibility.

While the expansion had been approved in principle, leadership faced increasing pressure to announce and activate quickly — both to demonstrate momentum and to secure early partnerships.

At the same time, the proposal surfaced deep and consequential tensions across the institution. Some stakeholders viewed the expansion as a necessary step toward global relevance, diplomacy, and talent exchange. Others raised concerns around:

• perceived extravagance in a constrained economic climate

• cultural and political incompatibility

• human rights and governance questions

• the ethics of allocating resources abroad rather than expanding capacity locally

Donor reactions were mixed. Several long-standing supporters expressed discomfort or outright opposition, with some threatening to withdraw funding if the university proceeded.

The board was divided.

The president — a younger, globally oriented leader — believed strongly that a visible international presence signalled openness, multiculturalism, and a responsibility to engage beyond national borders.

Before any public announcement was made, I was part of a team engaged at a pre-execution stage to help the institution clarify its narrative position and decision logic — not to advocate for or against expansion, but to ensure coherence, integrity, and readiness before commitment.

Phase I — Framing

What decision are we actually making?

Early conversations revealed that the debate was being treated primarily as a question of logistics, optics, or timing. However, beneath these surface concerns sat a more consequential decision:

• What does “global” actually mean for this institution?

• Which values are symbolic, and which are operational?

• What kinds of criticism is the university willing to withstand — and why?

• Who is the institution prepared to disappoint, and on what grounds?

This phase reframed the work from how to announce an expansion to whether the institution could articulate a coherent moral and strategic rationale for it.

The outcome was a clear articulation of the real decision at stake: whether the university was prepared to publicly author a future-facing identity — and to accept the responsibilities and trade-offs that accompany such authorship.

Phase II — Narrative Definition

What story are we committing to?

With the decision clarified, the work moved into defining a strategic narrative capable of holding complexity rather than smoothing it over.

This phase did not seek to neutralize disagreement or persuade skeptics. Instead, it focused on coherence.

Key narrative questions included:

• How does the university understand its role in global knowledge exchange?

• How does it reconcile democratic ideals with engagement in imperfect contexts?

• How does it distinguish leadership from opportunism?

Multiple narrative positions were explored and tested against:

• donor trust and philanthropic alignment

• board governance and institutional credibility

• public interpretation and reputational risk

The resulting narrative framework allowed leadership to articulate:

• why global engagement mattered to the institution

• how it aligned with core academic values

• where legitimate critique would be acknowledged rather than dismissed

Importantly, the narrative did not attempt to present the expansion as universally agreeable. It presented it as intentional, considered, and values-led.

Phase III — Experience Translation

If this is the direction, what does it require?

Once narrative clarity was established, attention turned to the implications of commitment. This phase translated intent into strategic guardrails, addressing:

• how donor engagement would be approached without coercion or defensiveness

• how internal communications would reflect respect for dissent

• how public-facing language would avoid triumphalism or moral certainty

• how academic integrity would be protected across contexts

By addressing these questions before execution, the institution reduced the risk of contradiction between stated values and lived behaviour.

The work ensured that future actions — whether announcements, partnerships, or symbolic gestures — would be legible as expressions of a coherent position rather than reactions to pressure.

Phase IV — Stewardship (Selective)

When the moment demands continuity of authorship

Given the visibility and consequence of the decision, I continue to support leadership in a strategy and narrative stewardship capacity as the university moves forward.

This role centres on sustaining:

• clarity of institutional purpose amid public scrutiny

• alignment between global ambition and academic integrity

• confidence across stakeholders as direction becomes visible

The work remains focused on protecting coherence between long-term vision and present-moment decision-making.

Outcome

The institution is proceeding with a strengthened sense of authorship and strategic responsibility.

This is emerging through:

• clearer articulation of global intent grounded in values

• acknowledgment of legitimate concerns without capitulating to fear

• engagement with donors with honesty rather than reassurance

• preparing the institution for criticism without reaction

Whether stakeholders ultimately agreed with the decision or not, the university avoided incoherence — and preserved trust by demonstrating that the choice was made deliberately, not opportunistically.

Rather than a single decision point, the process represents an ongoing act of institutional leadership — one that continues to shape how the university engages the world. Global expansion, when approached strategically, is not a branding exercise but an institutional commitment that must be authored with care.

Marie Fe's Role (Lead)

• Pre-Execution Institutional Strategy

• Strategic Narrative Definition

• Governance & Donor Alignment Advisory

• Public Narrative Stewardship (Selective)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Many of these engagements remain ongoing.
Details are offered with care to preserve institutional confidence and trust.

Much of this advisory work has developed over time alongside my senior creative and institutional roles, often within environments where strategic influence unfolds quietly and requires discretion.

Across my advanced postgraduate studies in international contexts, cross-sector practice, and long-term engagement with leaders navigating complex public initiatives, a consistent focus has emerged: clarifying narrative, direction, and consequence before execution begins. The aim is to design strategic guardrails in narrative & experience architecture, so that the execution phase is worthy of all the investment it will require.

The framework and case studies shared here reflect work that has been tested in practice over many years—now articulated more visibly as an integrated advisory practice.