faculty member engagement in canadian university intlz

http://jsi.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Studies in International

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/209The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1028315312451132

July 2012 2013 17: 209 originally published online 5Journal of Studies in International Education

Rhonda FriesenConsideration of Understanding, Motivations and Rationales

Faculty Member Engagement in Canadian University Internationalization: A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Studies in International Education

at: can be foundJournal of Studies in International EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/209.refs.htmlCitations:

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on April 21, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on April 21, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsi.sagepub.com/

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/209

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.asie.org

http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jsi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/209.refs.html



What is This?

- Jul 5, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jun 4, 2013Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on April 21, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on April 21, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/209.full.pdf

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/03/1028315312451132.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Studies in International Education17(3) 209 –227© 2012 Nuffic

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1028315312451132jsi.sagepub.com

451132 JSI17310.1177/1028315312451132FriesenJournal of Studies in International Education

1University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Corresponding Author:Rhonda Friesen, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada. Email: [email protected]

Faculty Member Engagement in Canadian University Internationalization: A Consideration of Understanding, Motivations and Rationales

Rhonda Friesen1

Abstract

Faculty members are key agents in the institutional internationalization process within Canadian higher education. In the growing volumes of literature on internationalization, however, few authors consider how faculty members perceive their role in this process. In this study I take a phenomenological research approach to explore the understanding and motivations of five Canadian faculty members toward their involvement in institutional internationalization strategies. Using de Wit’s (2002) internationalization rationale framework, I compare faculty motivations for engaging internationally with institutional positions on internationalization as articulated in strategic planning documents. Results indicate a range of faculty member engagement in the institutional internationalization process related to the alignment of personal motivations with institutional rationales. Recommendations are offered to assist in devising institutional internationalization strategies that are relevant and meaningful for faculty members and are therefore more likely to engage these key actors in the higher education internationalization process.

Keywords

globalization and international higher education, internationalization of higher education, internationalization of teaching, learning and research, strategic institutional manage-ment of internationalization, national and transnational policies for internationalization in higher education, mobility of students and academic staff

Article

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on April 21, 2014jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

jsi.sagepub.com


210 Journal of Studies in International Education 17(3)

In today’s global knowledge based economy, faculty members within higher edu-cation institution are key agents in the institutional internationalization process. A national study conducted by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Can-ada (AUCC) in 2006 notes that “strong interest on the part of faculty members is the single most important organizational factor to support internationalization” (AUCC, 2008). This is corroborated by several other authors (AUCC, 2008; Donald, 2007; Schoorman, 2000; Schuerholz-Lehr, Caws, Van Gyn, & Preece, 2007; Shute, 2002; Stohl, 2007), who describe faculty members as primary agents in the internationalization process within their institutions, being both contributors and inhibitors, actively furthering internationalization as well as being impacted by its effects.

In spite of the critical role that faculty members play in institutional internation-alization, the faculty member perspective toward this phenomenon has been noticeably understated in current literature which has predominantly addressed internationalization in organizational terms as it is implemented through programs and activities within higher education institutions (Sanderson, 2008). In particular, few scholars have examined the faculty member perspective in understanding the internationalization process and how personal motivations for engaging in this pro-cess align with or diverge from institutional internationalization rationales. Our understanding of this area needs to increase if the internationalization process is expected to contribute positively to the growth and development of institutions and faculty members alike.

Using a phenomenological research method to explore the experiences and per-spectives of five faculty members employed in different disciplinary programs at Canadian research universities, I seek to develop an understanding of internationaliza-tion at the faculty member level with particular emphasis on motivations and ratio-nales for engaging in international work. Faculty member perspectives toward internationalization are then compared with institutional rationales for international-ization obtained through a review of institutional strategic documents. A comparison of the two perspectives suggests ways in which faculty members and institutions may influence each other and points to factors that affect faculty member engagement in the institutional internationalization process.

I am approaching this study from the perspective of a practitioner-researcher, with nearly 20 years of experience in a central office of a Canadian research university administering international programs for students and, for the past 6 years, working in university international relations to develop faculty-based international cooperation. For this reason, probing the experience and understanding of faculty members regard-ing internationalization is not only a curiosity but also a necessity for me as I work cooperatively with my faculty member colleagues to facilitate an internationalization process that is balanced, appropriate, and effective both for their personal interests as well as those of the wider institution.



Friesen 211

Literature ReviewGlobalization’s Impact on the Faculty Member ExperienceInternationalization of higher education is a phenomenon that is closely related to another term that warrants equally careful examination. Globalization and internation-alization have been described as belonging to “connected universes” making it impos-sible to distinguish fully between them (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011). Although these terms are indeed distinct, they are nonetheless intricately connected, and much of what might be attributed to internationalization (that is the inclusion of an interna-tional dimension in teaching, research and service), is actually taking place as a result of globalization (that is the global trade of educational services, people and ideas; Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011).

In its simplest sense, current forms of internationalization in higher education might be understood as an institutional response to globalization (Coelen, 2008), although universities are also seen to be both actors and spectators in the global knowl-edge based economy (Egron-Polak, 2005). Among the influences of globalization, the massification of higher education is one of the most significant (Altbach & Peterson, 2007). Increasing demand for higher education from students in growing market econ-omies (Naidoo, 2006) coupled with a surge in student mobility (van der Wende, 2003) is changing the classroom dynamics in many North American universities (Morey, 2000). Faculty members tasked with educating in the midst of this diversity are chal-lenged to relate to students with increasing levels of intercultural sensitivity (Morey, 2000) and approach pedagogy from multiple worldviews (Donald, 2007).

An increasing mobility of ideas and people is bringing higher education systems together through partnerships, exchange programs, consortia, and networks (Altbach & Teichler, 2001). The growing stratification of higher education institutions (Bleiklie, 2005; Marginson, 2006) affects faculty members whose research has become a signifi-cant contributor to institutional reputation (Marginson & Van Der Wende, 2007). Mohrman, Ma and Baker (2007) indicate that universities are “increasingly more research-intensive” and that faculty members in these institutions are assuming new roles as part of team-oriented, cross-disciplinary, and international partnerships (p. 147). The “new roles” that faculty members are assuming represent a tightening link between the work and interests of individual faculty members and the strategic reputational interests of institutional administration.

Faculty positions within universities are normally charged with three areas of responsibility: teaching, research, and service (Tandon, 2008). In spite of the fact that service has always stayed at the periphery of institutional strategic interests (Shute, 2002), Canadian faculty members have maintained a long history of engagement inter-nationally through community service work in development and capacity building. Increasingly faculty members are bringing global citizenship education to the class-room (Davies, 2006) and conducting research with partners in the Global South




(AUCC, 2009), which may represent a way of integrating international service oppor-tunities with their broader teaching and research responsibilities.

As the scholars noted above have observed, the academic profession is changing substantially in a globalized world. Institutional internationalization has emerged, per-haps not only in response to globalization, but also as a proactive way to make sense of the many ways that academia is changing in the global knowledge based economy. What remains uncertain is how faculty members inside the university community per-ceive internationalization and whether strategic institutional rationales are engaging faculty members as key actors in this process.

Internationalization at the Organizational Level: Rationales and DefinitionHigher education administrators have increasingly begun to articulate institutional internationalization strategies to bring cohesion and direction to the diffuse and some-times confusing affect that globalization is having within higher education institutions (Childress, 2009). The rationales that underpin institutional internationalization strat-egies are critical determinants of the programming approaches taken at the institu-tional level. de Wit (1991) has been among the first to provide a structured analysis of institutional rationales for internationalization (de Wit, 2002). de Wit’s (2002) rationale framework lays out four broad categories of academic, political, social-cultural, and economic, with detailed descriptions of the meanings and subcategories within each category. These are explored in more detail later in this study.

Although internationalization is increasingly entering the text of institutional stra-tegic documents, its definition remains unclear within scholarly circles. Paige and Mestenhauser (1999) describe the phenomenon in terms of its affect on individuals who adopt an “international mindset” to respond appropriately to the many changes brought through globalization. Stromquist (2007) observes that under the pressures of globalization, institutional internationalization enables universities to develop a “greater international presence” to increase dominance in the international market place (Stromquist, 2007, p. 82). Conversely, Schoorman (2000) focuses on the human-ist ideals of mutual understanding in asserting that internationalization is an educa-tional process that promotes awareness and inclusivity of different cultures. Knight’s (2004) widely used definition of this phenomenon proposes that internationalization is “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education”(p. 11). Perhaps the key question to ask in defining institutional internationalization is not so much about the “what” as it is about the “why” and “how” that individuals are making sense of the changing world of global higher education within their local institutional context.

The importance of understanding internationalization both in terms of its underpin-ning rationales and its definition is underscored in a United Kingdom case study by Turner and Robson (2007). These authors have discovered significant divergence between faculty members and institutional administration regarding rationales for engaging in internationalization initiatives. They record that institutional policy



Friesen 213

makers tend to emphasize competitive market-based rationales for internationalization whereas academic staff members acknowledge more cooperative, internationalist ide-ologies. Furthermore, they suggest that “the widespread disengagement expressed by [faculty member] study participants and the negative connotations placed on the insti-tution’s particular approach toward internationalization highlighted a lack of long-term sustainability and the disruptive capacity of motivational disunities among the institutional community” (Turner & Robson, 2007, p. 80). As the Turner and Robson (2007) study suggests, divergences regarding the motivations and rationales for inter-nationalization becomes a critical determinant of engagement for faculty members in the institutional internationalization process.

Research FrameworkIn spite of growing volumes of scholarly work on the phenomenon of internationaliza-tion (Kehm & Teichler, 2007) some uncertainty, discrepancy, and gaps remain. One of these, as pointed out by Sanderson (2008), is how internationalization is understood or engaged at the level of the individual faculty member. Sanderson (2008) points to Knight and de Wit’s (1995) collaborative work as a useful analysis of how interna-tionalization might be observed to function at an institutional level, but is quick to point out that Knight and de Wit’s (1995) work does not delve into the within institu-tion or individual levels of analysis.

Knight and de Wit (1995) may not explore internationalization at the individual level, but they do suggest that the four internationalization rationale categories might apply with “a distinctive perception and set of priorities” to various stakeholder groups within an institution, including faculty members (Knight & de Wit, 1995, p. 9). It is from this suggestion that I begin my analysis, using de Wit’s (2002) rationale frame-work of academic, political, social-cultural, and economic rationales, which is more fully elaborated than his earlier work with Knight, and apply it to faculty member motivations for engaging internationally as well as their perceptions of institutional rationales for internationalization.

Identification of underlying rationales for internationalization according to a com-mon framework may help to increase understanding of various points of convergence and divergence between individual and institutional perspectives, but it is limited in its ability to fully explain how these influence each other. Innovative change theory, as discussed by van der Wende (1999), provides an opportunity to explore how perceived values and needs may influence faculty engagement in institutional internationaliza-tion. In her article, van der Wende (1999) suggests that individual actors within an institution, such as faculty members, are most likely to successfully bring about sus-tained and “diffused” institutional change (i.e., broad-based affect) when the “innova-tion” they are introducing, in this case internationalization, meets institutional needs and also aligns with institutional values and priorities. My study considers this process of change and influence in reverse, looking carefully at how the individual needs and values of faculty members are affected by institutional strategies and whether this influences their engagement in the institutional internationalization process.




Research Method

Phenomenology is particularly relevant for understanding internationalization as experienced by faculty members within the context of their academic work. A phe-nomenological perspective argues that seeing the effects of internationalization on systems or organizations cannot truly define the essence of internationalization with-out a consideration of how it is experienced by individuals within those systems or organizations (Gibbs, 2010).

The phenomenological research approach requires a small sample size to gain insight to the personal experiences of individuals living in or with the phenomenon of internationalization (Groenewald, 2004). My study, conducted between February and June 2010, involves five faculty members employed at different Canadian research universities (defined according to Statistics Canada as those institutions belonging to either the “medical-doctoral” or “comprehensive” categories of Canadian universities [Orton, 2009]) and representing different disciplinary back-grounds and geographic regions. It is important in phenomenological research that study participants be able to articulate opinions of the phenomenon from personal experience (Hycner, 1985). Consequently, I have chosen participants from a group of individuals nominated for Scotiabank-AUCC Awards for Excellence in Internationalization in either 2004 or 2006. Although the literature suggests that most, if not all faculty members in Canadian universities will have experienced internationalization to some degree, the internationalization award nominee list indicates a likelihood that these individuals have a well-defined awareness of not only the phenomenon, but also of their role in it. To further address questions of study validity, participants have actively participated in reviewing both the inter-view transcripts and an initial analysis and summary of the findings to ensure their perspectives have been accurately represented.

The study has some notable limitations. The small study size demanded by phe-nomenological research means that findings cannot be generalized to a large grouping of individuals, as insight and perspective vary significantly between individuals based on many variables including institutional context, disciplinary background, and prior international experience. As award nominees, the group of participants in this study may present common perspectives and opinions that are not necessarily indicative of the wider set of faculty members employed at Canadian institutions. Additional research with faculty members not engaged in institutional internationalization efforts would be a worthwhile comparison to this study and could enrich our understanding of the faculty perspective toward internationalization.

Interview participants have been randomly chosen from an original data set of 32 individuals. Three substitutions have been made to ensure a diverse range of disci-plines and geographic location. My final set of interview participants includes two full professors, and three associate professors. Three are in arts-based disciplines and two are in science-based disciplines. Three are from universities in central Canada and two are from universities in western Canada. Three professors are female and two are male.



Friesen 215

Faculty member perspectives are compared with institutional positions toward internationalization as articulated in strategic institutional documents. Documents have been selected from six institutions, including those employing the participating faculty members plus one additional institution to obscure participant identity. In total, I have included three western and three central English speaking Canadian research universities. Strategic documents chosen for this study are publicly available through the Internet and can be identified according to Childress’ (2009) typology as an insti-tutional strategic plan in which internationalization is incorporated into an institution-wide strategic or academic plan.

Two strategic documents from each institution have been selected for analysis of key terms related to Knight’s (2004) definition of internationalization, that is, “international,” “global” and (multi/inter)cultural. Phrases containing these words have been extracted from document text, condensed to single ideas, which are grouped into common “meaning units” according to phenomenological research practice (Hycner, 1985). The meaning units are then categorized according to de Wit’s (2002) internationalization rationale framework.

Research QuestionMy central query in conducting this research is to explore faculty member engage-ment in the institutional internationalization process and whether, as suggested by Turner and Robson (2007), the individual sense of engagement is influenced by the alignment of their personal motivations with stated institutional rationales for interna-tionalization. I use three broad research questions that guide my data collection: How is internationalization understood? What are the perceived or stated rationales for engaging internationally? What affects do institutional positions toward international-ization have on faculty members and how does this influence faculty member engage-ment in the internationalization process?

FindingsWith a common framework in place to examine the perspectives of faculty members and the institutional positions toward internationalization, the central ideas that emerge in the interview transcription texts can be placed alongside the key terms com-municated through strategic documents to gain a sense of the common and divergent viewpoints at the individual and institutional levels.

Understanding Internationalization: Faculty Member PerspectivesFour out of the five faculty member participants expressed uncertainty regarding the relationship between internationalization and globalization, with only one participant affirming the relationship between the two terms. All five participants acknowledged internationalization as a complex term; one that it is mutable, and results in a confus-ing array of possible activities.




I don’t know about the globalization thing. I mean, it does parallel globalization, but it is just establishing multifaceted linkages with international academic settings.

Participant B

I think internationalization is the least understood and the most misunderstood topic in my opinion.

Participant E

The internationalization definitions provided by the faculty member participants did not reference institutional structures as defining architects of the internationalization process. Rather they preferred to think of internationalization as being primarily based in person to person relationships between individuals in Canada and another country.

I just think of internationalization broadly as connecting around the globe and bringing an alternative perspective.

Participant D

Internationalization is all about personal links.

Participant E

Another common point of understanding between study participants was their per-ception that internationalization is directly related to enhancing quality in the aca-demic objectives of teaching, research, and service.

[Study abroad] increases the quality of program for the students. There’s some-thing students will gain from having this course abroad as opposed to having it on campus.

Internationalization is about broadening perspectives.

Participant A

Understanding Internationalization: Institutional DocumentsIn examining institutional strategic documents, it becomes clear that individual faculty members receive little guidance or clarity in understanding internationalization from their administrative leadership. Most institutional statements seemed to accept that “internationalization” is a commonly understood term that does not require an explicit definition. “Internationalization” may be used interchangeably with “international



Friesen 217

education” or “international activities,” implying that any objective or activity that is international in scope is subsumed within the concept. Only one institution provided a stated definition of the term and linked internationalization clearly to globalization.

Institutional strategic documents do not describe internationalization in terms of personal linkages but rather present it in terms of various programs, activities and structures that facilitate international perspectives being brought to the institution.

Much has been accomplished in the domain of internationalization . . . . These achievements include the creation of a dedicated [senior administration posi-tion] portfolio, joint programs with universities outside of Canada, a blossoming of exchanges, curriculum development throughout the university, and summer internships.

University 5

In addition, although the strategic documents do make many references to interna-tionalization’s contribution to enhancing academic quality, it is frequently phrased in competitive language of also being recognized globally for this excellence in aca-demic programs.

“[This university] will become Canada’s most internationalized and, therefore, internationally best-known university”

University 2

Understanding Internationalization: Faculty Perceptions of Institutional PositionsFinally, when participants provided their perceptions of how internationalization was understood more broadly in their institutions, three out of five participants perceived that an institutional definition of internationalization was more strongly connected to improving institutional reputation and economic return than developing intercultural understanding or enhancing quality of teaching or research. In this, institutions were perceived to focus on quantity rather than on quality.

The university is aggressively going after international regiment basically to have a presence internationally.

Participant E

There is no academic reason for them to send students abroad. It’s a deliverable. It’s a number.

Participant B




One participant presented a different perspective that is noteworthy for the purpose of this study. Her institution defined internationalization by emphasizing international engagement in terms of social responsibility rather than institutional prosperity. This definition resonates with faculty members such as this participant.

[There’s] a sense that the university exists for a greater good . . . for the public good. And not just within Canadian boundaries, it is very international. Again, the president’s role has had a big impact on it. . . . . Faculty really care about internationalization. We’ll use the mission statement to justify that.

Participant C

Motivations and Rationales for InternationalizationRationales and motivations significantly affect how internationalization is understood within the institutional context. de Wit’s (2002) rationale framework separates inter-nationalization rationales into four categories: academic, political, social-cultural, and economic. Each category represents a number of different subcategories (de Wit, 2002, pp. 85-99), providing important differentiation for rationales that may seem to align but in fact are very different at the subset level.

When faculty member participants were asked to reflect on their initial reasons for becoming involved in international work, most went back to influential experiences or people who inspired or counseled them to participate in an international learning oppor-tunity. These faculty members have indicated that personal experiences living or work-ing in another country have made them open to engaging in international work, but they site other influences that motivate their continued involvement. Enhancing the quality of education is a primary motivator for three of the participants as they expand course curriculum to include the experience of learning in another country context.

It’s a part of the student education that I think is absolutely essential . . . it’s one of my priorities in teaching so I was willing to do all kinds of stuff for free.

Participant B

It’s quite a transformation in terms of my learning and my offering of the course; it’s really been the students who have gone and come back who give back to the program to make sure we enhance it; so it’s absolutely been delight-ful . . . the most transformative teaching I’ve ever done.”

Participant D

As noted by Participant D above, the experience changes not only the student per-spective but also that of the faculty member instructor. International involvement



Friesen 219

increases self-awareness and creates new understanding of old, familiar things, and awareness of own culture.

I saw [my home country] afresh through the eyes of my students. I had never imagined [my home country] like that.

Participant E

It does expand and broaden your view of how things are in the world. For me, it’s made me more curious to step back and wonder before I go to judge that something is good or bad or right or wrong. [It’s made me] much more compas-sionate, more open and curious and more accepting.

Participant D

In de Wit’s (2002) rationale framework, the faculty members’ comments on their personal motivations for engaging internationally primarily fall into the “social-cultural” category, which includes personal growth and development of intercultural awareness, combating parochialism, and promoting “universalism” of knowledge from multiple worldviews. Participant comments also emphasize academic rationales, particularly related to the subset of enhancing the quality and expanding the reach of their teaching and research responsibilities through international work.

Institutional Rationales for Internationalization: Strategic Documents and Faculty PerceptionsThe word search conducted of strategic institutional documents resulted in excerpts of statements that could be grouped according to the categories in de Wit’s (2002) frame-work. By counting the number of references in each category, some inferences can be made regarding areas of emphasis in institutional rationales for internationalization (Hycner, 1985). Although the institutions reference a broad range of rationales that relate to categories across de Wit’s framework, the dominant rationale for all six uni-versities was the academic category. At the subcategory level, however, the institu-tions showed greater differentiation in which five out of six institutions focused on institutional profile and status whereas one institution emphasized enhancing aca-demic programs. This latter institution also placed significant emphasis on social-cultural rationales.

Faculty members participating in this study were asked to identify and describe institutional rationales for internationalization as they perceived them within their own institutional context. Each of the five faculty member participants were able to confirm that internationalization was seen as a definite strategic interest for the institution. Four out of five perceived their institutions to primarily present academic rationales related to institutional profile and status. Three out of five participants also perceived their




institutions to present strong economic rationales. One participant emphasized her per-ception of strong social-cultural rationales for internationalization at her institution.

Faculty Member Perceived Engagement in Institutional InternationalizationFinally, faculty member participants were asked to describe their level of engagement in the institutional internationalization process based on how well their personal moti-vations for engaging internationally aligned with the institutional internationalization rationales they had perceived. Two faculty members indicated that even though per-sonal motivations and institutional rationales are different, they perceived distinct opportunity through institutional internationalization for direct personal benefits. Consequently, they described themselves as currently aligned with institutional pri-orities, but indicated that this is tenuous, subject to change depending on factors beyond their control such as change in senior administration or a change in the local/national economy.

Two faculty members described very disparate personal motivations from the artic-ulated institutional rationales and indicate their strong disengagement from the institu-tional internationalization process. They based their feelings of alienation not only on differences in opinion that lead to different internationalization priorities, but also on strongly held values that caused them to distance themselves on the basis of moral grounds. These faculty members saw quantitative valuations of international activity in the institution as not only irrelevant to their work in building meaningful long term partnerships abroad, but also directly harmful to their efforts.

One faculty member participant indicated a clear alignment with institutional ratio-nales for internationalization. In this case, the faculty member’s institution had articu-lated internationalization priorities that emphasize the personal development of staff and students as well as the enhancement of education and research through interna-tionalization. These institutional internationalization values and vision have been articulated in high level mission statements and carried through to policy and proce-dures that directly support and reward faculty members being involved internationally. This participant expresses the feeling of being “totally aligned” with the institution’s internationalization strategy and suggests a model for successful faculty engagement.

Results and Discussion of FindingsUnderstanding Internationalization

The personal experiences of faculty member participants in this study reinforce a number of observations noted in the literature review. First, the lack of certainty in understanding internationalization among faculty members and the absence of clear definitions within strategic documents reflect the lack of consensus for a single definition of internationaliza-tion in the literature. The differences between individual and institutional definitions of internationalization also seem to align with various definitions proposed in the literature.



Friesen 221

Institutional documents reflect a programmatic, activity based understanding of interna-tionalization similar to Knight’s (2004) definition constructed from a functional, organi-zational viewpoint. Individual perspectives resonate more with intercultural development theories and the promotion of internationalization as the learning of an “international mindset” as suggested by Paige and Mestenhauser (1999).

The different definitions of internationalization at the institutional and individual levels appear to be a key point of determining engagement of individual faculty mem-bers in the institutional internationalization process. Turner and Robson (2007) describe the division between faculty members and institution as the schism between qualitative and quantitative approaches to internationalization. Faculty members in this study each pointed clearly to the perception that internationalization stems from personal relationships. This relational perspective means that internationalization is complex, nuanced, and qualitative in nature. Institutional documents that present inter-nationalization in terms of programs and activities give rise to concrete, numeric, and quantitative expectations. The different understanding concerning the basis of interna-tionalization can create friction and alienation between faculty members and their institutions. By defining internationalization purely on the basis of student numbers or agreements leaves faculty members out of the institutional internationalization equa-tion, as demonstrated by the experiences of Participants B and D.

There is no academic reason for them to send students abroad. It’s a deliverable. It’s a number. They want x percentage of the student body to have an interna-tional “experience” during their undergrad [program].

Participant B

[This university] wants to be known around the world. We want to have partner-ships and part of me is very skeptical about international partnerships ‘cause I don’t see them sustained. I see them almost as something that faculties and deans or whatever are just trying to get in their pockets.

Participant D

A second noteworthy observation regarding the understanding of internationaliza-tion within Canadian higher education is the lack of clarity regarding the relationship of internationalization to globalization. Only one faculty member and one institution acknowledged and affirmed the interconnection of the two phenomena. This discon-nect is contrary to the substantial volume of literature that discusses and relates the two terms “as connected universes” (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011).

Although it is important to acknowledge that globalization is a subject of debate that may be approached differently between disciplines, it is nonetheless a critical context for the internationalization process. Without the link between internationaliza-tion and the wider reality of globalization, the institutional internationalization process




is subject to continued ambiguity and confusion in terms of its purpose and impor-tance. This is a troubling concern that warrants attention on the part of international education researchers and institutional administrators. The relationship between inter-nationalization and globalization is one that necessitates clarification of rationales and highlights the importance of articulating the values and needs that underpin decisions made within the internationalization process.

Motivations and Rationales for InternationalizationFaculty member participants in this study emphasize personal motivations for engag-ing internationally that are primarily based on a commitment to furthering intercul-tural understanding at an individual level, both for themselves and their students. This emphasis relates strongly to personal development in the social-cultural category in de Wit’s (2002) framework. It also corroborates Sanderson’s (2008) suggestion that internationalization at the individual level is based on a reflective and transformative awareness of self, which facilitates a personal ability to explore and adapt to new worldviews.

Divergent motivations between faculty members and institutional rationales seem to create a number of disunities within the internationalization process, as noted in the Turner and Robson (2007) study, but do not necessarily disengage faculty completely. Faculty member participants in this study have expressed a range of engagement and a fairly nuanced range of alignment with perceived institutional internationalization rationales. Although two participants are clearly disengaged and even oppositional to their institution’s internationalization priorities, three participants have described themselves as quite clearly aligned and engaged in institutional internationalization efforts. The qualified nature of two of these latter three participants indicates a some-what complex relationship between their personal motivations and institutional inter-nationalization rationales. In spite of distinct differences between these two individuals and their institutions’ rationales, they indicate current alignment with institutional internationalization that is based on a tenuous congruence of mutual benefit in spite of incongruence of purpose. In other words, they take a pragmatic approach toward engaging internationally as it benefits them.

Faculty members have also perceived with surprising accuracy the dominant insti-tutional rationales as confirmed through the strategic documents. The one significant difference between faculty perception and the rationales articulated in institutional documents is the area of economic rationales. Three faculty member participants stressed the importance of revenue generation rationales for their institution’s interna-tionalization strategy, but this is not reflected in institutional documents. This diver-gence likely demonstrates a limitation of using institutional strategic documents for this study, particularly academic plans, as projecting income generation as a founda-tional purpose may serve to contradict the primary academic mission of these public institutions. Additional research into alternative data sources would help to clarify this seeming incongruity.



Friesen 223

Conclusions

Lack of clarity surrounding what internationalization means within the institution, along with seeming divergent perspectives of its basis (i.e., relational vs. program-matic, qualitative vs. quantitative) appear to pose significant difficulty for faculty members in this study. With differing expectations and targets for internationalization outcomes, some faculty members experience alienation from the institutional interna-tionalization process. Even faculty members who are engaged and support the institu-tional internationalization process are unclear about its definition and its relationship to globalization. This is a troubling concern that warrants attention on the part of international education researchers and institutional administrators. The relationship between internationalization and globalization is one that necessitates clarification of rationales and highlights the importance of articulating the values and needs that underpin decisions made within the internationalization process.

The range of faculty member engagement uncovered in this study can only be partially explained by divergent understanding and rationales for internationalization. I have chosen to use innovative change theory, as discussed by van der Wende (1999) in the context of institutional internationalization, as one way to examine the underlying values and per-ceived needs that are strong influencing factors both for individuals and institutions engaged in the internationalization process. Innovative change theory suggests that a new phenomenon, such as internationalization, is most likely to be adopted in a fulsome, sus-tained way when the individual (or, institution) perceives the innovation to meet felt needs as well as when it complements strongly held values (van der Wende, 1999).

As indicated by the one participant who felt “totally aligned” with institutional internationalization priorities, faculty engagement seems strongest when institutional and individual rationales align. In this case, the participant resonates with values expressed in institutional documents and feels supported by institutional structures that reward international work. With both a compatibility of values and provision for practical needs, this faculty member’s experience illustrates successful engagement in institutional internationalization.

Two faculty participants indicate that institutional rationales for internationaliza-tion are somewhat different from personal motivations for international work, but the personal profitability of international activity keeps them engaged in the international-ization process—for now. Given the lack of compatibility in underpinning values, engagement for these faculty members is tenuous. The sense of moral indignation expressed by the final two study participants toward their institution’s international-ization priorities indicates a divide that opportunity for personal gain cannot mend. The values held by these individuals are not only ignored by institutional strategies, but also they are directly compromised by institutional actions.

A conclusion suggested through innovative change theory is that institutional inter-nationalization strategies are likely to be more effective in engaging faculty members if they are informed by and address concerns related to the practical needs and per-sonal values of faculty members. The ways in which individuals and institutions




influence each other toward adopting or inhibiting internationalization requires deeper analysis, a challenge for future research to undertake.

The individual participants in this study represent an exemplary group of faculty members who are engaged and committed to international work within their academic careers. The conclusions of this study need to be qualified with this in mind, noting that faculty members who are not inclined toward international work may experience institutional internationalization efforts in very different ways. The managerial impli-cations of this study are complex and require significantly more research, thought and exploration to understand how institutions and faculty members engage and influence each other through the internationalization process.

RecommendationsAs an administrator in a Canadian research university, I believe it is important to adopt an institutional internationalization strategy that is informed, clear, and relevant to our academic community. This study suggests a number of ideas that could prove valuable in the creation of effective institutional internationalization plans.

Clearly communicate what internationalization means, its purpose and underlying values. As noted both in the literature and in the study, ambiguity regarding how internation-alization is understood can become a divisive factor in engaging faculty members in this process. As suggested through innovative change theory, internationalization is likely to be best received when described in a way that demonstrates its relevance to professional academic objectives of faculty units/members, and to the core values of the university. These values and needs should be explained within the unique context of the academic institution.

Create forum for dialogue and discussion so that disparate motivations and ratio-nales between faculty members and institutional administration can be understood. If alignment between individual and institutional rationales promotes faculty engage-ment in the internationalization process (Turner & Robson, 2007), it is first necessary to understand what these are. The academic community is well versed in this practice with existing institutional forums for discussion and debate, such as university senate, faculty councils, and the like. Internationalization, particularly as it helps to realize the opportunities and mitigate the risks of globalization, should be a topic of ongoing dialogue so that the community as a whole can realize its benefits together.

Create opportunities for intercultural and international learning experiences for faculty members. Sanderson (2008) points to the transformative learning process of interna-tional work and the need for faculty members in today’s globalized higher education to be able to approach their academic responsibilities with an appreciation of differ-ing worldviews. Faculty member participants in this study support Sanderson’s (2008) study, emphasizing personal development and the value of transformative learning through international work. As “key agents” (AUCC 2008) in the interna-tionalization process, faculty members can best facilitate the intercultural develop-ment and transformative learning of others if they have the opportunity to experience this process first.



Friesen 225

Establish an enabling environment that supports faculty engagement in internationaliza-tion. Institutional internationalization plans may call faculty members to participate in worthwhile international activity that resonates with personal values and objectives, but innovative change theory suggests that this participation will not be sustainable if practical needs and personal costs are not considered. Faculty participants in this study support this idea, calling for administrative structures that enable them to work effec-tively in international environments. The specific measures to ensure support may differ between institutions, but one of the critical factors in creating an enabling envi-ronment for internationalization is institutional recognition of the contributions of fac-ulty members in this process, including tenure and promotion policies, special awards and offsetting costs (e.g., release time for instructional load) to ensure international work is both manageable and rewarded.

Through these and other measures universities may be able to engage their most important resource and instrument of the institutional internationalization process, faculty members. As one study participant observed, such efforts are not optional as without faculty member engagement effective institutional internationalization in higher education is simply not possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (Eds.). (2007). Higher education in the new century: Global challenges and innovative ideas. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized uni-versity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5-25.

AUCC. (2008). Internationalizing Canadian campuses: Main themes emerging from the 2007 Scotiabank workshop on excellence in internationalization at Canadian universities. Retrieved from http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/aucc-scotia_web_e.pdf

AUCC. (2009). International research collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/irc_e.pdf

Bleiklie, I. (2005). Organizing higher education in a knowledge society. Higher Education, 49(1), 31-59.

Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62(Winter), 15-17.

Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309.




Coelen, R. (2008). The development of an institutional internationalisation strategy. In M. Gaebel, L. Purser, B. Waechter & L. Wilson (Eds.), Internationalisation of European higher education (pp. B 1.1-2). Berlin, Germany: Raabe Academic.

Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5-25.

de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the united states of America and Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Donald, J. (2007). Internationalisation, diversity and the humanities curriculum: Cosmopolitan-ism and multiculturalism revisited. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(3), 289-308.

Egron-Polak, E. (2005). Universities in the new global economy: Actors or spectators? In G. Jones, P. McCarney & M. Skolnik (Eds.), Creating knowledge, strengthening nations: The changing role of higher education (pp. 56-66). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Gibbs, P. (2010). A Heideggerian phenomenology approach to higher education as workplace: A consideration of academic professionalism. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(3), 275-285.

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-26.

Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8(3), pp. 279-303.

Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Jour-nal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 260-273.

Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Histori-cal and conceptual perspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States (pp. 5-32). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Jour-nal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.

Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1-39.

Marginson, S., & Van Der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 306-329.

Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2007). The emerging global model of the research univer-sity. In P. Altbach, & P. M. Peterson (Eds.), (pp. 145-177). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for International Higher Education, Boston College and Sense.

Morey, A. I. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and multicultural world. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 25-39.

Naidoo, V. (2006). International education: A tertiary-level industry update. Journal of Research in International Education, 5, 323-345.

Orton, L. (2009). Statistics Canada’s definition and classification of postsecondary and adult education providers in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

Paige, R. M., & Mestenhauser, J. A. (1999). Internationalizing educational administration. Edu-cational Administration Quarterly, 35, 500-517.



Friesen 227

Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276-307.

Schoorman, D. (2000). Internationalization: The challenge of implementing organizational rhetoric. Boca Raton, FL: U.S. Department of Education.

Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., Van Gyn, G., & Preece, A. (2007). Internationalizing the higher education curriculum: An emerging model for transforming faculty perspectives. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 67-94.

Shute, J. (2002). The influence of faculty in shaping internationalization. In S. Bond (Ed.), Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher education in Canada (Occasional Papers No. 11 ed.). Winnipeg: Centre for Higher Education Research & Devel-opment.

Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the interna-tionalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 359-372.

Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 81-105. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-1975-5

Tandon, R. (2008). Civil engagements in higher education and its role in human and social devel-opment. In GUNI (Ed.), Higher education in the world 3: Higher education: New chal-lenges and emerging roles for human and social development (pp. 142-152). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2007). Competitive and cooperative impulses to internationalization: Reflecting on the interplay between management intentions and the experience of academ-ics in a British university. Education, Knowledge & Economy: A Journal for Education and Social Enterprise, 1(1), 65-82.

van der Wende, M. (1999). An innovation perspective on internationalisation of higher educa-tion institutionalisation: The critical phase. Journal of Studies in International Education, 3(1), 3-14.

van der Wende, M. C. (2003). Globalisation and access to higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(2), 193-206.

Author Biography

Rhonda Friesen has worked in international higher education in Canada for over 20 years. As manager of the Office of International Relations at the University of Manitoba, she works closely with faculty members, deans and university administrators to promote and develop internationalization goals in the university. Rhonda has a BA and previous work experience in international development (Caribbean and North Africa) and a MEd in international higher education. She has one previously published article, R. Friesen (2011), Higher Education Consortia as Frameworks for Global Citizenship: Post-secondary Institutions as Corporate Global Citizens in a Globalized World. In L. Shultz, A Abdi, G. Richardson (Eds.), Global Citizenship Education in Post-Secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.