Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research on internationalization processes in higher education has steadily increased over the past decades. However, there is still a lack of analysis of how these developments have affected higher education and, specifically, the group of academic faculty members. To close this gap, this study explores the effects of internationalization on this stakeholder group. A two-round mixed-methods approach was applied in order to identify impacts on this group and rate their importance. From the internationally composed expert panel’s responses, 25 impacts on the individual, institutional, and global level were derived, constituting a preliminary foundation for further research on this topic. Findings from the study indicate a need for further investigation of the nature of individual impacts, as well as discussion on the separation of globalization and internationalization in higher education. Furthermore, they demonstrate the necessity of conducting research differentiated according to higher education systems and the faculty members within.

Keywords

Internationalization of higher education globalization and international higher education academic faculty members two-round mixed-methods approach

Introduction

The internationalization of higher education, described by Knight (1994) as “the process of integrating an international dimension into the teaching/learning, research and service functions of a university or college” (p. 3), has grown from partial and individually induced activities into strategically managed, comprehensive processes (Teichler, 1999). Whereas extensive research on its various subfields is documented (e.g. Kehm and Teichler, 2007), studies examining its results and impacts are still conducted infrequently. To close this gap, addressing questions of internationalization’s “review and evaluation” (Knight, 2008: 39) is a subsequent and necessary step. In a recent report for NAFSA, Association for International Educators, Green (2012) reiterates this by stating that “measuring and assessing internationalization outcomes and impact will take on greater importance as they continue to become more central to the definition of quality in teaching, research, and engagement” (p. 19).

Researching the outcomes and impacts of internationalization will contribute to a new stance in the discourse on internationalization of higher education. Before engaging in the detailed measurement and assessment of internationalization, potential results have to be identified and categorized. In order to do so, Deardorff (2005) points to the advantage of distinguishing between the identification of results on an institutional and individual level.

On the level of higher education institutions, various indicators have been developed that measure inputs in and outputs of internationalization and facilitate the tracking, and progression of its implementation process – both with the intention of self-evaluation and inter-institutional comparison (e.g. Brandenburg and Federkeil, 2007; van Gaalen, 2009). Nevertheless, as Hudzik and Stohl (2009) point out, defining and assessing the outcomes and impacts of internationalization on this level remain challenging either due to unavailability of usable data, or lack of data that verifies assumptions of cause and effect.

The case is different when looking at research on students in higher education, whose preparation to be “globally aware and competent graduates” (Green, 2012: 4) has emerged as one target of internationalization efforts of higher education institutions. Here, temporary study sojourns abroad and ensuing personality transformations have been frequently analysed and are perceived as positive (e.g. Hadis, 2005; Williams, 2005).

It is widely agreed that academic faculty members are crucial contributors to a higher education institution’s successful internationalization process (Childress, 2010; Knight, 1994; Stohl, 2007). Despite their acknowledged importance, research on how they experience internationalization and its effects as recipients and participants is lacking (Kim and Locke, 2010). Accordingly, there is no comprehensive overview of the kind of impacts academic faculty members face. Thus, the following questions emerge and lead the investigation of this topic:

What are major impacts on faculty members resulting from the internationalization of higher education?

How do experts in the field rate these impacts in terms of importance?

Theoretical considerations

Defining impacts in the context of internationalization

In the context of the internationalization of higher education, two central definitions of impact can be referred to that address different units of analysis. Focusing on the internationalization process on the institutional level, Hudzik and Stohl (2009) define impact as synonymous to outcome: “Outcomes: impacts or end results. It is these that are usually most closely associated with measuring achievement and the missions of institutions” (p. 14). They argue further: “Outcomes measure goal achievement, justify obtaining and spending resources, and justify doing the work” (p. 14).

Deardorff et al. (2009) define impact in the context of assessing student learning:

What is the long-term impact (consequences/results) of the programme on participants? What is the effect on other learners on campus, including international students and scholars? What is the effect on faculty, on the campus and on the institution? What is the effect on the community, both at home and abroad? (p. 24)

In both definitions, it is obvious that the impacts of internationalization exceed the immediate context of the institution or the individual and refer to results and effects that might not be immediately tangible. This understanding is also implied in the following exemplary studies that explore the relationship of academic faculty members and impacts in international higher education.

Pointing to the need for a more precise definition, Shaikh (2009) uses the term impact with the understanding of “potential benefits” (p. 26) in his literature review on the influence that internationally mobile academics have on their host institutions. Hamza (2010) researches temporary work-related sojourns abroad by female US-American faculty and staff and investigates how they “see the world, question what they see, and then develop personally and professionally” (p. 51). In a similar study, Sandgren et al. (1999) analyse “the causal linkages which lie between short-term study abroad experiences of faculty and their subsequent instruction” (p. 33).

Based on the aim and content of these studies and the definitions cited above, the term “impact” indicates an understanding of consequence, result, or effect that arises due to an experience, process, or programme. Besides their consideration on different levels, impacts resulting from internationalization demand clarification as potentially being both positive or negative. Knight (2004) articulates this issue by asking: “What are the positive consequences, what are the unintended results, and what are the negative implications?” (p. 6). She expresses here that the impacts of internationalization are potentially multi-faceted, and knowledge of their nature is still diffuse. Following Hamza (2010) and Sandgren et al. (1999), positively connoted results such as developing personally and professionally after an international experience are evident. However, Richardson and Zikic (2007) summarize “transience and risk” (p. 170) as problematic effects in international academic careers, while Marginson and van der Wende (2007) analyse the problematic implications of global university rankings. Both examples show that effects are multi-faceted and complex.

Building on the definitions suggested by Hudzik and Stohl (2009) and Deardorff et al. (2009), the term “impact” is understood in this study in a broad sense; thus no distinction is made between short or long-term impacts, or impacts being potentially positive or negative. Van Gaalen (2009) states that some motivations to internationalize higher education “are not an end in themselves” (p. 84) but rather facilitate the realization of other motives. This is also assumed for some impacts, which might be of transitory nature and thus lead to other impacts – an assumption which is also supported by the understanding of internationalization as a reiterative cycle (Knight, 1994).

Research on academic faculty members and internationalization of higher education

Academic faculty members have mostly been neglected as a subject of research on internationalization impacts, albeit assuming a central position in an institution’s internationalization process (Kim and Locke, 2010). Stohl (2007) makes the point that “[I]f we want to internationalize the university, we have to internationalize the faculty” (p. 367).

However, scrutinizing the academic profession using a comparative focus is not a recent phenomenon on the research agenda. Investigations into the academic profession on the macro-level of different national higher education systems can be found as early as 1977 in a special issue of the journal Higher Education. The first large-scale comparative survey on the academic profession, in which academics from 14 countries participated, was carried out between 1991 and 1993 (Altbach and Lewis, 1996). Altbach and Lewis (1996) predict that “internationalism in all aspects of academic life will inevitably increase in the coming years” (p. 41). This is confirmed by Kogan and Teichler (2007) who, in the context of a more recent comparative study of similar scale, state that the internationalization of higher education is one of the “current key challenges of the academic profession” (p. 10) including international mobility, the spread of the English language, and increased connectedness via information and communication technology (ICT). In their analysis of the role of global rankings for higher education, Marginson and van der Wende (2007) argue that “the growing impact of the global environment in and through higher education systems and institutions is inescapable” (p. 306). Altbach and Knight (2007) summarize the consequences of globalization as:

the integration of research, the use of English as the lingua franca for scientific communication, the growing international labor market for scholars and scientists, the growth of communications firms and of multi-national and technology publishing, and the use of information technology (IT). (p. 291)

Research on the meso-level, the relation of individual higher education institutions and faculty members, discloses topics primarily related to the role that the latter assume in the institutional and departmental internationalization process (Childress, 2010; Dewey and Duff, 2009; Stohl, 2007). However, several studies touch upon results from internationalization as they relate to an institution’s faculty. In a study on the internationalization strategies of four higher education institutions, Taylor (2004) identifies 12 exemplary areas in which internationalization influences the management of higher education institutions. Among these are topics such as teaching, research and collaboration across disciplines and departments, methods of content delivery, use of ICT and staff development measures that can also be directly linked to the work of academic faculty members. Other areas identified in this study refer to the increasingly competitive environment of higher education, economic matters, and the need to extend services for international students; these are areas that rather indirectly affect faculty members and their work. As an additional result of internationalization, there is a general need for faculty to develop and apply qualifications that include the ability to work in international contexts, language skills, and intercultural competencies (Davies, 1998). To meet the needs of an internationally diverse student body, Teekens (2003) lists eight core categories that should ideally characterize a university teacher and which include, among other things, the ability to use a second language, cope with cultural differences, and have insight into the linkage of culture and media usage. In the work of Mak and Kennedy (2012) and Gopal (2011), the need to provide support and faculty preparation training is addressed and training programmes are introduced to help faculty successfully engage in the internationalization of the curriculum or teaching abroad. Due to of the international mobility of individual faculty members as well as the increasing number of international branches of entire institutions, attention is increasingly paid to faculty teaching in transnational programmes. Dedoussis (2007) investigates third-country faculty teaching at international branch campuses. He analyses the role of English, the effects of cultural backgrounds on teaching and learning, and the need to adapt one’s role according to student maturity. He concludes that increasing diversity among faculty is a vital component for higher education but this needs organizational support structures. Exploring the relationship of culture and the preferred learning styles of Canadian faculty and Qatari students, Lemke-Westcott and Johnson (2013) summarize that institutions and faculty need to be aware of these differences and accommodate them accordingly.

Exemplary studies on the micro-level, using qualitative and explorative approaches, deal with the immediate personal perception and experience of internationalization of faculty members and their impact on their work context. A frequent topic is effects of international short and long-term academic mobility. Hamza (2010) explores personal and professional changes of female US-American scholars and administrators after work sojourns out of the US. She identifies changes in attitude, approaches to teaching, and an increased global outlook in their ensuing teaching activities. In an earlier case study with faculty from an American college, Sandgren et al. (1999) trace the relationship between faculty’s sojourns abroad and its impact on teaching practice and global perspectives in their courses. Richardson and McKenna (2003) analyse faculty members’ motivations for taking up a temporary international work assignment and how this is viewed for their individual careers. Whereas the initial decision for the assignment is driven by considerations of “travel, adventure, family, life change and personal learning” (p. 789), the experience is evaluated as a perception of being “more marketable” (p. 790) than colleagues without international experience. However, according to Richardson and Zikic (2007), these career moves do not come without problematic effects such as difficulties “to form social relationships” (p. 173) and “the risk that international experience might not be recognized and/or rewarded” (p. 175). Recent research by Pherali (2012) examines further personal and professional challenges of foreign-born faculty.

The impacts on academic faculty members resulting from internationalization are thus found on the macro-level of national higher education systems, the meso-level of the institution, and the micro-level of individual faculty members. However, impacts are not necessarily denominated as such and are predominantly researched on a very broad and general level, the level of personal and professional competencies, reflection of teaching practices or with regards to the situation of foreign-born and third-country faculty. Even though these topics have been addressed, no coherent overview of impacts on the group of academic faculty exists yet.

Method and sample

A Delphi technique, originally defined by Linstone and Turoff (1975) as “a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem” (p. 3), was adapted according to the intent of this study. Two rounds of data collection were carried out within a period of about 3 months, from mid-February to early May 2013.

The Delphi technique is generally employed when the research area under scrutiny is not yet clearly outlined and thus is used for “gathering experts’ opinions on defined issues to achieve consensus” (Charlton, 2004: 245) as a first step leading to further analysis. Drawing on insights from Delphi studies in the medical field, Powell (2003) argues “that experts should be chosen for their work in the appropriate area and credibility with the target audience” (p. 379). A central characteristic of this technique is the maintenance of the experts’ anonymity in the communication process, which hinders mutual influence or dominance by individual panel members (Clayton, 1997). As this study forms the first part of a multi-phased research project, the focus is on the preliminary identification of impacts from internationalization of higher education that is achieved with the data of the first round. It was thus deemed appropriate to conduct a two-stage, mixed-method investigation while maintaining central characteristics of the Delphi technique.

The researchers initially contacted a group of experts consisting of 481 editors and members of editorial and editorial advisory boards of 16 journals related to the field. Journals were selected from the sub-sections “Higher Education”, “International Education Programs” and the general “Education” section within the main rubric “Education” in Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. To further limit the amount and scope of the journals, the following criteria were applied:

the journals’ short descriptions indicate a primary focus on higher education

peer-reviewed articles are published

listed in Thomson Reuters’ Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)

The high number of journals and experts is explained by the “multidimensional character” (Kehm and Teichler, 2007: 262) of internationalization in higher education and the research related to it. Hence, including a large sample of experts was deemed appropriate to cover the breadth of interdisciplinary expertise related to the discourse on internationalization.

In the first round of the study, the criterion for selection of the participants was expertise on the topic, as indicated by their membership in the editorial board of a peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed journal. It is further assumed that expertise in a certain field is developed over the time span of at least 10 years (Richman et al., 1996). Thus, having at least this number of years of professional experience in the field of higher education and internationalization was applied as a further criterion in the second round, as was used by Zawacki-Richter (2009).

In the first round, the experts were contacted via e-mail and asked to list about 10 impacts on academic faculty members that result from the internationalization of higher education. Out of the initially contacted group, 43 persons (8.9%) responded. Another three experts were identified and invited based on personal recommendation by participants. Thus, answers were received from 46 persons. Qualitative content analysis of the responses was carried out using the software MaxQDA. Impact categories were inductively derived from the responses and complemented with a literature review. Using an online questionnaire in the second round, the panel was asked to rate the importance of the impacts on a scale ranging from 1 (very low importance) to 10 (very high importance); 39 responses were received. After applying the final criterion of at least 10 years of professional experience in the field and excluding invalid questionnaires, 31 responses remained.

Based on personal information (country of birth, present country of employment, years of professional experience, current position) that panellists provided in the second round, they presently work in 14 different countries (United States of America, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, Portugal, Canada, Italy, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Germany, Republic of Korea, Japan, Ireland, and Hong Kong). Eight of the participants currently work in a country other than the one they were born in. They have an average of 28 years of professional experience in the field of higher education and internationalization. Within the panel, 21 participants are professors (full, associate, visiting and professor emeritus), three occupy administrative and managerial posts, four are researchers or lecturers, and two are consultants. One person reported working equally as researcher and consultant.

There are some limitations of the study that need to be addressed. Some panellists remarked explicitly that their responses were shaped by the specific context of their national education systems. This indicates a limited generalizability of results, and also hints at the need for differentiated analysis in further research. A bias towards individuals with English language proficiency exists due to having only editors and editorial board members of journals published in English in the sample. Being aware of the fact that this inevitably excludes the perception of experts who are not proficient in English is important. Finally, it needs to be kept in mind that a study with this sample size aims at exploration of the topic and cannot achieve representation and generalizability applying to all academic faculty members alike.

Results

What are major impacts on faculty members resulting from the internationalization of higher education?

Answering this question was the objective in the first round of the study. Based on the panellists’ responses and a complementary literature review, three major categories or levels emerged to which the 25 perceived impacts derived from the material were ascribed:

“Individual level”: Includes six impacts that are most closely associated with immediate personal experience and perception

“Institutional level” (teaching, research and service & organization): Includes 10 impacts that are felt in the institutional context of higher education institutions and thus affect faculty members in their professional life while equally touching upon their personal involvement and engagement

“Global level”: Includes nine impacts that are partially abstract or globally palpable and affect faculty members either personally or the profession in global and structural dimensions

Table 1 shows the perceived impacts on their respective levels, indicating the frequency (f) with which each impact was found in the responses and including a short description of the impact and the subsumed content.

Table 1.

The perceived impacts on their respective levels, indicating the frequency (f) with which each impact was found in the responses and including a short description of the impact and the subsumed content.

Individual level
Opportunity and need for personal development (f=15)	Within this category, topics are included that influence primarily the attitude and perception of an individual. Making own international experiences, necessary transformations of attitude towards others, and the need and opportunity to increase one’s level of international and intercultural competencies constitute this category.
Considering the situation of foreign-born colleagues (f=6)	Not only has the student body become more diverse, but faculty members are also increasingly foreign born. This demands careful attention towards this group’s potential personal and professional challenges and how to integrate them into the faculty.
Foreign language acquisition (f=7)	This category refers to the perceived need for faculty members to acquire knowledge of a second language, not necessarily English, in addition to their first language.
Opportunity and need for professional development (f=13)	In this category, the need and the simultaneously increasing opportunities for individual professional development are addressed. The latter include an enhanced level of work satisfaction and employments abroad. Creating development opportunities is also seen as important but requires the institution’s support.
Increased work load and stress factors (f=15)	These comments reflect the increased workload resulting from the individuals’ international engagement. More time needs to be invested as tasks and responsibilities intensify and increase. Feelings of stress can arise on different occasions on the individual level.
International reputation, promotion and tenure (f=19)	Refers to the impact that internationalization has on career prospects and reputation. Reputation is demonstrated by the membership in editorial boards of international journals and international invitations to share one’s academic expertise. The impact on faculty members’ career prospects shows in their individual opportunity for promotion, the view of international mobility as a career investment in a competitive environment, and new job opportunities. Comments indicate that internationalization activities also influence/needs to influence tenure decisions and general human resource policies in higher education institutions.

Institutional level: teaching, research, service and organization

Presence of a more international student body (f=30)	Is a result of international student mobility and refers to the cultural and linguistic diversity of today’s students. They have different levels of language proficiency, divergent personal and academic needs and approaches to learning which lecturers need to address. However, this diversity can bring benefits to the class and lecturer.
Teaching international students (f=26)	The diverse composition of the student body demands changes and modifications in the way lecturers teach. This includes rethinking of teaching styles and methods, approaches to and perceptions of teaching, forms of student assessment, and the potential enhancement of teaching quality.
Need for sensitive behavior towards international students (f=13)	Implies that faculty members not only teach a diverse student group but also need to act sensibly and sensitively when they interact with their students in teaching-related contexts. This includes understanding and respecting students’ prior knowledge and divergent approaches to learning and considering their different cultural backgrounds when interacting with them.
Internationalization of the curriculum (f=24)	This category includes the need for modification of the curriculum to achieve an international and global perspective. Explicit aspects to be addressed are the reconsideration of curriculum content, the course materials used, and the overall integration of an international dimension.
International research teams and publications (f=24)	Assumes that research is increasingly conducted in international collaboration and thus results in international co-authorship. Not only the composition of the research group but also content is – or is expected to be – international and/or comparative in nature.
International dissemination and visibility of research results (f=8)	Implies that not only the research process, but also the dissemination of results is realized on an international level. This includes an increase in presentations and participation in international conferences, possibilities of addressing an international readership and accessing others’ work in the field.
Anglo-American hegemony of perspectives and structures (f=14)	Assumes a convergence of structures and research contents towards primarily Anglo-American shaped examples. Due to differentiating between centre and periphery, locally and regionally focused research is marginalized. The pressure to publish in international, mostly English-language journals, leads to a homogenization of the contents and perspectives considered.
Economic aspects and funding (f=17)	This category refers to different financial matters in higher education that increasingly need to be addressed. One aspect is the question of how to secure funding for graduate students and what role international students’ tuition fees currently play. For the institutions, it also concerns the allocation of resources, obtaining external funding, and overall consideration of financial aspects.

Institutional level

Forms of engagement within and beyond one’s institution (f=17)	This category refers to faculty members’ involvement in different areas within and beyond the institution. These can be differentiated into memberships of international organizations or institutional units and ensuing tasks in international services and administration as well as international student-related services, e.g. mentorship or management of study abroad programmes.
Institutional and individual impediments (f=10)	Even though internationalization is expected to increase, barriers to its further strategic implementation can be identified on the institutional and individual level. They include primarily a lack of recognition for international engagement and a lack of consistency and commitment to its implementation.
Global level
English as lingua franca (f=17)	Refers to the rise of English as lingua franca in the academic world. This development shows in the need for mastering English and employing it when teaching, and the pressure of publishing in international English-language journals in order to be internationally visible.
Cooperation, interconnectedness and spread of knowledge (f=22)	Acknowledges the overall increase in international interconnectedness of persons and the spreading of information. Faculty members initiate and maintain contacts to international colleagues and increase their cooperation and collaboration beyond research, e.g. in joint study programmes. The speed of information as well as data availability and exchange result in knowledge networks and knowledge transfer.
International mobility of faculty (f=17)	This category includes the cross-border mobility of faculty members for different reasons and time periods. Enhanced opportunities for mobility and simultaneously the need to be mobile are addressed.
Policy context and global developments (f=12)	This category includes the overarching regional to global context in which institutions and individuals interact. Global societal developments as well as supra-national structures, e.g. the European Higher Education Area, and national legal frameworks shape this context.
Academic competition (f=17)	Under this topic, the increase of an overall competitive environment for higher education institutions is summarized. It shows on the academic level in the competitive recruitment of students and faculty, international rankings, and aspects of accountability and accreditation.
Expansion of perception and perspective (f=22)	Refers to an overall extension of perspective and perception and the development of an outward focus that exceeds national borders. It shows in cultural awareness, in the observation of practices in other higher education systems, and considerations of comparative approaches to academic contents.
Application of information and communication technology (f=11)	This category touches upon the increased availability and use of ICT that influence all spheres of academic life. Faculty need to master ICTs and in doing so, new pedagogical approaches and contexts are realized (e-learning) as well as opportunities of documenting, publishing and accessing information and knowledge (e-science, e-research).
Heterogenization and pluralization (f=8)	In contrast to assuming homogenization of perspectives, an increase of diversity and plurality of perspectives, participation and initiatives in research and other academic contexts is assumed in this category. A decline of hegemonic thinking and an increase in equity is expected.
Responding to future challenges (f=13)	In this category, challenges and fundamental questions are summarized that will need thoughtful consideration in future practice and theory of higher education. They concern the understanding of future roles and responsibilities of faculty members, ethical considerations in a now global context and the question of the overall development and direction of internationalization.

The results from the first round reveal that the perceived impacts on faculty members are manifold and appear at different levels. They cover a wide range of topics, some of which directly impact on faculty members, whereas others are mitigated through the institution, or broader society and thus have an indirect effect. Some of the identified impacts indicate controversy, for example “heterogenization and pluralization” possibly contradicting “Anglo-American hegemony of perspectives and structures”.

It is evident that various impacts could be ascribed to multiple levels, depending on the focus that they are scrutinized under; for example, topics such as “international mobility of faculty” are investigated on all levels, ranging from documentation of individual mobility to large-scale studies on the global dimension. Here, they were ascribed to the levels that best seem to disclose their character as dealing with it primarily personally or referring to global dimensions.

Even though the questions in the first round were not intended to identifying barriers to internationalization, the answers addressing these impediments indicate that these topics still merit further attention and have not yet been overcome. Thus, this topic was included for rating in the second round. Attention should also be paid to the perceived impact of the “application of information and communication technology”. Whereas ICTs are assumed to be among the tools contributing to internationalization activities in higher education (e.g. Thune and Welle-Strand, 2005), they were named by the participants in the study as an impact of internationalization. This indicates an ambiguity of this and other impacts, such as “English as lingua franca” and “presence of a more international student body”, and “international mobility of faculty” insofar as they stem from the internationalization processes while also advancing them further.

The impacts that were identified in the first round were grouped according to the levels in order to offer a preliminary exploration of the topic’s range from the individual person to the global dimension. However, they were not differentiated according to being primarily positive or negative or short or long-term impacts – this is a necessary next step for further investigations.

How do experts in the field rate these impacts in terms of importance?

In the second round, the participating experts were asked to rate the importance of the 25 impacts on a scale ranging from 1 (very low importance) to 10 (very high importance). After applying the criterion of 10 years of professional experience and the elimination of invalid questionnaires, 31 persons (n=31) remained on the panel. Figure 1 depicts the distribution of experts’ ratings of importance of the identified impacts. The box plot shows the median and the inter-quartile range, that is “the range of the middle 50% of scores” (Field, 2009: 23). Thus, the tinted areas show the distribution of 50% of the ratings for each impact. The median was chosen as it is relatively insensitive to extreme values or outliers arising from extreme ratings by the experts and that would distort the results considerably (Field, 2009).

Figure 1.

Distribution of experts’ ratings (n=31) of the importance of the perceived impacts identified in the first round.

The box plot indicates an overall high level of agreement on the importance of the identified impacts. Whereas the highest unity in ranking is found for the importance of the impact “forms of engagement within and beyond one’s institution” (15), the least unity of ranking is noted on the importance of “foreign language acquisition” (3).

Table 2 shows the perceived impacts on their respective levels and the rank they assume according to their median. It can be seen that a median of 8 is found for 15 out of 25 impacts, reflecting the box plot’s overall high agreement levels on the importance of the impacts. However, the impacts “internationalization of the curriculum” (10), “English as lingua franca” (17), and “presence of a more international student body” (7) have a median of 9, making these impacts perceived as most important by the panellists. These three impacts received the rating of very high or high importance (meaning 10 or 9 on the scale) by over 50% of the panellists: “internationalization of the curriculum” (10) (64.5%), “English as lingua franca” (17) (54.8%), and “presence of a more international student body” (7) (51.7%) (Appendix 1). In Appendix 1, the frequency that each impact was rated in by the panellists is shown in absolute numbers and column percentage.

Table 2.

Perceived impacts grouped by level and ranked according to their median score.

Impact	Median
Individual level
Opportunity and need for personal development	8
Opportunity and need for professional development	8
International reputation, promotion and tenure	8
Considering the situation of foreign-born colleagues	7
Foreign language acquisition	7
Increased work load and stress factors	6,5
Institutional level: Teaching, research, service and organization
Internationalization of the curriculum	9
Presence of a more international student body	9
Teaching international students	8
Need for sensitive behavior towards international students	8
International research teams and publications	8
International dissemination and visibility of research results	8
Anglo-American hegemony of perspectives and structures	8
Economic aspects and funding	8
Forms of engagement within and beyond one’s institution	8
Persistence of institutional and individual impediments	7
Meta- (global) level
English as lingua franca	9
Cooperation, interconnectedness and spread of knowledge	8
Policy context and global developments	8
Expansion of perception and perspective	8
Heterogenization and pluralization	8
Responding to future challenges	8
International mobility of faculty	8
Application of information and communication technology	7.5
Academic competition	7

Discussion and conclusion

With this study, an initial disclosure and categorization of perceived impacts has been developed that constitutes a base for further exploration. Some of these, such as the “expansion of perception and perspective” and “opportunities for personal development”, can easily be considered as positive and supportive to the individual and the institution. Still, the impacts do not characterize the internationalization of higher education as a solely positive development. Some impacts such as the “Anglo-American hegemony of perspectives and structures” contradict the tendencies of “heterogenization and pluralization”, while “academic competition” might not be compatible with “interconnectedness, cooperation and spread of knowledge”. These tensions illustrate the complexity of the field and emphasize the need for careful investigation of the aims that are driving internationalization (Hudzik and Stohl, 2009) and demand consideration of the possibly unintended results and negative implications noted by Knight (2004).

Van Gaalen (2009) points out that some motivations for internationalization of higher education “are not an end in themselves” (p. 84) but serve to realize others. Transferring this argument into the context of investigating impacts from internationalization, a similar conclusion was drawn by Hudzik and Stohl (2009). Thus, perceived impacts such as academic mobility, the formation of international research teams and subsequent publication of results, as well as application of ICT can be expected to result in further impacts. This applies as well to impacts that indicate a need or opportunity and are thus of a transitory character. It was the intention of this study to achieve an initial categorization of impacts of internationalization on academic faculty members. However, in further studies, these impacts need to be analysed with regards to their short or long-term character, their persistence or salience, and their relationship to subsequent impacts.

This study indicates a need to further focus on the relationship of the concepts of internationalization and globalization at the macro-level. Altbach and Knight (2007) describe

…the integration of research, the use of English as the lingua franca for scientific communication, the growing international labor market for scholars and scientists, the growth of communications firms and of multi-national and technology publishing, and the use of information technology (IT). (p. 291)

as consequences of globalization. However, the panellists in this study listed similar and identical topics as impacts from internationalization. Thus, the critical question should be asked whether the separation of the two concepts still holds true and if that is not the case, what are the implications of this merger?

It was shown that academic faculty members are affected by the internationalization of higher education at different levels, covering a range from immediate personal involvement in the institutional context to global developments with indirect impacts. Thus, the areas outlined below merit further attention in future research – on the level of methodological approaches and definitions, as well as on a practical and societal related perspective.

To consolidate the analysis of perceived impacts on faculty members in the internationalization of higher education, more refined definitions and concepts are needed to clarify the multi-faceted nature of such impacts. This concerns basic clarification of the short or long-term or transitional character of the identified impacts and the investigation of their potentially positive or negative nature. Closely related to these considerations is subsequently the question and challenge of comprehensively assessing these impacts on their respective levels.

Since some panellists explicitly pointed out that their responses were shaped by their experience in a specific higher education context, this perception subsequently demands differentiation in further research endeavours. It seems unlikely that faculty in different national higher education contexts are equally affected by the same impacts. Taking this into consideration, research needs to analyse these impacts while paying attention to the specificities of individual higher education systems.

Differentiated analysis also implies considering the positive or negative character of single impacts and to what extent they are influential in one context in comparison with another. If impacts are found to be critical or even harmful to individual persons, institutions, or national higher education systems, discussion on how they can be mitigated is needed.

A final answer to Knight’s (2004) question “What are the positive consequences, what are the unintended results, and what are the negative implications?” (p. 6) of internationalization cannot be provided by this study. However, the preliminary findings reiterate the complex reality of the internationalization of higher education, identify the different levels that are influenced by internationalization, and finally show the need for differentiated further inquiry into its perceived impacts and effects. Thus, having explored this variety of impacts, this study constitutes a source on which further research can build upon.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Frequencies of panellists’ (n=31) responses on the importance of the identified impacts (absolute numbers and column percentage).

Impact	Scale of importance
Impact	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (12.9)	2 (6.5)	6 (19.4)	9 (29.0)	1 (3.2)	9 (29.0)
2	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	3 (9.7)	6 (19.4)	7 (22.6)	8 (25.8)	1 (3.2)	4 (12.9)
3	2 (6.5)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	5 (16.1)	5 (16.1)	1 (3.2)	3 (9.7)	6 (19.4)	3 (9.7)	5 (16.1)
4	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	8 (25.8)	7 (22.6)	6 (19.4)	4 (12.9)
5*	1 (3.3)	2 (6.7)	1 (3.3)	3 (10.0)	4 (13.3)	4 (13.3)	7 (23.3)	4 (13.3)	1 (3.3)	3 (10.0)
6	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	8 (25.8)	7 (22.6)	2 (6.5)	9 (29.0)
7	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (9.7)	6 (19.4)	6 (19.4)	10 (32.3)	6 (19.4)
8	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	5 (16.1)	12 (38.7)	5 (16.1)	5 (16.1)
9	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	5 (16.1)	8 (25.8)	7 (22.6)	8 (25.8)
10	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	2 (6.5)	5 (16.1)	5 (16.1)	15 (48.4)
11	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	3 (9.7)	8 (25.8)	5 (16.1)	6 (19.4)	6 (19.4)
12	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	2 (6.5)	5 (16.1)	9 (29.0)	4 (12.9)	9 (29.0)
13	1 (3.2)	2 (6.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	3 (9.7)	7 (22.6)	7 (22.6)	4 (12.9)	6 (19.4)
14	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	3 (9.7)	5 (16.1)	10 (32.3)	3 (9.7)	5 (16.1)
15	2 (6.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	4 (12.9)	5 (16.1)	13 (41.9)	3 (9.7)	3 (9.7)
16	3 (9.7)	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	4 (12.9)	6 (19.4)	6 (19.4)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	6 (19.4)
17	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	2 (6.5)	7 (22.6)	1 (3.2)	8 (25.8)	9 (29.0)
18	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (9.7)	6 (19.4)	8 (25.8)	4 (12.9)	10 (32.3)
19	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	4 (12.9)	9 (29.0)	7 (22.6)	3 (9.7)	6 (19.4)
20	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	0 (0.0)	4 (12.9)	6 (19.4)	1 (3.2)	8 (25.8)	4 (12.9)	7 (22.6)
21	0 (0.0)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	1 (3.2)	4 (12.9)	7 (22.6)	4 (12.9)	4 (12.9)	6 (19.4)	3 (9.7)
22	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (9.7)	3 (9.7)	5 (16.1)	10 (32.3)	2 (6.5)	8 (25.8)
23*	1 (3.3)	1 (3.3)	0 (0.0)	1 (3.3)	4 (13.3)	3 (10.0)	5 (16.7)	8 (26.7)	1 (3.3)	6 (20.0)
24	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	1 (3.2)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	6 (19.4)	7 (22.6)	5 (16.1)	6 (19.4)
25	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	2 (6.5)	5 (16.1)	8 (25.8)	4 (12.9)	10 (32.3)

n=30.

(1) Opportunity and need for personal development, (2) Considering the situation of foreign-born colleagues, (3) Foreign language acquisition, (4) Opportunity and need for professional development, (5) Increased work load and stress factors, (6) International reputation, promotion and tenure, (7) Presence of a more international student body, (8) Teaching international students, (9) Need for sensitive behavior towards international students, (10) Internationalization of the curriculum, (11) International research teams and publications, (12) International dissemination and visibility of research results, (13) Anglo-American hegemony of perspectives and structures, (14) Economic aspects and funding, (15) Forms of engagement within and beyond one’s institution, (16) Persistence of institutional and individual impediments, (17) English as lingua franca, (18) Cooperation, interconnectedness and spread of knowledge, (19) International mobility of faculty, (20) Policy context and global developments, (21) Academic competition, (22) Expansion of perception and perspective, (23) Application of information and communication technology, (24) Heterogenization and pluralization, (25) Responding to future challenges.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Svenja Bedenlier graduated from the University of Oldenburg (Germany) with a master’s degree in Educational Sciences. She works as a research assistant at the Faculty of Education and Social Sciences, Department for Continuing Education and Education Management, of this university and conducts her doctoral studies on the topic of internationalization of higher education.

Olaf Zawacki-Richter is professor of educational technology at the University of Oldenburg (Germany), Faculty of Educational and Social Sciences, Center for Lifelong Learning. Between 2008 and 2010, he held a fixed-term professorship in educational technology at the FernUniversity in Hagen, Germany’s Open University. He is a member of the editorial board of the “International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning” (IRRODL) and the Australian journal “Distance Education”. Olaf has served as invited keynote speaker, chair and reviewer at many international conferences. He is a faculty member in the MBA in Educational Management at Oldenburg University and also teaches in the Online Master of Distance Education and E-Learning programme, jointly offered by the University of Maryland University College (USA) and Oldenburg University.

References

Altbach

Lewis

(1996) The academic profession in international perspective. In: Altbach

(ed) The International Academic Profession. Portraits of Fourteen Countries. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, pp.3–48.

Altbach

Knight

(2007) The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 290–305.

Brandenburg

Federkeil

(2007) Wie misst man Internationalität und Internationalisierung von Hochschulen? Indikatoren- und Kennzahlenbildung. Gütersloh: Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung. Available at: http://www.che.de/downloads/Indikatorenset_Internationalitaet_AP83.pdf.

Charlton

JRH

(2004) Delphi technique. In: Lewis-Beck

Bryman

Liao

(eds) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.244–245.

Childress

(2010) The Twenty-First Century University. Developing Faculty Engagement in Internationalization (Vol. 32). New York: Peter Lang.

Clayton

(1997) Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology 17(4): 373–386.

Davies

(1998) The shift from teaching to learning: Staff recruitment and careers development policies for the Universities of the twenty-first century. Higher Education in Europe 23(3): 307–316.

Deardorff

(2005) A matter of logic? International Educator XIV(3): 26–31.

Deardorff

Thorndike

Pysarchik D

Yun

Z-S

(2009) Towards effective international learning assessment: principles, design and implementation. In: de Wit

(ed) Measuring Success in the Internationalisation of Higher Education (No. 22). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. pp.23–37. Available at: http://www.che.de/downloads/measuring_internationalisation___EAIE_Occasional_Papers_22v6.pdf.

10.

Dedoussis

(2007) Issues of diversity in academia: through the eyes of ‘third-country’ faculty. Higher Education 54: 135–156.

11.

Dewey

Duff

(2009) Reason before passion: Faculty views on internationalization in higher education. Higher Education 58(4): 491–504.

12.

Field

(2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd edn). London: SAGE Publications.

13.

Green

(2012) Measuring and assessing internationalization. NAFSA: Association of International Educators (ed). NAFSA e-Publications. Available at: http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/default.aspx?id=32455.

14.

Gopal

(2011) Internationalization of higher education: Preparing faculty to teach cross-culturally. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23(3): 373–381.

15.

Hadis

(2005) Why are they better students when they come back? Determinants of academic focusing gains in the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad XI(August): 57–70.

16.

Hamza

(2010) International experience. An opportunity for professional development in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 14(1): 50–69.

17.

Hudzik

Stohl

(2009) Modelling assessment of the outcomes and impacts of internationalisation. In: de Wit

(ed) Measuring Success in the Internationalisation of Higher Education (No. 22). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. pp.9–21. Available at: http://www.che.de/downloads/measuring_internationalisation___EAIE_Occasional_Papers_22v6.pdf.

18.

Kehm

Teichler

(2007) Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 260–273.

19.

Kim

Locke

(2010) Transnational academic mobility and the academic profession. London: The Open University, Centre for Higher Education Research and Information.

20.

Knight

(1994) Internationalization: elements and checkpoints (No. 7). Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

21.

Knight

(2004) Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.

22.

Knight

(2008) Higher Education in Turmoil. The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

23.

Kogan

Teichler

(2007) Key challenges to the academic profession and its interface with management: Some introductory thoughts. In: Kogan

Teichler

(eds) Key Challenges to the Academic Profession (Vol. 65). Paris and Kassel: Jenior, pp.9–15.

24.

Lemke-Westcott

Johnson

(2013) When culture and learning styles matter: A Canadian university with Middle Eastern students. Journal of Research in International Education 12(1): 66–84.

25.

Linstone

Turoff

(1975) Introduction. In: Linstone

Turoff

(eds) The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, pp.3–12.

26.

Mak

Kennedy

(2012) Internationalising the student experience: Preparing instructors to embed intercultural skills in the curriculum. Innovative Higher Education 37: 323–334.

27.

Marginson

van der Wende

(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.

28.

Pherali

(2012) Academic mobility, language, and cultural capital. The experience of transnational academics in British higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education 16(4): 313–333.

29.

Powell

(2003) The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41(4): 376–382.

30.

Richardson

McKenna

(2003) International experience and academic careers. What do academics have to say? Personnel Review 32(6): 774–795.

31.

Richardson

Zikic

(2007) The darker side of an international academic career. Career Development International 12(2): 164–186.

32.

Richman

Gobet

Staszewski

. (1996) Perceptual and memory processes in the acquisition of expert performance: The EPAM model. In: Ericsson

(ed) The Road to Excellence. The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.167–187.

33.

Sandgren

Elig

Hovde

. (1999) How international experience affects teaching. Understanding the impact of faculty study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education 3(1): 33–56.

34.

Shaikh

(2009) A survey of migration of academics in higher education and their impact on host institutions. Reflecting Education 5(1): 16–30.

35.

Stohl

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

36.

Taylor

(2004) Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(2): 149–171.

37.

Teekens

(2003) The requirement to develop specific skills for teaching in an intercultural setting. Journal of Studies in International Education 7(1): 108–119.

38.

Teichler

(1999) Internationalisation as a challenge for higher education in Europe. Tertiary Education and Management 5: 5–23.

39.

Thune

Welle-Strand

(2005) ICT for and in internationalization processes: A business school case study. Higher Education 50(4): 593–611.

40.

Van Gaalen

(2009) Developing a tool for mapping internationalisation: A case study. In: de Wit

(ed) Measuring Success in the Internationalisation of Higher Education. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education, pp.77–91. Available at: http://www.che.de/downloads/measuring_internationalisation___EAIE_Occasional_Papers_22v6.pdf.

41.

Williams

(2005) Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education 9(4): 356–371.

42.

Zawacki-Richter

(2009) Research areas in distance education: A Delphi study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10(3): 4–20.

Internationalization of higher education and the impacts on academic faculty members

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical considerations

Defining impacts in the context of internationalization

Research on academic faculty members and internationalization of higher education

Method and sample

Results

What are major impacts on faculty members resulting from the internationalization of higher education?

How do experts in the field rate these impacts in terms of importance?

Discussion and conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Funding

Author biographies

References