Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the difference in the process of higher education (HE) internationalization across faculties in a post‐1992 university and to identify faculty‐specific factors through evaluating the four faculties in the case study.

A qualitative research is conducted in a post‐1992 UK university. Four faculties are involved and a total of 20 interviewees from three key departments participate in this project. Content analysis, critical discourse analysis and categorization of meaning are adopted as data analysis strategies.

This study explains the reasons why the level of internationalization across faculties is different.

This research helps gain rich understanding of faculty‐specific factors in terms of the degree of internationalization. Further research in this area is encouraged to test these faculty‐specific factors through quantitative population studies in other institutions.

Most faculty‐specific factors are management matters which can be improved by internal adjustment. HE internationalization cannot be conducted the same way in each faculty, but should be considered a part of faculties’ particular focus. These factors highlight the areas where the faculties need to improve, in order to better accommodate HE internationalization.

This research evaluates and identifies the faculty‐specific factors in relation to the level of internationalization from a faculty's standpoint. These critical factors are unique to HE internationalization and transferrable to other similar institutions.

Internationalization has been a paramount objective for higher education institutions (HEIs) for decades. However, the landscape of education underwent significant transformation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to altered contexts, challenges and opportunities for HEI internationalization. This paper aims to critically evaluate the dimensions of internationalization strategies in HEIs and the opportunities within each dimension. Adopting a reflexive approach, the study focused on non-Western HEIs, recognizing the diverse approaches to internationalization within higher education contexts.

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, this paper covered 74 articles published in Web of Science database from January 2019 to December 2023.

The study organized dimensions related to internationalization strategies in non-Western HEIs, offering a comprehensive framework comprising six dimensions: students, programs, faculty, research, international ventures and other sources; and nine internationalization facilitators: international partnerships, funding, government education, international policies, technology, internationalization culture, diversity and inclusion, staff competence and attitude, student/faculty engagement, intercultural experience and satisfaction, English as a medium of instruction (EMI), and knowledge transfer mechanisms. Furthermore, the study delineated strategies within each dimension and highlighted prevalent performance indicators utilized by HEIs.

The study’s primary contribution is a conceptual framework designed to assist HEI directors and academics. This framework delves into dimensions, strategies and indicators of internationalization particularly relevant in the post-pandemic era.

The chapter examines the perspectives of campus advocates involved with the advancement of a comprehensive internationalization process at their state comprehensive university (SCU). Advocates explain their definitions of comprehensive internationalization, which are analyzed through an internationalization lens and framework of intercultural competence based on recent studies of Internationalization at Home (IaH). The study found faculty and staff perspectives of comprehensive internationalization to reflect attributes consistent with IaH, which is believed to be a vehicle for transmitting intercultural competence throughout the higher education institution. The context for this study is important as it takes place in an SCU located in a region where higher education is under significant public scrutiny.

Transnational education (TNE), interpreted as the mobility of education programmes and providers between countries, has grown exponentially as a worldwide phenomenon in recent years. Higher education institutions (HEIs) have mainly used such opportunities to internationalise their degrees and programmes, and have paid scant attention on preparing academics to teach cross-culturally. As a result, academics being at the coalface of teaching and learning often feel under-informed, under-supported, underprepared and under-confident when it comes to cross-cultural teaching, suggesting that universities have largely failed to prepare their academic faculty members to face the challenges of internationalisation. This is particularly important for new and young players such as the post-92 universities in the UK. However, such institutions have largely been ignored by the previous research in this area. Reverting the research focus on young HEIs, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of preparing faculty staff members in the context of a post-92 university in the UK, to teach cross-culturally at partner institutions via the TNE route.

The paper adopts Deardorff’s intercultural competency process model to develop a framework (focussing on three core elements of knowledge, skills and attitudes) that could help the academic staff members to prepare for teaching internationally. The paper is based on a detailed analysis of university’s internationalisation strategy, policy documents and related reports for the 1999–2016 period. The initial analysis is further supplemented by 11 interviews with the main stakeholders, i.e. academics, educational developers and policy makers.

As the post-92 university in focus, like its counterparts, continues to proliferate its degrees and programmes through the TNE route, academics who are tasked with transnational teaching have an increased responsibility to develop the competencies required to work with learners from diversified cultural backgrounds. However, there has been less interest at university or faculty level in ensuring that academic faculty members who teach in transnational context are prepared for the specific rigours of transnational teaching.

The research findings have broader implications at individual, organisational and industry-level for individual academic faculty members to progress further in their career, HEIs to improve the quality of training programmes and policies and the HE industry to adjust the strategy towards internationalisation.

In the absence of any formally structured training, the paper proposes pre-departure informal training workshops/seminars conducted by seasoned academics at faculty, school or department level to help new academics transform their knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to facilitate positive interactions with students in a cross-cultural teaching environment. Although the focus is on one post-92 university; however, the proposed framework could be adopted across HEIs worldwide.

The paper is based on a detailed analysis of university’s internationalisation strategy, policy documents and related reports for the 1999–2016 period. The initial analysis is further supplemented by 11 interviews with the main stakeholders, i.e. academics, educational developers and policy makers. Informed by the best practices, the paper also discusses the implication of intercultural competencies for cross-cultural teaching.

In this chapter, the author attempts to sketch the phenomenon of internationalization as manifested in the literature on academic mobility. Internationalization is commonly seen as a process contributing to the quality in higher education while academic mobility is often regarded as the most critical dimension of this process. By providing a review of the literature on internationalization and mobility, the chapter highlights rationales for inbound and outbound mobility for higher education systems and institutions in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It further portrays how Georgia – a small country in the Caucasus and a member of EHEA responds to the global phenomenon employing several reforms, support schemes, and institutional initiatives. Lastly, reflecting on current trends and policies, the author attempts to map the prospects for internationalization of Georgian higher education. This chapter offers a promising area for comparative and international research on internationalization and contributes to the literature on academic mobility in Europe.

Although faculty members are regarded as one of the main agents of internationalization in higher education (IHE), research has focused on the upper levels of analysis (e.g. country or educational institution) rather than the individual. The purpose of this paper is to draw from social exchange theory (SET) to examine how the perceptions of costs and expected rewards affect faculty members’ choices of international activities.

This qualitative study adopted as main methods a review of the literature on IHE and in-depth interviews based on a semi-structured script with an international sample. A sample of 16 researches was selected for interview using the snowball technique of sample selection.

The authors verified that faculty may seek internationalization in search of job opportunities, greater social approval, greater autonomy and greater security. On the other hand, temporal, monetary, psychological and physical costs discourage faculty members from seeking international insertion. Based on these tradeoffs, our findings suggest that although the basic tenets of SET do apply, the theory does not explicitly address two issues: the fact that costs and rewards are intricately related, and the apparent mismatch between (short-term) costs and (long-term) expected rewards.

This study contributes to the IHE literature by highlighting the crucial role of faculty – that is, the level of analysis of the individual – which has been under-researched and by setting out the reasoning that supports the decision of faculty members to seek (higher) international insertion. Furthermore, this study extends SET as a plausible explanation for the self-internationalization decision by scholars.

Tourism is one of the most notable features of the contemporary globalised world. The tourism industry is becoming increasingly vital to the economy of many developing and developed countries around the globe. The demand of the tourism industry has posed a challenge for tourism training providers to move towards a more responsive and internationalised curriculum to enhance work readiness for tourism graduates who are expected to work with an increased number of international tourists. The purpose of this paper is analyse whether and how internationalisation has been implemented in the tourism training programmes across six institutions in Vietnam.

The research deployed case studies as research strategy with interviews and document analysis as two instruments of data collection.

The major findings show that even though the tourism industry demands graduates to possess global competency, knowledge and skills, the curriculum does not prioritise the internationalisation dimensions and the faculty members are not facilitated to be internationally active in their roles. Overall, internationalisation is still fragmented and ad hoc in these institutions even though the private institutions in this research appear to be more responsive to the trend of internationalisation in education than their public counterparts.

The paper provides recommendations on how to effectively embed internationalisation components into local tourism training programs in Vietnam.

The research bridges the gap in the literature on internationalisation of the local tourism programme in non-English-speaking countries.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the barriers and challenges to international interactions of the faculty members in Iran.

To achieve the purpose, a qualitative phenomenological approach was used. The research population was all experts in the field of higher education in Iran, it included 17 experts who were selected through purposeful sampling by snowball method and based on theoretical saturation. To collect the data, a semi-structured interview was used and for the data analysis, an inductive content analysis was applied.

The findings showed that the barriers and challenges to faculty members’ international interactions can be defined through three main barriers: inside university barriers, outside university barriers, and individual barriers.

This research identified the barriers and challenges of faculty members’ international interactions in Iran. The method of this study can be applied in other applied fields as well.

This study adds to the authors’ knowledge about international interactions of the faculty members and also the barriers and challenges of these interactions, so to have more interactions of faculty members at the international level, universities should make an effort to identify barriers and eliminate them, more than ever.

Investigates the increasing interest by educators to provide students with the international management and research skills that are becoming more necessary as we enter the twenty‐first century. Highlights the need for the internationalisation of curriculum, as well as the faculty and instructors who teach such courses. Presents two cases of such internationalisation efforts in Iran and Sweden. Explores the internationalisation of the courses and the instructors who taught them over a three‐year period; certain positive and negative aspects to these experiences are identified and presented. Suggests that such research on the successes and failures in such cases serve as a foundation to continue research in other settings, so as to learn more about how to continue with efforts to internationalise both curriculum and faculty.

International business programs became realities in the 1950s, but only at two universities: Columbia and Indiana. In the 1960s, more universities added IB programs and departments; the 1970s saw even more added as universities realized that IB programs would enhance their reputations, improve student knowledge and expertise, and enhance companies’ future success. In 1974, the AACSB added internationalization as a requirement for business schools, forcing even more to enhance the international dimensions of their courses, programs, and faculty. Now virtually all B-schools have become global to some extent, although major differences remain in the quantity and quality of their internationalization.