University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement

(USC Thesis Other)

Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MEASURING AND ASSESSING GLOBALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
THE CREATION OF A SCALE OF GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT

by

Lincoln Duane Johnson

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Lincoln Duane Johnson
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and best friend, Kiesha Nannette Glenn,
who has stood beside me and with me throughout this journey. Without her, I would not
be the man I am, and so it is with great love and honor that I dedicate this labor of love to
her. Over the past two decades, we have experienced great success, pressing failure,
exuberant good and stressful bad times, times where we were greatly enriched and times
of great poverty, but, through it all, you were always right there with me being my
loudest cheerleader, consistent admonishment and welcomed voice of reason. For this, I
dedicate this, my magnum opus so far, to you.
And to my children: Destinie Aujá-Shané, Master Lincoln and President Emá, I
thank and acknowledge you for being the constant distractions that showed me how to
prioritize my life and that greater things exist outside of our own hopes and dreams. You
all are the reason I work as hard as I do to be as great as I hope to become.

Love Always,
LDJ 2012

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work contained in this volume would not be possible without the assistance
and encouragement of many people. Many thanks go out to those who have had input and
influence not only on this work, but on the life of its author:
Dr. Jeff Sapp, a great mentor, collaborative partner and friend,
Dr. Mark Robison, purveyor of broadened perspectives and writing sensei,
Dr. Michael Diamond, fountain of information and knowledge, editor extraordinaire,
And Dr. Kenneth McGillivray, who took the time to undertake a student’s musings.
Also, to all the participants of the study, my dissertation thematic group members,
the cohort of 2009, my esteemed professors, Dr. Elizabeth Jordan, Dr. Christopher
McDonald, Dr. Sean Howland, Dr. Erin Vines, Dr. Linda Fischer, Asia Pacific Rim
International Study Experience, Doctoral Support Center and the Office of Global
Initiatives, many thanks go out to you all and you have my appreciation always.
Lincoln Duane Johnson
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 3
Assessing Globalization 3
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 14
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations 19
Delimitations 20

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 21
Defining Globalization 22
Globalization and Education 24
What is a Global University? 26
Indicators of Global Engagement 34
World-Class Universities 36
World Rankings 40
Theoretical Frameworks 46
Designing and Implementing an Academic Scorecard 46
Internationalization of Higher Education: towards a conceptual framework 47
Summary 49

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 52
Research Design 54
Population and Sample 56
Instrumentation 57
Interview Protocol for Institutional Leaders/Administrators 57
Interview Protocol for Experts/Authors/Executives 58
Data Collection 59
Data Analysis 60
Validity and Reliability 62
Limitations 63
Delimitations 63

v

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 64
Analysis 66
Participants 66
Description of Analysis 69
Data Preparation 70
Theory/Conceptual Framework 72
What are the indicators of a global university? 74
Emerging Themes 80
Stakeholder Perspective/Social and Cultural Rationale 84
Internal Business Perspective/Economic Rationale 87
Innovation and Learning Perspective/Academic Rationale 89
Academic Management Perspective/Political Rationale 92
Summary of Results 94
Discussion 97

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 99
Summary of Findings 100
Discussion 101
Implications for Practice 104
Recommendations for Future Research 106
The Third Wave – Conclusion 110

REFERENCES 113

APPENDICES 118
Appendix A: Research Methodology Framework 118
Appendix B: Research Questions/Interview Protocol Correlation Grid 119
Appendix C: Sample 121
Appendix D: Diagram of Responses (What are the indicators of a
global university?) 122
Appendix E: The Scale of Global Engagement - Indicators of Globalization at
Universities 123
Appendix F: Activating the Global Scorecard Cycle 124

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Institutional Leaders/Administrators Questionnaire

58
Table 3.2: Experts/Executives Questionnaire

59
Table 4.1: Sample 68

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Framework

74
Figure 4.2: Diagram of Responses: Indicators of Globalization/Important
Aspects in Globalization

80
Figure 4.3: The Scale of Global Engagement - Indicators of Globalization
at Universities

97
Figure 5.1: Activating the Global Scorecard Cycle 110

viii

ABSTRACT
Higher education has entered an era of globalization where the movement of
minds is fashioning out a new university. This study defines and describes globalization
and its impact on higher education. It presents the uses and methodologies of rankings
and global measurements which are increasing in scope and breadth as the university
system aims to cross international borders and create worldwide connections. This study
developed indicators of global engagement at universities using data from rankings
methodologies and interview data from university administrators and organization
executives/experts in the field of globalization. The study sample was comprised of
administrators at five comprehensive, research-oriented, geographically diverse
universities with global academic and research standards, common values, and
similarities in organization and management and with five executives/experts at leading
global higher education organizations.
After data were collected from worldwide university rankings methodologies and
qualitative inquiry interviews with administrators and executives/experts, an analysis was
done using qualitative coding. The data were triangulated using theory triangulation. The
findings that emerged in this study are 1.) International faculty, students and
administrators are vital to globalization processes; 2.) Global consciousness should be
integrated throughout the institution at all levels; 3.) Brand image and recognition are
important aspects of a university’s global profile; 4.) International collaboration and
cross-border engagement are essential; and 5.) Administrative involvement and support
are necessary for successful programs and policies to exist. From this data, a list of
indicators of globalization was developed that can assist universities with focusing
ix

comprehensive activities, culture and climate toward more useful processes and
undertakings by providing a list of indicators of beneficial processes, activities and
competencies that can be undertaken that promote globalization at universities.

1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
“Academic and professional requirements for graduates increasingly reflect the
demands of the globalization of societies, economy and labour markets and thus higher
education must provide an adequate preparation for that” (Qiang, 2003). Higher
education has entered a period of transition due to the current societal trend of
globalization. Kwiek (2001) asserts that globalization processes and fierce international
competition prompt institutions to look at their role and that of the state in the
contemporary world. State refers to governmental and governance structures and society
and how these structures are redefined in terms of general responsibilities as well as how
globalization is revising politics and economics through its processes (2001). Higher
education has entered an era of globalization where the movement of minds and the
cooperation of academia are fashioning out a new university. This study defines and
describes globalization and its impact on higher education. It further lays out the uses and
methodologies of rankings and global measurements which are increasing in scope and
breadth as the university system aims to cross international borders and create worldwide
connections. Using data from rankings, input and arguments from experts in the field of
globalization, as well as information from leaders at higher education institutions, a
global measure is created that will standardize the global movement in higher education
and provide useful information to assist institutions with becoming global universities.
This study develops indicators of global engagement. Globalization has become
one of the most important factors that influence the development of higher education
worldwide (Jiang, 2008). In fact, this most current era of globalization is one of the most
2

influential factors in higher education and is pushing universities into a worldwide
competition for world-class status. With globalization, competition among countries all
over the world become intensified (2008). The research conducted for this study provides
a framework for tracking, measuring and understanding globalization and its impact on
university campuses. With the impending knowledge-based economy, competition is
increasingly embodied as educational and technological competitions; the contribution of
higher education for social and economic development is of significant importance
(Jiang, 2008). Higher education is, thus, becoming more aligned and motivated to
compete to meet the needs of global economic development.
A new university is emerging. An institution without boundaries and borders,
being termed as the global university, is materializing and challenging the idea of the
nation-state in the global age in that capital goods, technologies, information, and people
cross borders in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago. This requires
rethinking the modern university, because, as Kwiek observes, its German philosophical
founders were at the disposal of the nation-state and our traditional perception of the
modern university is a vast consumer of public revenues (2001). The synthesis of these
ideas is pertinent to the development of global institutions, and how we track the global
era of higher education is vital to its future. This study aimed to provide universities with
a list of indicators to identify globalization on their campuses as well as provide ideation
toward the utilization of global policies, programs and profiles. Higher education reform
and development and the phenomenon of world-class universities are the objectives of
institutions, thus creating favorable policies at a limited number of high-level universities
3

(Jiang, 2008); this study provides an informative set of data that can be used across
institutions and by key subjects tasked with creating global environments at institutions.
Background of the Problem
Assessing Globalization
Measuring and defining global engagement through a list of indicators that can be
assessed provides an extensive and thorough observation of their performance on a global
scale in higher education. When the National Research Council (NRC) produced their
rankings and mass of data on doctoral programs, no one on the committee endorsed the
actual rankings, and committee members went out of their way to say that there might be
better ways to rank – better than either of their two methods (Jaschik, 2010). There has
been extensive criticism of rankings in the past for suggesting false levels of precision.
Although criticized, rankings are taken seriously by academic leaders, and departments
are feeling pressure to demonstrate their value. Many of these departments analyze how
they can use rankings data to recruit new faculty and top graduate students (2010).
Jaschik (2010) explains the methodology of the NRC ranking contains both “S” and “R”
ratings. The “S” rating surveyed faculty members in disciplines on a range of factors and
then tweaked them to give more weight to the factors a discipline values most. The idea
is that fields are so different that judging them all by any one standard would be wrong.
For the “R” ratings, a different methodology was used; broad surveys were given to
faculty members on which programs they thought were best, and these responses were
analyzed and the characteristics that were attractive to faculty members assisted the
committee in picking the best programs (2010).
4

The creation of a list of globalization indicators can be pertinent to the further
development of institutions in that it provides institutions with a standardized measure
that can assist them in developing academic and professional programs and policies that
reflect the globalization of society, the labor market and the global economy. Altbach
(2010) argues if rankings did not exist, someone would invent them. They are an
inevitable result of mass higher education, and of competition and commercialization in
postsecondary education worldwide (2010). The truth is most of these rankings have little
validity but are, nonetheless, taken with some seriousness by the public. As
postsecondary education has become more internationalized, the rankings have become
global as well (2010). Altbach further estimates that academe itself has become
globalized, and institutions seek to benchmark themselves against their peers worldwide
– and often to compete for students and staff. For all their problems, the rankings have
become a high-stakes enterprise that has implications for academe worldwide. For this
reason, they must be taken seriously and understood (2010). A limitation of these
rankings is that there is only room at the top for as many world-class universities as meet
the accepted criteria for such institutions. Perhaps a better idea than rankings is an
international categorization that can delineate institutions according to their missions
(2010). In this manner, a majority of schools can gauge their global engagement, impact
and interaction. Many of the rankings have been criticized for frequently changing their
criteria or methodology, making it difficult to measure performance over time or to
usefully make comparisons with other institutions. Users must be fully aware of the uses
and problems with the rankings, not only because of the limitation in the rankings
themselves, but because the rankings only measure a small slice of higher education
5

(2010). However, 21
st
century needs to compete, to use other institutions as a point of
reference, and to globalize internationally make the creation of some form of ranking or
measurement warranted.
Higher education institutions purport to provide students with the preparation to
succeed in a new global economy in the face of global challenges. To obtain a high level
of students and faculty and market themselves effectively, institutions use the
information gathered by rankings to promote aggressively. Of the 80% of universities
that believe their institutions appear “favorably” in the rankings, 71% promote their
rankings results in marketing materials (Jaschik, 2010). The Education Conservancy, an
admissions reform group that has been critical of the rankings, tried to get more
universities to pledge to withdraw from the rankings system. Most universities are clearly
not willing to do this. One of the criticisms of the rankings is that universities adopt
policies that may not be educationally sound for the sole purpose of advancing in the
rankings (2010). For example, schools might decide to focus on faculty research and
publication in order to receive citations and major publications instead of focusing on
student learning and intercultural curricular experiences. This prompts the creation of
new ways of planning, promoting, implementing, measuring and monitoring
globalization in higher education.
Through the development of international collaboration and cooperation,
institutions can more legitimately portray themselves as global universities if they can
relate to data that quantifies global engagement in a manner more reliable and valid than
using rankings or other arbitrary tools. These indicators and ideals can be measured in
ways that are very different from university rankings and index tables. Malcolm Gladwell
6

suggests that it is an act of real audacity when a ranking system tries to be comprehensive
and heterogeneous (2011). He also surmises that at no point do the college guides
acknowledge the extraordinary difficulty of the task they have set themselves. The first
difficulty with rankings is that it can be surprisingly hard to measure the variable one
wants to rank – even in cases where that variable seems perfectly objective (2011). For
instance, when measuring the number of international students and faculty at an
institution, the number attained will include several other variables that have an effect on
the total, such as meaningful interaction, school culture and climate. An overhaul of the
idea of rankings and measurement shows promise in the development of globalized
institutions on a worldwide basis. Gladwell (2011) concludes that the U.S. News rankings
suffer from a serious case of the suicide problem. The suicide problem means there is no
direct way to measure the quality of an institution – how well a college manages to
inform, inspire, and challenge its students.
The ways institutions react and respond to globalization postures the educational
system as remaining at the forefront of societal, industrial and governmental changes, as
has occurred throughout the history of higher education and within the modern university
system. Ishikawa (2009) states that this transnational trend provides opportunities for the
improvement of higher education through collaboration, competition, exchange of ideas,
and increased exposure. Ishikawa also states that the quest to stay competitive and
relevant through proactive internationalization can be best understood in the context of an
emerging hegemony in the globalization process in higher education (2009). Ishikawa
analyzed the creation of dominant world-class university models and their global impact
(2009). The results suggest that powerful global models appear to help cultivate a new
7

quest for elite education overseas, to create a new, internationalized national hierarchy, to
affect the balance of power between natural sciences/engineering and humanities/social
sciences faculties within institutions, and even to devalue research in non-English
speaking natural languages (2009). The high mobility and transnational character of
higher education has reached a new level since the beginning of this century. The
university rankings helped create an image of global elite universities, but the
manufacturing of prestige is, in fact, nothing new for higher education institutions
(2009). The global rankings demonstrate the existing reality of a global hierarchy in
higher education in a plain, explicit, and blatant manner. They portray the powerful
image of the world’s top-class universities in a way that overshadows the most
competitive domestic counterparts. The world university rankings confirm, fortify, and,
sometimes, distort the existing national hierarchy. They may also give rise to a new
national hierarchy (2009).
The process of globalizing the higher education system necessitates a deeper look
at how culture, politics, economy and social relations are affected by this method of
internationalization. Vaira (2004) suggests that social life facets are affected by the
globalization process; culture, politics, economy and social relations are all deemed to be
transformed by this process. The concept and the idea of globalization is a multifaceted
and contentious one (2004). Vaira’s debate is structured around two main streams of
thought: the convergence and the divergence theses. Convergence thesis emphasizes the
progressive and sometimes ineluctable trend toward homogenization (cultural, political,
and economic). Divergence thesis emphasizes the heterogeneity of globalization’s effects
and outcomes on the local level (national, regional and organizational) (2004). Through
8

the research, Vaira surmises higher education is witnessing a process of deep institutional
change that involves the deinstitutionalization of its rooted policy and values frameworks
and the parallel institutionalization of new ones (2004). As globalization changes and
affects higher education, it is also affected and altered by higher education.
In the history of higher education, there have been two periods of rapid transition.
These periods reflect the innovation of the university and the subsequent expansion of
research funding, student financial aid and the increase of student populations through
diversity. Between the years of 1880 and 1910, powerful forces in society – including
economic, political, and demographic trends, in addition to the tectonic shift within
academe that was the embrace of the Germanic model of research and education -
modified and gave birth to the university as we know it. After the Second World War,
mostly external political and social developments reshaped universities (Robison, 2004).
Within the last 40 years, higher education has entered a third period of change:
globalization. In this era, much like in the previous periods, internal and external forces
push universities to embrace a more universal perspective.
In the late nineteenth century to early twentieth century, what is considered the
modern university was created. The concept of the university was born along with the
rise of national aspirations and the rise in significance of nation-states. Kwiek (2001)
describes this era as a tacit deal made between power and knowledge, which, on one
hand, provided scholars with unprecedented institutional possibilities while, on the other
hand, obliged them to support the national culture and to help in the shaping of national
subjects: the citizens of nation-states. The place, social function, and role of the
university as one of the most significant institutions of modernity were at that time
9

clearly determined. Currently, it is no longer known what the exact place of the
university in society is; society itself has changed (2001). Ushered in by the idea of
access and integration, the university began to shift in purpose and mission.
In the period between 1945 and 1975, an increase in research funding, financial
aid, and civil and human rights increased the size, scope and diversity of colleges and
universities as well as diverse student populations (Robison, 2004). These external
factors pushed higher education into a second period of change and expansion. A massive
influx of funding into research brought systematic change. Coupled with the
diversification of the civil rights movement, the interests and sensibilities of a diverse
student body affected academic life (Robison, 2004). The importance of a diverse
curriculum, diverse student body, disciplines, and research interests all led the university
through a thirty year period of enhancement and supplementation that, in turn, led to this
new era of globalization for many of the same reasons: diverse student body, research
interests, and internationalization of academic disciplines. This is considered the greatest
era of transformation in higher education since the changes of the 19
th
century (Robison,
2004). Economic, political and societal trends are once again reshaping universities into
global institutions in a highly globalized society.
Since about 1975, the push has been to create a globalized society and this push
has spawned the global university movement of which higher education is now in the
midst. This new entity was created by the synthesis of four ideas (Rossman, 1991). The
first is electronics, that technology enables a cooperative, global exchange of
information. Followed by the second idea of the university, which is one of the most
important institutions as culture grows increasingly oriented toward information. The
10

third idea is the global nature of society. The fourth and final idea is networking: new
kinds of cooperation among individuals and institutions that are less formal and less
bureaucratic (1991). It is important in this era of globalization to take note of the changes
and challenges faced by institutions as they go global, and to observe these changes over
time to assist those institutions which may fall behind others during this globalization
movement.
The current study is needed because of the sweeping changes taking place in
higher education and the seen and unforeseen challenges that will accompany them. As
countries provide funding and create programs to posture world-class university systems
to the rest of the world, a study such as the current one will be vital to understanding
globalization throughout higher education. Around the world, programs such as China’s
985 Project, which concentrated the state’s financial resources to develop world-class
universities and Brain Korea 21, which is a large scale project aiming to further reform
and perfect South Korea’s educational system and develop world-class graduate schools
and regional universities (Jiang, 2008), are examples of programs and policies at the
national level that influence major educational enhancements and expansions in the name
of globalization. What is needed through this process is a framework that can assist in the
measurement of global engagement. For such measures, indicators are needed to foster
creative and high quality human resources necessary for the forthcoming knowledge-
based society and for meeting the challenges of the 21
st
century (Jiang, 2008).
Further, if the intent is to improve international competitive capacity of the higher
education system in order to contribute to the technological and economic development
as well as to accomplish national interests (Jiang, 2008), then a list of indicators and scale
11

of global engagement are necessary tools in the creation of world-standard research
collaboration and centers of academic excellence. The Toyama Plan in Japan, for
example, is a policy for structural reform of universities, included the reorganization,
merging and incorporation of national universities, which plans to cultivate a competitive
academic environment among Japanese universities by giving targeted supports to the
creation of world-standard research and education bases (Jiang, 2008). These programs
serve as valid arguments for the creation of this study. With so many countries enacting
policies and so much at stake for students and academic professionals worldwide, this
study provides a way to observe and benefit from globalization. All of these programs
and policies aim to allocate resources to some select universities and subjects to make
them world-class. This study provides access to globalization to institutions across the
spectrum, regardless of size, funding and reputation by examining geographically
diverse, research-intensive, comprehensive four-year universities.
Statement of the Problem
Globalization in higher education is providing worldwide access and international
expansion to institutions on a world stage. As scholars and researchers define and further
flesh out the implications of globalization at colleges and universities, tools need to be
created to help institutions navigate through nebulous descriptions and indicators of
global engagement. Globalization is erasing borders in higher education. The place-based
identity (Armstrong, 2007) of colleges and universities is changing and national
boundaries have become largely irrelevant (Wildavsky, 2010). With this in mind,
institutions must find ways to cooperate, collaborate and participate on a global scale. As
higher education shifts from its nineteenth century elitism to twenty-first century
12

massification, institutions need a measurement tool to gauge involvement, influence and
interaction with the global marketplace and contemporary globalization processes
(Kwiek, 2001). In this era of globalization, universities need to be able to illustrate the
presence of indicators of global engagement within the institution in order to effectively
claim to be global institutions producing global scholars.
This study examines globalization and parses indicators from rankings
methodologies, experts in the field (organization executives), and university
administrators. Through a thorough and methodical process of definition,
characterization and description, globalization in higher education is operationally
explained for the benefit of development of successful and progressive global
universities. This study also looks at globalization from an economic, political and social
development perspective in order to promote educational and cultural collaboration,
research and scholarship (Association of Pacific Rim Universities, 2008). This study
triangulates data from several sources to devise a scale of global engagement, which will
provide universities with indicators of global engagement they can use to implement,
develop, and maintain global programs, polices and profiles. This study is intended to be
a useful tool in an era of ongoing global expansion and program enhancement across a
broad range of institution styles and types, especially at comprehensive, highly research-
oriented, geographically diverse universities with global academic and research
standards, common values and similarities in organization and management. Even though
universities with commonalities are the focus of this study, higher education institutions
of all sizes, styles and types can benefit from the list of indicators that was developed into
a scale of global engagement framework. Regardless of a higher education’s scale and
13

scope, the indicators of global engagement can be adapted to benefit colleges and
universities around the world.
Defining globalization and understanding what constitutes a global university is
problematic, as institutions use unreliable and invalid rankings to define globalization.
The goals of gaining understanding, acquiring knowledge, and developing skills for
living in a globally interdependent and culturally diverse world (Council on International
Educational Exchange, 2009) are being lost behind targeted funding programs and
reputation for a small minority of highly publicized and renowned institutions. This study
aimed to provide opportunities for comprehensive, research-oriented and geographically
diverse institutions to gauge global impact and influence through a standard list of global
indicators. The focus of this study was to create outcomes, build quality into programs,
and facilitate learning and global integration (CIEE, 2009) at institutions who aspire to be
considered global universities and seek ways to become globally engaged. There exists a
gap between institutions’ being able to operationally define globalization and the focus of
programs, the funding of proactive structures for globalization and the promotion of
institutional profiles. There is a need in higher education of further defining globalization
and providing institutions with ways to affect college culture, academic influence and
educational policy.
The study focuses on creating indicators of global engagement from rankings
methodologies, interviews of experts/executives in the field of globalization, and
administrators at universities. These indicators will be listed and categorized according to
their effectiveness and purpose at higher education institutions and their effect on
institutional profiles and policies. The study will also focus on four-year, public and
14

private (not-for-profit) universities including comprehensive, liberal arts, and research
universities conferring baccalaureates, masters and doctorates (Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). Further, institutions with global academic and
research standards, common values and similarities in organization and management
were used for this study. By focusing on indicators of global engagement at these types
of institutions, a generalized measurement is provided that can be used to promote
globalization at universities around the world. However, universities, regardless of size,
style and specialization will be able to use the indicators as comparative benchmarks of
their global profiles. This study examined and makes recommendations regarding
globalization issues facing higher education institutions. This study will be helpful to
organizations and individuals connected to globalization in higher education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study and of the creation of a list of indicators and scale of
global engagement was to identify elements which play important roles in the
globalization of higher education. It sought to answer the question:
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at
comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities
with global academic and research standards, common values and similarities
in organization and management?
By investigating data from globalization experts, gathering input from
administrators in higher education, and compiling information from institutions and
authors coupled with the literature, which includes rankings, frameworks and critiques, a
scorecard model was created using the indicators of global engagement that institutional
15

leaders and management can use to determine and appraise global impact and
engagement. Through an in depth analysis of all of these, this study establishes a
rationale as to what the indicators should be and determined their importance to twenty-
first century higher education.
The study was conducted through interviews of university administrators as well
as organizational executives/experts in the field of globalization. Using rankings
methodologies and literature on globalization as a starting point, a pre-emptive list of
latent indicators of globalization in higher education was established. This list was
compared to the responses of interviewees and a list of mutual indicators was ascertained.
Using this data, the researcher created a hierarchical list of indicators based on the
importance communicated through qualitative data collection. The study was conducted
with administrators at public and private not-for-profit four-year comprehensive and
liberal arts colleges that confer baccalaureate, masters, and/or doctorate degrees, which
are geographically diverse with global academic and research standards, common values
related to globalization and similarities in organization and management.
This study was designed to provide higher education institutions with indicators
of global engagement. By compiling data and creating a measurement, institutions can
determine how globally connected and engaged they are without relying on rankings,
which provide limited information on a small minority of universities. The measurement
tool this study created will assist universities with issues such as funding, research policy,
as well as overall graduate and undergraduate programs (Association of American
Universities, 2010). This study aimed to be on the leading edge of global innovation,
scholarship and solutions that contribute to global economy and international academic
16

endeavors (2010). This study provides universities, both counted and not counted in
rankings, an opportunity to look at their programs and determine what globalization
activities they should undertake and which should be scaled back. This study proposed to
monitor and advise institutions on how best to become global universities in a manner
that provides them with practical and functional data and information.
This study was conducted by gathering information from rankings methodologies
and then creating interview questions for higher education administrators and
organization executives/experts. From the data collected through interviews, indicators of
global engagement were identified. The next step in the study included interviewing
organizational executives and administrators. From this compiled information and data, a
list of indicators of global engagement was created that uses the data to provide
institutions with a ranking, or scale, of global engagement at individual institutions and
how this information can increase an institution’s posture as a global university. This
study was conducted using face to face interviewing, when possible, as well as through
the use of communications technology to reach those geographically inconvenient or
unavailable during the time of data collection. Universities were chosen based on the
researcher’s ability to contact and connect with administrators in diverse positions and
types of institutions. The data collection process is pertinent to the development of
collective indicators, as these were used in the process of creating a scale of global
engagement using triangulation.
The theories and models for this study are Qiang’s Internationalization framework
(2003) and O’Neil, Diamond, Bensimon, and Moore’s (1999) Academic Scorecard.
Because there are a number of different rationales or motivations for wanting to integrate
17

an international dimension into higher education, having a number of elements identified
through Qiang’s framework played an important role in the internationalization process
(2003). Qiang’s framework argues that, by only focusing on the academic or program
activities, one can overlook the process issues which are important to ensuring that the
different activities reinforce one another and become central to the mission of the
institution (2003). In this manner, globalization must be entrenched in the culture, policy,
planning and organizational process of the institution so that it can be both successful and
sustainable (Qiang, 2003). The use of Qiang’s framework provided the researcher with
important globalization elements identified through research and served as a foundation
for the creation and justification of indicators of global engagement and how they can be
categorized.
The researcher also used the academic scorecard to create a set of indicators that
respond directly to the research question posed. The academic scorecard provided a
conventional, “bottom-up” approach to determine metrics of global engagement that
begin with the identification of standard indicators of quality and productivity (O’Neil,
Bensimon, Diamond, & Moore, 1999). However, rather than ending with a resulting
laundry list of discrete indicators, an approach was designed that captured the complexity
of academic organizations and presented a coherent image of a school’s performance
(1999). These theories and models are discussed further in later chapters as the study
expands and extends through literature review, theoretical framework, research, and data
collection. Used as lenses to understand globalization as it pertains to higher education
institutions, Qiang’s framework (2003) and O’Neil, et al.’s (1999) academic scorecard
provide the perspectives, approaches and categories for the study to successfully and
18

strategically devise a scale of global engagement using a list of indicators created through
interview data collection triangulated with rankings methodologies.
Significance of the Study
Creating a list of indicators that can assist universities with quantifying
worldwide connection is vital to the further definition and establishment of globally
engaged institutions around the world. So far, measures of global engagement must be
harvested from rankings, which do not include the mass of institutions, but lists of top ten
and top one hundred universities. These rankings have little validity, but are observed
with seriousness from the public (Altbach, 2010). As institutions strive to benchmark
themselves against their peers worldwide (2010), a valid list of globalization indicators
needs to be invented that allows for such comparison and evaluation. Institutions are
currently using rankings to make changes to their policies and programs and to market
themselves (Jaschik, 2010). The need for a valid scale of global engagement universities
could use to measure globalization is vital to further development and advancement.
This study makes a substantial contribution to both literature and higher education
institutions’ issues with defining and creating globalization industry-wide by devising a
list of indicators filtered through the perspectives of the academic scorecard that will
assist global universities with promoting the mission and vision of globalization in higher
education. Higher education institutions will not only have a list of indicators of global
engagement, but also a scale that can be utilized to assist universities with creating a
global environment, curriculum and organization. Because of the considerable
institutional diversity in higher education, a study such as this one provides a way to
represent that diversity into meaningful, analytically manageable categories (McCormick
19

& Zhao, 2005). With so many institutions, governments and agencies seeking to create
world-class global universities, this study provides a foundation for a globalization
scorecard model that can be used industry wide to create a new system of international
cooperation and collaboration. This study also reflects conventional wisdom in a manner
that is useful and functional to universities around the globe.
The overall goal of this study was to provide institutions with a substantial way of
measuring global engagement. In this manner, institutions are able to implement and
maintain programs and policies that induce globalization and internationalization, and
augment programs, policies and institutional profiles that are counterproductive to this
mission. Institutions benefit because they can use the resulting scale to influence
stakeholders, increase a global profile and collaborate around the globe with peer
organizations. The study provides an exact definition of globalization and how this theme
plays out at the institutional level as well as through faculty and students, government
agencies and other organizations. This study provides higher education institutions with a
means to globalization by establishing parameters for growth and calling for the
establishment of new, globally accessible universities (McCormick & Zhao, 2005). Any
institution seeking to be positively positioned in this new global era will benefit from this
study. Overall, the study provides a clear definition of globalization and concrete
indicators of global engagement.
Limitations
The limitations of this study are time and geography. The researcher was limited
to a predetermined amount of time to collect and analyze the data. Also, the study
focuses on comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities
20

with global academic and research standards, common values and similarities in
organization and management, which do not reflect the full spectrum of types and
categories of higher education institutions represented globally. Data collection was
limited to institutions and persons with whom the researcher had an existing relationship
as well as to whom the researcher was referred during the process. Also, though pertinent
to fully understanding the study, ways to operationalize the indicators of global
engagement at universities were not pursued during the current study, due to time and
research constraints. These factors limit the scope and breadth of the current study.
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study are type of institution being studied and that the
intention of the study was to create a scale of global engagement using a list of indicators
of globalization at universities. Further studies will be needed to use further develop the
scale and indicators into a globalization scorecard, whereas the creation of the list of
indicators is the goal of the present study. Two-year institutions are not the focus in this
study though the use of the study for two-year institutions, specialized schools, for profit
institutions, tribal colleges and historically black colleges and universities can be implied.
The focus of this study is explicitly stated and does not infer a broad and unlimited use.

21

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Many higher education institutions’ missions make the claim that they are global
organizations producing global citizens. Understanding exactly what that means is a
worthwhile pursuit. This literature review investigates the indicators of global
engagement at universities to understand how these indicators affect institutional
programs and profiles. This review of literature identifies previous research that details
globalization and its impact on institutions, especially those that wish to increase their
global profiles. The inferences drawn from the studies demonstrate the importance of
creating a scale of global engagement and list of globalization indicators that universities
can use to compare globalization efforts relative to other institutions. The data gained
from this literature review is fundamental to understanding the impact and effects of
globalization in higher education. The following is a literature review that details
globalization, the uses, risks and benefits of rankings in higher education, and the need
for a scale of global engagement at universities.
The first sections of this literature review are dedicated to defining globalization
in general as well as globalization as it pertains to higher education. The following
sections define and describe the indicators used to effectively measure global
engagement at universities and enhance global profiles and programs. The purpose of this
review is to provide a solid, literature-based foundation through which a list of indicators
of globalization is created that provides information for institutions to determine levels of
global engagement and interaction. This review focuses on the denotation and
connotation of globalization, both in the general sense and with regard to higher
education. A review of the literature depicts a breadth of research surrounding the topics
22

of institutional global engagement and tactics, higher education rankings, and indicators
of globalized universities; however, there is a lack of synthesis of these themes where a
scale of global engagement can be created that can inform institutional practice. The
creation of a common, standard list of indicators of global engagement was viewed
through the lens of “Designing and Implementing an Academic Scorecard” (O’Neil,
Bensimon, Diamond, & Moore, 1999) and Qiang’s (2003) “Internationalization of
Higher Education: towards a conceptual framework.”
Defining Globalization
Before investigating the impact of globalization in higher education, it is critical
to examine globalization in the larger sense of economic, political and social factors and
influences because understanding globalization on a large scale will help in identifying
globalization at higher education institutions. Scott (2000) clarifies that globalization
cannot be seen as a higher form of internationalization; it is a much more turbulent
phenomenon that not only transcends but ignores national boundaries. Kwiek describes
globalization as the cessation of national identity as the most important social glue and
that the production, cultivation and inculcation of national identity cease to be crucial
social tasks (2001). This is important because it implies that national borders cease to be
important in globalization and that the worldwide distribution of products and services
are not bound by national boundaries and perimeters. Altbach (2002, 2004, 2007) defines
globalization as a key feature in knowledge industries, citing its implications in
communication, marketing, strengthening the global labor force, the use of English as a
widespread medium for communication, and increasingly advanced training in many
fields. For the purposes of this review of literature, Altbach’s (2002, 2004, 2007)
23

definition will serve as the author’s definition of globalization, used inclusive of the
meaning and connotation of internationalization.
Globalization is the integration of economic, social, and political forces in order
to advance efficiency, collaboration and multinational cooperation. The forces of
globalization are refashioning economic structures and lifestyles, and, in addition, are
also challenging the authority of the nation-state, penetrating deeply into the private
world of informal associations, communities, and families as well as into personal
identities (Scott, 2000). This is important because globalization is shifting business and
industry, as well as higher education, into an era of post-modernism that requires a shift
in perceptions, practices and policies. Armstrong (2007) describes globalization as a
process in which modularization of production (from concept through sales) is joined
with state-of-the-art information technology and decreasing national trade boundaries to
enable an optimization of production and distribution. He further explains that
globalization builds on process modularization and the ability to find partners somewhere
in the world who can furnish needed modules with the desired price and quality (2007).
This means that, with the evolution of technology coupled with the need to find a
provider of products and services around the globe, a new global business model is
emerging that is transcending traditional national identity and alliances.
In recent years, globalization has been the driving force of the world economy,
production processes, information technology and diminishing national borders and
boundaries to optimize production and distribution. This is often confused with
internationalization. Internationalization conjures a world of diplomatic exchanges and
international agencies in which the interests of ex-colonial and super powers still linger,
24

while globalization conjures the world of the Internet, mass tourism and global popular
culture. Globalization reflects the global competitiveness between great markets, but also
intensified collaboration and the development of a global division of labor (Scott, 2000).
This implies that, in a culture driven by marketization and privatization, a new global era
is incurring changes across social norms and customs, business and economic forces.
New cultural, social, political, and economic surroundings are being brought about by
globalization (Kwiek, 2001). Globalization is affecting society across the board, and
international business and political practices are transforming in the face of it.
Globalization is described as economic, political and societal forces inducing
international involvement beyond borders in the twenty-first century (Altbach, 2002).
This cross-border consideration affects all levels of society and is pushing toward new
ways of thinking, communicating and doing business. Globalization is both inevitable
and unstoppable, and much of it is positive. This is an entirely new era of power and
influence. Multinational corporations, media conglomerates, and even some major
universities are the new neocolonialists – seeking to dominate, not for ideological or
political reasons but rather for commercial gain (Altbach, 2002). Globalization has
become a business practice, both in corporate and personal circles. The world is moving
toward internationalization by using the energies of academe and responding to market
needs (2002).
Globalization and Education
Within the last century, developed societies experienced social and economic
changes leading to globalization. It has been argued that globalization, the Internet and
the scientific community will level the playing field in the new age of knowledge
25

interdependence (Altbach, 2004). This means that, through a shared economy and
culture, influences from around the world can converge and diverge in innumerable
ways. Altbach argues that all of the contemporary pressures on higher education, from
the pressures of massification to the growth of the private sector, are the results of
globalization. Countries that use the English language benefit from the increasingly
widespread use of English for science and scholarship. Developing countries will be
greatly affected by globalization, as they will experience the bulk of higher education
expansion in the coming decades (2004). Globalization has become the modus operandi
of the 21
st
century, and will continue to affect social and educational engagement for
many years to come.
Because of these changes, the parameters of economic and socioeconomic
attainment and opportunities have transformed throughout the world. Armstrong argues
that globalization has had an enormous impact over the past few decades on most major
components of the world economy, and global opportunities and challenges will be
multiplying rapidly in the near future (2007). The push is toward finding the best
provider of goods and services, wherever in the world they may be. This is important
because it promotes interaction on a multinational scale and constructs partnerships and
collaborations that allow for ease of communication and cooperation. Armstrong
continues by saying new markets have been opened, ownership of domestic corporations
has been dispersed globally, and the organizational structure of business has changed
radically as well (2007). These changes have now come upon higher education, and are
challenging institutions to keep up with the new global business economy.
26

Educational systems have expanded in response to the requirements of society
and education plays an important role in the globalization process. Globalization is the
context of economic and academic trends that are part of reality of the 21
st
century
(Altbach & Knight, 2007). Universities see the importance of fully embracing the global
movement and moving toward a more global perspective. Altbach and Knight (2007)
further point out the results of globalization include 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 multinational
and technological publishing, and the use of information technology. This means current
thinking sees international higher education as a commodity to be freely traded and sees
domestic higher education as a private good, not a public responsibility. Commercial
forces, therefore, have a legitimate or even dominant place in higher education (2007).
This is pertinent because there are many justifications and motivations for this move
toward globalization in higher education. In addition, with the market pushing toward
globalization, higher education must follow.
What is a Global University?
The higher education system has begun to acknowledge the trend of globalization
through sweeping changes to structures and programs within institutions. A new form of
university is emerging: the global university. Wildavsky (2010) states that, in the world
of business, the globalization trend is so well known as to be cliché, but the globalization
of universities is equally important and has, perhaps, even more far-reaching
consequences. This trend has prompted institutions to create global initiatives,
partnerships and programs that mirror the efforts of multinational corporations. For a
27

burgeoning number of universities, national boundaries have become largely irrelevant
and few parts of the world have been untouched by the new university globalization
(2010). The global university represents an acceptance of worldwide academic
interaction and performance, which will change the configuration and constitution of the
modern university. Wildavsky explains the worldwide competition for human talent, the
race to produce innovative research, the push to extend university campuses to multiple
countries, and the rush to produce knowledgeable and creative graduates who can
strengthen increasingly knowledge-based economies are all trends that are hugely
beneficial to the entire world (2010). This means the emerging global university, unlike
its post-modern predecessor, is becoming less of a personal benefit or public good and
more of a worldwide responsibility.
In response to societal and social changes throughout the world, the concept of
the global university has emerged and is leading changes in educational structures and
policies which focus on creating global institutions and developing global citizens.
Rossman (1991) posits the global research university of tomorrow is emerging without
much notice. It is taking shape as an electronic exchange of information and courses,
with students, lecturers, and researchers in many countries connected via satellite, slow-
scan television, computer networking, and other advanced communications. The global
university started with shared information and has now moved into the sharing of human
resources and curricula. Rossman (1991) further asserts that higher education still fails to
recognize how much is falling apart in modern society, and so many of our institutions
are failing because humanity’s most-fundamental problems are now global and can be
solved only on a global basis. Because no one yet knows the shape, direction, and future
28

of the emerging global university, something remarkable is beginning to take place: a
future style of global-scale research can be coordinated for large-scale problem solving
and can better serve a space-age society (1991). This large-scale cooperation is pushing
academics well into the future as a model of variation and partnership.
A global university is characterized by its replication of enterprise and corporate
entities, human resources, consumerism and the use of modern technology. Technology
is so advanced, and developing so rapidly, that it sometimes gives the impression that
education has entered a phase that is qualitatively different from what existed in the past
(Croxford, 2001). This means that the ease of delivering instruction, of communicating
and sharing, as well as travelling to other countries is cultivating a new form of higher
education. Being terrestrial, these institutions obviously bring with them human
populations. Each group reflects the mores of its own society; it introduces the
assumptions of its own culture (2001). Thus, the institution influences and is influenced
by human interaction and personal development, entrepreneurship and technological
advances.
Higher education institutions that claim to be global must push to make
programmatic and structural changes in how they are managed, organized, governed,
administered and generally considered. Buarque (2004) says that globalization will
eliminate the frontiers between universities. The 21
st
century university will not have
walls or a physically defined campus; the 21
st
century university will be open to the
entire planet. This surmises that the university of the future is universally tied to all
universities (2004). This does not imply that becoming a global university means going
digital, but implies that the university in its new iteration will support an era of
29

massification. The reality of the world’s social situation and the dynamic advancements
made in terms of information, knowledge and new communication and education
techniques have made the need for a revolution in the concept of the university quite
clear. Almost eight and a half centuries have passed and the university finds itself in the
middle of a technological revolution in a world divided internationally. The university is
in need of a revolution (2004). This implies that the globalization of higher education is
one of the next logical steps in the development of universal education and academia.
Global universities have the responsibility of redefining themselves and their
partnerships and collaborations. Gilroy (2007) writes that the overall attempt to define
and quantify globalization in higher education is overdue. Despite the controversy about
which colleges rank in what order, there is merit to examining the common
characteristics of truly global colleges and universities (Gilroy, 2007). This implies a
necessity of identifying and qualifying institutions as global in a more standardized
manner with results that can be used to benchmark global indicators. Gilroy continues to
write that global institutions attract international students for research and study, they
encourage their students to study abroad, and their faculty members globalize the
curriculum through a variety of means, including the technology of the Internet and
distance education (2007). The most important component of a global college is the
makeup of the student population. To be truly global, an institution must seek and
welcome students from around the world who bring different cultures and values to
campus (2007). This is critical because globalization in higher education serves as
adhesive that binds culture, creativity and communication in a world that, until recently,
has been polarized by national borders and boundaries.
30

As the process of globalization of higher education endures, more devices for
computing global engagement will emerge. Fischer (2011) argues that few institutions
have effective mechanisms for tallying and monitoring their international activities and
agreements, leaving them with an incomplete picture of their own global engagement.
This type of data is crucial to an institution’s ability to create effective programs and
partnerships, track student information and activity and identify their academic influence
throughout the world. This inability to fully describe their overseas activities means
universities often cannot make the most of their relationships abroad (2011). Many of
these institutions fall short of realizing the potential of their global programs and
activities. Fischer concludes that having a comprehensive view of institutional global
activities will be invaluable. In addition, compiling data in a form that can be widely
shared and aggregated could also facilitate a more coordinated and sophisticated national
strategy for international education, in the United States and elsewhere (2011). This was
the purpose of the current study, to create such a scale that will assist institutions with
collecting and quantifying such data.
Institutions of higher education must amplify themselves to meet the demands
and needs of a global/space age; the “universe” in university must be emphasized
(Rossman, 1991). This means that colleges and universities must look outside of the
constraints of nation-states and embrace the global, integrative aspects of humanity and
space age technology. University students develop academically, personally, culturally
and physically during traditional college years. Universities are in charge of developing
global citizens and a dynamic labor force for the world. Blossfield and Shavit (1993)
consider how industrialization, bureaucratization, and the expansion of the state did not
31

occur in isolation from changes in the educational system. This means changes in the
class structure and the upgrading of the occupational distribution have increased the
demand for better education. The progressive rationalization and bureaucratization of
working life have enhanced the value of educational and skill qualifications for job
opportunities (1993). Universities are expanding to meet the objectives of a global age,
where opportunities are limitless and boundaries cease to exist.
There are many ways through which a university becomes a global institution.
Global institutions enroll international students, encourage their students to study abroad,
and globalize their curriculum through technology, research and distance education
(Gilroy, 2007). These are the benchmarks upon which global universities are created and
maintained. In 2001, Levin argued that globalization is a scholarly concern. As a
scholarly matter, globalization is both a concept and a process. Globalization suggests the
drawing together of disparate locations and the compression of time (2001). Finally,
globalization intensifies social and political relationships and heightens economic
competition. In this manner of defining globalization, it becomes inextricably linked to
education programs, policies and processes. Unlike earlier forms of globalization, such as
19
th
century imperialism, the form of globalization in the past two decades has been
propelled by electronic technology and the movement of people, specifically migration.
This means that globalization is a heuristic, an avenue for uncovering organizational
behaviors; it is an amalgam of a process that blends external pressures upon the
institution and institutional responses to these pressures. Globalization leads to the ways
in which organizational players react to forces greater than themselves and the ways in
which these forces play out in their organization (Levin, 2001). In sum, globalization,
32

with its varied characteristics and meanings, enhancement of time and space, and
influence on organizational plans and behaviors, is creating a new form of 21
st
century
education, as well as being influenced by education and educational factors around the
globe.
The world’s social circumstances and advancements made in information,
knowledge, communication and pedagogical techniques have created a need for
innovation in the concept of the global university. Deem, Mok and Lucas find that, in
order to enhance their global competitiveness, governments in Europe and Asia have
started to conduct comprehensive reviews and implement plans to restructure their higher
education systems, with attempts to transform their higher education systems in the
image of “world class university” (2008). While the concept of world-class university
does not necessarily mean an institution is global and vice versa, the move toward reform
and improvement can be attributed to globalization in higher education. With strong
intentions to perform well in global university rankings, universities in Europe and Asia
have adopted different reform measures to enhance their research performance (2008).
University ranking and league tables are becoming highly influential in shaping how
contemporary universities are governed and what core activities they undertake,
especially as many universities worldwide come under pressure to become more
entrepreneurial (Deem, Mok & Lucas, 2008). This means that, as institutions broaden
their outlook and outreach, these concepts are being inventoried and their
accomplishments with regards to globalization enumerated.
The notion of a great university is broadening to include globalization. Further,
institutions need to decipher what being a global university means. Fischer (2009) argues
33

that multinational corporations have no trouble describing their international activities.
But while many American universities, research universities in particular, boast an
increasingly complex web of international work, few have effective mechanisms in place
to tally and monitor these efforts (2009). This is important because it leaves the
universities with an incomplete picture of their own international engagement and
agenda. There exists a need to create a scale of global engagement based on indicators of
globalization so that this era of globalization can be documented and ushered through
using efficient and effective tactics that can propel higher education into the coming
centuries.
The forces of globalization not only increase the prominence and placement of an
institution on the world stage, but also affect economic structures and lifestyles,
challenge the authority of government and governmental forces, and permeate into our
associations, communities, families and personal identities (Scott, 2000). This means the
influence, idea and designation of the global university are now infusing many different
levels of society. Sternberg articulates that our nation needs to broaden what “greatness”
in a university means. The concept of greatness needs to be expanded to a
multidimensional notion, not just a notion of one-dimensional rankings as appear in
certain magazines (2010). A consummate observation and denotation that fully
determines institutional globalization and global engagement is critical at this point. If
institutions want to transform a global society, then they must engage it on a more
holistic level.
Global education suggests drawing together divergent locations, strengthening
social and political relationships, and enhancing economic competition. Armstrong
34

(2007) explains that most higher education institutions were created in response to local
needs, typically with funding from individuals of the area or local (or state) government
because they initially served students from the surrounding region primarily. Supportive
local and national governmental policies (direct funding, tax benefits) were critical to the
survival of the institution, with the result that the interests of the institution ultimately
aligned to a significant degree with that of the government (2007). This place-based
identity (Armstrong, 2007) is changing to a global identity, which is much more coveted
in the 21
st
century. This type of hub-and-spoke international activity (2007) is giving rise
to more multinational programs and partnerships. Thus, governmental entities and
funding sources are now looking to higher education for ways to meet the demands of
globalization.
Indicators of Global Engagement
Considering global rankings and literature on globalization in higher education,
several distinct indicators are prominent. These include international students and faculty,
study abroad programs, international curricula, structures for global engagement,
funding, awards, fellowships, international partnerships and international research
collaboration. Although this is not an exhaustive list of all the indicators of global
engagement, it is important to identify such indicators because, in order to measure
globalization in higher education, these indicators represent the critical criteria for
determining global engagement. The same forces of globalization that have shaken up
almost every sector of the economy have greatly intensified competition and mobility in
higher education (Wildavsky, 2010), which means that the forces enumerated through the
aforementioned indicators serve as guideposts and signals of globalization among higher
35

education institutions. The progress of these new and improved universities is being
measured, inevitably, by a burgeoning set of national and global college scorecards
modeled in whole or part on the success of the controversial college rankings (2010). It is
pertinent to parse out these indicators and measure them individually and in totality in
order to truly define and describe the modern global university.
Current trends in measuring global engagement and initiatives in higher education
rely on global rankings, literature by authors and experts in the field, and review of
contemporary practices in developing global institutions. Ben Wildavsky (2010) notes,
for a burgeoning number of universities, national boundaries have become largely
irrelevant. This implies that, even at universities where neither significant mobility of
students and faculty nor a satellite campus exists, the influence of globalization is
unmistakable through the movement of ideas. The United States’ market share, while
likely to remain formidable for years, is slowly but surely eroded by increased
competition from overseas universities, not only in the west, notably Australia and Great
Britain, but also in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Japan, and China (2010). This fact
has created the need for quantification of the current globalization effect. The goal should
be to chronicle and analyze the growing globalization trends in higher education and the
components entailed: the ever-more-intense recruitment of students and faculty; the swift
spread of branch campuses; the well-financed efforts to create world-class universities,
whether by upgrading existing institutions or by building brand-new ones; the innovative
efforts by online universities and other for-profit players to fill unmet needs in higher
education markets around the globe; and the closely watched rankings by which everyone
keeps score (Wildavsky, 2010). This is important because globalization has become the
36

beacon of how interaction and other crucial experiences on higher education campuses
are refining the postsecondary learning experience.
Wildavsky (2010) concludes that there is a constellation of reasons why this is so:
the quest to build knowledge-based economies that has led so many governments to
scramble to improve their higher education systems; the notion that a well-educated
person today must be exposed to ideas and people without regard to national boundaries;
the enormous student demand for foreign degrees; the financial attraction for many
Western universities of overseas students who pay full freight; the prestige that many
colleges seek in international initiatives as they begin seeing themselves as global rather
than purely local players; and the practical fact that better communication and faster,
cheaper transportation allow people to teach, study, collaborate, and compete across
national borders as never before.
World-Class Universities
The image of the world-class university is spawning more studies and
comprehensive research in an attempt to standardize what it means to be a global
university. Although a world-class university does not necessarily have to be a global
university, the indicators of world-class connote many of the same ideals and indications
as global institutions. Kim and Nam (2007) suggest that, in response to the globalizing
economy, many developing countries have been paying serious attention to building
world-class universities and that a major strategy for world-class research universities is
major higher educational reform projects to cultivate the creative and high-quality human
resources necessary for a knowledge-based society. They further posit that higher
education in today’s society has gone beyond the stages of elite education and mass
37

education and has entered the stage of universal education (2007). This means that there
are several important conditions that a world-class university requires that mirror that of
global universities including excellence in research by top-quality scholars, institutional
autonomy, academic freedom, adequate facilities for academic work, and long-term
public funding. Global connection and cooperation are also critical elements for creating
a world-class university; making a university world-class requires qualitative rather than
just quantitative advancement (2007).
The idea of a global university can be standardized and used to help institutions
benchmark themselves against their peers when coupled with information from rankings
and input from experts. Research shows that, through synthesis, the idea of a globalized,
world-class institution emerges. Deem, Mok and Lucas (2008) state that, in order to
enhance their global competitiveness, governments in Europe and Asia have started to
conduct comprehensive reviews of and implement plans to restructure their higher
education systems, with attempts to transform their higher education systems in the
image of “world-class” university. With intentions to perform well in the Global
University Ranking, they have adopted different reform measures to enhance their
research performance (2008). This implies that, with intentions to enhance their global
competitiveness, governments and universities in Asia have taken university-ranking
exercises very seriously. In order to enhance the international competitiveness of Chinese
universities in the globalizing world, the Chinese government has implemented a few
major projects such as the “211 Project” and the “985 Programme” to enable some higher
education institutions to become world-class universities (2008).
38

Project 211, which was launched in 1994, was initiated by the Chinese State
Council and Ministry of Education to develop 100 leading universities in research,
teaching and learning and to cultivate key fields of study important in 21
st
century higher
education (Morris, 2008). Project 211 universities receive additional funding from the
ministry and sometimes from provincial and municipal governments. Morris (2008)
states the quest for world-class university status generates a range of challenges with
aspects of higher education such as quality assurance and improvement, structural
diversification, social equity, financial aid, and faculty development. The commitment to
improvement in Chinese education is evident through Project 211. Through Project 211,
34 of the 100 universities were recognized as highly research-oriented universities
(2008). This identification led to the 985 Programme, which provides major financial
support with the purpose of developing a limited number of world-class research
universities in China. Project 985 was launched in May 1998 with Peking University and
Tsinghua University designated as two of the earliest to receive funding from the
program (Morris, 2008). This list was later expanded to nine universities, all acquired
from the top of the list of 34 highly research-oriented universities in Project 211 (2008).
Deem, Mok and Lucas (2008) examined this quest for world-class status of universities
and explored the developing discipline of world rankings for research and other
performance indicators and some of the problems involved in such rankings. They
conclude that globalization processes are very complex, often contradictory and do not
lend themselves easily to over-simplification (2008).
Globalization in higher education is not just a matter of students crossing borders;
it is the cross-pollination of educational theory and practice, diversity of thought and
39

culture, the sharing of ideas and collaboration on a worldwide scale (Altbach, 2004).
Horn, Darwin and Fry collected data from public sources for 19 indicators of
internationalization pertaining to student characteristics, scholar characteristics, research
orientation, curricular content, and organizational support. These data were standardized,
weighted by a panel of experts, and summed to yield an overall internationalization index
score for each institution (2007). Based on Mestenhauser’s systems perspective portrayal
of key learning domains of international education and perspectives through which the
domains can be examined, Horn, et al. (2007), derived five rubrics by combining learning
domains and variables relevant to research institutions. These learning domains are
composed of international studies and relations; area studies; foreign languages;
international dimensions of academic disciplines; educational exchanges; development
contracts and interuniversity agreements; and organization, administration, policy,
governance, and financing. Each domain is examined through several perspectives or
variables, such as stakeholders, scope of international education, education and context
(2007).
Globalization requires institutions to embrace openness, to review their programs
and policies for quality assurance and degree confidence, as well as access and equity for
a diverse population (Economist Intelligence Unit/British Council, 2010). The British
Council and Economist Intelligence Unit tracked a 59% increase in student mobility in
the years 2000 through 2007. However, they advise that the globalization of higher
education is not just about students crossing borders. Their approach to globalization is
that it is a complex process that no single measure can capture, so they use the policy
index, student mobility rankings and transnational education and research collaboration
40

indicators to formulate an analytical framework, absolute and relative analyses, and fill
data gaps (2010). Their goal is to examine the national policy frameworks in place to
engage with the internationalization of education. Their structure includes openness,
quality assurance and degree recognition, access and equity. Each category is equally
weighted and each indicator within the categories is equally weighted (2010).
There is a need in higher education for a dynamic and comprehensive
measurement and management tool which utilizes an institution’s depth and breadth of
international agreements, activities and collaborations to further develop and emphasize
changes in global interaction among universities. Wildavsky (2010) states worldwide
rankings have come to be the arbiters of how well universities are faring in the global
pecking order. These rankings have garnered scorn and influence in roughly equal
measure. Their methodologies are often critiqued for significant shortcomings.
Universities and nations often cite their progress, or lack thereof, in these global
standings, either to trumpet their success or to justify their demands for greater resources.
This is important because rankings are clearly not going away, but it seems inevitable–
and desirable–that they will be considerably refined and improved (2010). This reliance
on rankings calls for change in the way globalization is calculated and moderated. Higher
education has become a form of international trade – and the beneficial principles of free
trade should be applied to scholarly exchange just as to other parts of the global economy
(2010).
World Rankings
When examining global universities, it is useful to consider international rankings
of universities as they provide a framework from which indicators of global engagement
41

can be culled. Although most outfits that do rankings get criticized for the relative weight
given to reputation as opposed to objective measures (Jaschik, 2011), they do provide
some effective and usable methods for measuring global engagement. Jaschik asserts that
international rankings of universities are always a hot topic of discussion at gatherings of
academic leaders from around the world (2011). This means that the perceived
importance of these rankings by university presidents and international education experts
calls for a closer look at the uses, benefits and risks of world rankings with regard to
global universities. Jaschik argues that some rankings are built around a formula that
gives credit for performance and policies on a range of issues, including support for study
abroad and international collaboration, and commitment to quality control for programs
that countries operate outside their own borders (2011). These aspects of rankings allow
the researcher to create indicators of global engagement and help to further define the
global university.
Recognizing the differences from institution to institution, rankings are used to
engage the populace and the higher education industry in what is perceived to be
pertinent in higher education and the effect on the greater society. In their 2007
Globalization Index, A.T. Kearney, in a partnership with Foreign Policy magazine, states
that never before have the forces of globalization been so evident in our daily lives. The
A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index tracks and assesses changes in four
key components of global integration, incorporating measures such as trade and
investment flows, movement of people across borders, volume of international telephone
calls, Internet usage, and participation in international organizations (2007). This is
important because the effects of our supposedly flattened world are undeniable. The
42

inevitable push and pull of globalization plays out in the index’s rankings, which
incorporate indicators such as trade, foreign direct investment, participation in
international organizations, travel, and Internet usage to determine rankings of countries
around the world. The index measures twelve variables, which are grouped into four
baskets: economic integration, personal contact, technological connectivity, and political
engagement. The index concludes that it may take several years to see if globalization
and good intentions can make the world a little bit flatter; globalizing is a matter of
necessity (2007).
When eradicating the borders in higher education, rankings play crucial roles in a
global system driven by information, knowledge, technology and ideas. The assessment
from the National Research Council offers a collection of data on over 5,000 doctoral
programs in 62 fields at 212 universities in the United States, including information on
faculty research productivity, institutional support for students, and the diversity of
faculty and students, among other characteristics called the National Academy Press
Ranking (2010). This means that the large dataset enables university faculty,
administrators, and funders to compare, evaluate, and improve programs, while
prospective students can use the data to help identify programs best suited to their needs.
Universities are able to update important data on a regular basis, so that programs can
continue to be evaluated and improved. The assessment illustrates how the data can be
used to rank the quality of programs based on the importance of particular characteristics
to various users (2010). The assessment offers data for each program on 20
characteristics collected through questionnaires sent to doctoral faculty, heads of doctoral
programs, administrators and students. Data on these 20 characteristics also served as the
43

basis for illustrative rankings. These illustrative rankings are not to be interpreted as
definitive conclusions about the relative quality of doctoral programs, nor does the
National Research Council endorse them as such. However, they demonstrate how the
data can be used to rank programs based on the importance of particular characteristics to
various users (2010).
Rankings provide indicators for global engagement, which are vital to developing
a system of gauging this newly created global higher education system. The Times
Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Ranking for 2010-2011
proclaims to be the most exact and relevant world rankings yet devised using in-depth
consultation with the global academic community. Higher education institutions are
extraordinarily complex organizations that do many life-changing and paradigm-shifting
things that cannot be measured. Many of the proxies commonly used are less than
satisfactory (2010). Despite inherent limitations, the tables represent a comprehensive
and sophisticated exercise undertaken to provide transparent, rigorous and meaningful
global-performance comparisons for use by university faculty, strategic leaders, policy
makers and prospective students (2010). The tables use 13 separate indicators designed to
capture a broad range of activities, from teaching and research to knowledge transfer
brought together in five broad categories: teaching, research, citations, industry income,
and international mix (2010). This means the university is a dominant participant in a
system of globalization driven by knowledge, information and ideas. Borderless
partnerships are flourishing as never before, improving learning and lives in dramatic
ways (2010).
44

One of the major limitations of using rankings to define global engagement is the
use of opinion and reputation instead of strictly defined metrics and measurements that
are more comprehensive and objective. Dwyer (2010) explains how Maclean’s, a ranking
of Canadian universities, places universities in one of three categories, recognizing
differences in types of institutions: levels of research funding, the diversity of offerings,
and the range of graduate and professional programs. In each category, Maclean’s ranks
the institutions on performance indicators in six broad areas, allocating weight to each
indicator (Dwyer, 2010). The magazine does not rank schools with fewer than 1,000 full-
time students, those that are restrictive due to a religious or specialized mission, newly
designated universities or those that are not members of the Association of Universities
and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). Maclean’s ranks and weighs schools in students and
classes, faculty, resources, student support, library, and reputation (2010). With an
emphasis on reputation–20% of final score–the ranking places emphasis on subjective
data.
Because higher education is entering a new global education era, rankings and
measurements are integral to the globalization concept and process. The Academic
Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), first published in 2003 by the Center for
World-Class Universities and the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, China uses six indicators to rank world universities, including the number of
alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited
researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in Nature and
Science journals, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index – Expanded and
Social Sciences Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an
45

institution. Although the initial purpose of ARWU was to find the global standing of the
top Chinese universities, it has attracted attention from universities, governments and
public media worldwide (2011). ARWU and its content have been widely cited and
employed as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as
facilitating reform and setting new initiatives. In 2009, ARWU started being published by
Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, an independent organization with the goal of providing
various global comparisons and in-depth analyses on research universities and supporting
decision making by national governments and universities in the global context (2011).
Universities are ranked by several indicators of academic or research performance,
including quality of education, quality of faculty, research output, and per capita
performance. Scores for each indicator are weighted to arrive at a final overall score for
an institution (2011). Based on the results of this and other rankings, institutions of
higher education promote themselves to stakeholders as globalized, world-class
institutions of higher learning.
Rankings, though sometimes highly criticized, are becoming points of reference
for institutions and educational leaders in the quest for global engagement in higher
education. Wildavsky deduces that these rankings are increasingly taking new forms as
they are refined to capture vital elements of the university experience (2010). This is
important because the detailed attention to rankings provides insight into the structure
and appearance of global universities and postulate methods by which institutions and
their leaders can claim to be global. Wildavsky posits it may well be that the best route
toward widespread participation in the new generation of national and global rankings
and assessments is the Consumer Reports model (2010). This means that even with
46

constant criticism, rankings are still used as benchmarks of institutional effectiveness and
influence. Through this study, the researcher attempts to use rankings to assist in devising
indicators of globalization in higher education and, thus, defining the global university.
Theoretical Frameworks
Designing and Implementing an Academic Scorecard
Globalization is a multifaceted process, and each facet needs to be scrutinized and
monitored in the context of each institution and the perception of engagement between
and within institutions. Using O’Neil, Bensimon, Diamond and Moore’s “Designing and
Implementing an Academic Scorecard” (1999) helps to establish four perspectives of
globalization. The academic scorecard is based on the balanced scorecard of Kaplan and
Norton (1992). The balanced scorecard linked performance measures with the behavior
of managers and employees. The balanced scorecard shows how results are achieved
using four perspectives: 1) The customer perspective (How do customers perceive us?) 2)
The internal business perspective (What must we excel at?) 3) Innovation and learning
perspective (Can we continue to improve and create value?) and 4) Financial perspective
(How do we look to shareholders?) (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). The academic scorecard
adapted the balanced scorecard and its perspectives to fit the business model of higher
education. This study uses the academic scorecard’s perspectives to define operational
measures, internal processes, and an institution’s innovation and improvement activities
(O’Neil, Bensimon, Diamond & Moore, 1999). These perspectives are 1) the academic
management perspective, 2) the internal business perspective, 3) the innovation and
learning perspective and 4) the stakeholder perspective, thus creating the foundation for a
globalization scorecard in the form of a scale of global engagement based on a list of
47

globalization indicators. To create a globalization scorecard, the perspectives may be
further adapted to reflect globalization in higher education. These perspectives were
chosen because of their connection to and importance within higher education. Under
each perspective, several key indicators are listed that lead to the development of goals
and measures of institutional global engagement. O’Neil et al. (1999) conclude it would
not be surprising to discover that use of a scorecard has latent benefits that contribute to
organizational well-being, like conversations that encourage the development of shared
values. In sum, an instrument like the academic scorecard makes it easier for universities
to accomplish strategic goals (1999).
Internationalization of Higher Education: towards a conceptual framework
This new globalization trend obliges scholars to create modes of measuring global
engagement and reconciling important indicators and global/local influences to achieve
more tangible and complex global universities. In addition to the creation of the
foundation of a globalization scorecard through the development of a list of globalization
indicators and a scale of global engagement, Qiang’s (2003) “Internationalization of
Higher Education: towards a conceptual framework” will be used to further define and
categorize indicators and goals that can help to measure global engagement at higher
education institutions. Qiang states that the use of new information and communication
technologies in the delivery of education and the involvement of private actors in this
mean that national borders and the role of national government in education have become
blurred (2003). Qiang’s framework uses approaches to describe the concept of
internationalization. These approaches refer to the stances adopted by persons in
leadership positions towards the promotion and implementation of programs aimed at
48

internationalization (2003). These approaches are: the activity approach, which promotes
curricular activities, student/faculty exchange, technical assistance and international
students; the competency approach, which emphasizes skill development, knowledge,
attitudes and values in students, faculty and staff; the ethos approach, which emphasizes
creating a culture or climate that values and supports intercultural/international
perspectives and initiatives; and the process approach, which stresses integration and
infusion of an international/intercultural dimension into teaching, research and service
(2003).
Qiang also looks at internationalization through a variety of rationales for
integrating an international dimension in higher education. These are the political,
economic, academic, cultural and social rationales. Using Qiang’s (2003) approaches to
internationalization (activity, competency, ethos and process) a more detailed model of
globalization can be created which synthesizes with the academic scorecard’s
perspectives to create a new model for measurement of globalization and perspectives
among institutions. Qiang argues that internationalization must be entrenched in the
culture, policy, planning and organizational process of the institution so that it can be
both successful and sustainable (2003). The use of rationales in Qiang’s framework also
matches the perspectives of the proposed scorecard. Through the political, economic,
academic and cultural/social rationales, a shifting emphasis on the various
rationales/perspectives for internationalization can be observed (2003). The uses and
adaptations of both the academic scorecard and internationalization framework are
discussed in greater detail in chapter three of this study.

49

Summary
Global universities must begin to integrate intercontinental and intercultural
elements and components into the very core of their institutions. McBurnie says
strategies for internationalization and becoming global are central to the shape that the
university has taken and the goals that it has set for the future. The approach taken by the
university is threefold: internationalizing the composition of the student body,
establishing and enhancing a presence overseas, and internationalizing the learning
experience (2000). Becoming global is used as shorthand both for locating operations in
various countries and for increasing the number and the proportion of international
students in the population of the university; matters explored in relation to these activities
include management approaches, academic issues, and quality assurance and
improvement. Key reasons for internationalizing the learning experience include
provision of an attractive set of study options for international and local students;
fostering appropriate skills and outlooks for graduates who will be operating in an
increasingly international workforce; continuing the academic tradition of international
scholarship; and addressing the place of the discipline within the region and the world
(2000). When assessing the quality of a global program, institutions must look at the
breadth of sites, number of international students and faculty, results of quality assurance
programs, student academic performance and outcomes, and financing to name just a few
things that should be considered.
What this means for institutions is they must integrate global competencies and
initiatives into their curricula, research, and student/academic services. Mazzarol, Soutar
and Seng (2003) state several key issues emerge from this discussion that education
50

administrators and host government policy makers who deal with education services
must face. They describe three distinct waves of globalization in education: the first is
students traveling to a host country, the second involved institutions moving into the
export channel through alliances and coalitions and establishing a presence in
international markets through twinning programs, the third wave is described as the
creation of branch campuses and the development of online delivery of courses through
information and communication technologies. At issue, the internationalization of
education services appears to be developing in the same general pattern that has been
found in other industries. They posit it is also important to recognize that educational
institutions that do not move beyond the “first wave” may not fail, but they will need to
differentiate themselves to remain attractive to students who can undertake high quality,
foreign supplied courses in their home country (2003). They further argue that
institutions providing “standard” programs are likely to find it increasingly difficult to
attract “export” students, as they are not providing enough additional value. Institutions
who adopt their “third wave” branch campus model will need to invest substantially (in
financial and human resources terms) before obtaining any return on that investment, an
experience that some present providers know well (2003).
By integrating global engagement into the fabric of the institution, universities
will be able to be economically competitive and environmentally responsible, to increase
diversity, to influence international trade and business, and even to improve relations
between nations, thus improving national security. Globalization reflects global
competitiveness and global markets, involves intensified collaboration and radical
reordering of status quo; it is characterized by mass consumerism and global capitalism,
51

and addresses global challenges, despite national or institutional boundaries (Diamond,
Robison & Gallagher, 2011). Further, internationalization efforts take place across
institutions or other organizations, at the institutional level and at the academic program
level (2011). What the global university movement promises to do, as nations make
sizable investments in education, compete to nurture human capital, and send students
and researchers back and forth to universities around the world, is to go one step further:
from brain drain to brain circulation to what might be called brain growth (Wildavsky,
2010). Nations around the world should move quickly to lower barriers, both practical
and psychological, to provide truly global higher education (2010). The result will be an
altered view of what we consider the global university, and the ways in which
globalization is measured will be modified as well.
52

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Universities around the world have embraced globalization and adapted
internationalization efforts to institutional programs, policies and profiles. There are
many indicators of globalization in higher education, such as student exchange and study
abroad programs, number of international students and faculty, branch campuses,
collaborative research projects, partnerships and distance education programs and
initiatives. These and other elements of globalization in higher education needed to be
identified and enumerated and then quantified in order to determine the effectiveness of
indicators of globalization at universities. The creation of a list of globalization indicators
provides a scale of global engagement institutions can use to gauge the efficiency and
utility of globalization efforts on campus. One goal was to emphasize the importance of
the considerable institutional diversity as well as to be able to make reasonable
comparisons among similar institutions and to contrast them with groups of different
ones (McCormick & Zhao, 2005). Operationally, the scale of global engagement
provides empirical data on the uses and relevance of internationalization indicators at
higher education institutions. Although there is an increasing set of research chronicling
the effects of globalization at universities, there exists a distinct lack of what indicates
and constitutes a global university. The purpose of this study was to create a list of
indicators of global engagement through interviews with university administrators and
organizational executives/experts in the field of globalization and then to triangulate the
data obtained with data from rankings methodologies. The goal was the creation of the
foundation of globalization scorecard through the indicators and resulting scale of global
53

engagement universities can use to determine level of globalization and degree of
internationalization.
Chapters one and two provided an overview of this research study as well as
examination, review and synopsis of prevalent and pertinent literature. The purpose of
this study and of the creation of a scale of global engagement was to identify elements
which play important roles in the globalization of higher education. By investigating data
from globalization experts, gathering input from administrators in higher education, and
compiling information from institutions and authors coupled with the literature, which
includes rankings, frameworks and critiques, a scale of global engagement was created
that institutional leaders and management can use to determine and appraise global
impact and engagement. The study sought to answer the following question:
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at
comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities with
global academic and research standards, common values and similarities in
organization and management?
Administrators at comprehensive, research-oriented, geographically diverse institutions,
and authors/organizational executives at global academic and collaborative organizations
were interviewed about indicators of global engagement. The data collected from this
study provided interpretation and description of indicators as well as suggested
recommendations for campus administrators focused on creating global campus
environments.

54

Research Design
The primary purpose of the study was to provide basic research on the impact of
globalization on higher education institutions. This study was designed to answer
fundamental questions flowing from the impact of globalization on worldwide higher
education and such attempts to form and test theoretical constructs that can be
generalized across institutions (Patton, 2002). This study provided a depth of information
covering indicators of globalization in higher education and the richness of information
obtained from the interviews conducted. The study included universities, global
organizations and entities, and their executives and administrators with the goal of
obtaining an in-depth understanding of the indicators of globalization. This information
can assist institutions in developing and aligning global missions and strategies and
helping them align the two.
The sampling strategies used were maximum variation sampling utilizing
snowball/chain sampling techniques. This form of purposeful sampling was used to
describe and enumerate central globalization indicators that cut across a wide array of
prospective indicators and categories. This type of sampling yielded two types of results:
detailed descriptions of indicators and patterns of utility and importance (Patton, 2002).
Snowball and/or chain sampling assisted the researcher with locating information-rich
cases and critical informants (2002). “Critical informants” describes the participants of
this study who have firsthand, hands-on knowledge of globalization at universities. The
researcher collected data using qualitative methods, which included interviewing
executives/experts in the field of globalization of higher education as well as institutional
administrators. This data was matched with information from rankings methodologies
55

and the data was triangulated using theory triangulation, which provided multiple
perspectives to interpret the set of indicators proposed by the study.
The study also utilized a no control naturalistic inquiry method. Through this
method, the procedures for the selection of participants was determined solely by the
researcher and whatever leads were provided through snowball/chain strategies. This was
done because it provided time convenience, yet in-depth information (Patton, 2002)
focused on answering the research question and creating a scale of global engagement
using qualitative data and content analysis. In this manner, the researcher provided a
three-pronged qualitative strategy: qualitative data, a holistic-inductive design of
naturalistic inquiry, and content analysis (Patton, 2002). Through theory triangulation,
indicators of university globalization were established and a rationale for their
significance to global higher education institutions was created. With this information, a
scale of global engagement has been created that institutions can use to promote global
programs, world citizenship and worldwide connectivity.
The data was collected using rapid reconnaissance, gathered and prepared for
subsequent content analysis and synthesis. Subsequently, the data was examined and
assembled into a preliminary framework for global engagement in higher education.
Professional contacts from institutions of higher education, professors and contacts from
associations provided the researcher with leads and contact information for both experts
in the field of globalization and higher education administrators. This study was
approved by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board.

56

Population and Sample
The population for this study included higher education administrators, experts
and executives in the field of globalization. The sample was comprised of administrators
at five comprehensive, research-oriented, geographically diverse institutions with global
academic and research standards, common values and similarities in organizational
missions and management and five experts and executives at leading global higher
education organizations. This specific sample of administrators was chosen from
universities who are members of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities whose
visions are to promote scientific, educational, and cultural collaboration among global
economies and who seek to promote dialogue and collaboration between academic
institutions in order to become effective players in the global knowledge economy
(Association of Pacific Rim Universities, 2008). The final ratio was five administrators at
geographically diverse, comprehensive institutions and five executives at organizations
focused on global cooperation. The rationale for the sample was that the
universities/organizations embody a commitment to global academic and research
standards (APRU, 2008) and recognize that these globalization activities can be powerful
catalysts for expanding educational, economic, and technological cooperation (2008).
This sample provided the researcher with both internal and external perspectives on
globalization at universities.
In addition to administrators at the selected universities, the researcher
interviewed global executives at key international organizations. The best data can be
acquired from institutional leadership and globally connected organizations that can
provide a well-rounded view of globalization in higher education. After being collected
57

from institutional administrators, executives and experts, the data was evaluated,
contrasted, and analyzed through the lens of the two theoretical frameworks previously
detailed. Rankings methodology data were used and were most useful in the creation of
indicators of global engagement participants discussed during interviews. Finally,
pseudonyms have been used. Data was secured and stored in the office of the researcher.
Instrumentation
The qualitative research study places the researcher as the research instrument for
data collection. A description and analysis of globalization indicators and their uses was
created and was used to create a scale of global engagement. The researcher collected
data from rankings methodologies, interviews with institutional administrators as well as
experts/executives in the field of globalization. Two interview protocols for
administrators and executives/experts were the primary methods of instrumentation in
this study.
Interview Protocol for Institutional Leaders/Administrators
Interview questions were refined and structured to elucidate responses pertinent to the
perspectives of the academic scorecard (1999) and the rationales and approaches of
Qiang’s Internationalization framework (2003), the theoretical frameworks of this study.
The interviews endeavored to show how administrators, experts and authors theorize
globalization indicators. Further, a goal of the interview protocols was to establish the
degree to which an administrator can use a scale of global engagement. Prior to the
interviews, the researcher operationalized the term globalization for the participants. For
the purpose of this study, globalization is economic, political and societal forces inducing
58

international involvement beyond borders in the twenty-first century (Altbach, 2002).
The following interview questions pertain to the research question:
Table 3.1: Institutional Leaders/Administrators Questionnaire
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at comprehensive, highly
research-oriented, geographically diverse universities with global academic and research standards,
common values and similarities in organization and management?
1. Which aspects of globalization in higher education do you believe are important? What do you
think are the indicators of a global university?

2. (Stakeholder Perspective/Social and Cultural Rationale) What would you like to see happen with
regard to stakeholder perception of the campus as a global institution? Which social and cultural
programs and activities do you think have the most impact?

3. (Internal Business Perspective/Economic Rationale) What is your opinion of global partnerships,
joint ventures and degree programs, and off-shore branch campuses? What would you like to see
happen internally to promote globalization?

4. (Innovation and Learning Perspective/Academic Rationale) Academically, what do you think
about the current levels of international students and faculty and international research
collaboration and what impact do you think these have on the institution as a global university?
What do you believe are the most innovative learning opportunities?

5. (Academic Management Perspective/Political Rationale) What proactive structures for
globalization would you like to see happen? What do you think about the amount of funding
currently being appropriated for global initiatives?
6. (Activity Approach) What activities do you believe will increase institutional global engagement?
7. (Competency Approach) What do you think people need to know, be able to do, and value to
promote globalization?
8. (Ethos Approach) What would you like to see happen within the culture and climate that values
and supports international and intercultural perspectives and initiatives?
9. (Process Approach) What is your opinion of the integration or infusion of international and
intercultural dimensions into teaching, research and service?

Interview Protocol for Experts/Authors/Executives
While attaining the point of view of administrators is crucial for identifying the
indicators of global engagement, understanding how experts and executives identify and
enumerate the indicators is also critical. The purpose of including experts and executives
was to be able to triangulate the data collected with that of the administrators and
59

indicators culled from rankings methodologies. The following interview questions were
developed:
Table 3.2: Experts/Executives Questionnaire
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at comprehensive, highly
research-oriented, geographically diverse universities with global academic and research standards,
common values and similarities in organization and management?
1. What in your opinion constitutes a global university? What are some indicators of a global
university?

2. (Stakeholder Perspective/Social and Cultural Rationale) What impact do you think social and
cultural programs and activities have on students and other stakeholders? What is your opinion of
the importance of the perception of students/stakeholders of an institution as global?

3. (Internal Business Perspective/Economic Rationale) How do you think institutional global
partnerships, joint ventures and degree programs and off-shore branch campuses impact an
institution’s global profile? What do you believe higher education institutions can do to change
their internal business practices to include global initiatives and programs?

4. (Innovation and Learning Perspective/Academic Rationale) What is your opinion of the impact
international students and faculty and international research collaboration has at a global
university? What do you believe are important learning innovations on global campuses?

5. (Academic Management Perspective/Political Rationale) What proactive structures for
globalization would you like to see materialize on college campuses? What would you like to see
happen with regard to prospective funding opportunities for global activities and programs?

6. (Activity Approach) What activities do you believe will promote global engagement at higher
education institutions?
7. (Competency Approach) What do you think administrators, faculty, staff and students need to
know, be able to do, and value to promote globalization on campus?
8. (Ethos Approach) What would you like to see happen within the culture and climate of colleges
and universities that values and supports international and intercultural perspectives and
initiatives?
9. (Process Approach) What is your opinion of the integration or infusion of international and
intercultural dimensions into teaching, research or service?

Data Collection
The researcher collected data through interviews to uncover opinions and
perspectives of indicators of global engagement. This method of data collection allows
for triangulation and identification of common indicators and trends for creation of a
scale of global engagement that can be used to quantify globalization at universities.
60

Patton (2002) states that, through triangulation, multiple methods of data collection and
analysis provides more grist for the research mill. By triangulating with multiple data
sources, observers, methods and/or theories, researchers can make substantial strides in
overcoming the skepticism that greets singular methods, lone analysts, and single-
perspective interpretations (Patton, 2002). Since globalization at universities is based on
diverse perspectives both on and off campus, understanding the indicators of global
engagement requires input from diverse perspectives in order to triangulate data
collected. By comparing and cross-checking the consistency of information gathered
(Patton, 2002), collecting data from rankings methodologies, institutional administrators,
experts and executives, the data was triangulated to develop indicators of global
engagement.
The researcher interviewed five administrators and institutional leaders and five
experts/executives. The resulting data was analyzed using both the academic scorecard’s
four perspectives (1999) and the rationales and approaches of Qiang’s (2003)
Internationalization framework. This data provided the researcher with vital information
to create a list of important indicators of transnational engagement institutions can use to
promote themselves as global. This led to the creation of a list of globalization indicators,
which can be used as a scale of global engagement to discern global impact and
immersion.
Data Analysis
Patton (2002) explains that qualitative analysis transforms data into findings.
After transcribing data from each interview, the resulting records were analyzed and
categorized. The goal was to organize the large amount of data into manageable chunks
61

for analysis. This involved reducing the volume of raw information, sifting trivia from
significance, identifying significant patterns, and constructing a framework for
communicating the essence of what the data reveal (Patton, 2002). The organization and
reporting of this qualitative data was done using analytical framework approaches of
analyzing to illuminate key issues and interview responses being organized question by
question in chapter four of this study. The information obtained was coded to allow
classification and arrangement of the data into significant chunks of patterns and themes.
A pattern, theme and content analysis was conducted. Content analysis was used to refer
to any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that took a volume of
qualitative material and attempted to identify core consistencies and meanings (Patton,
2002).
The researcher looked for recurring regularities in the data. These regularities
were sorted into the categories stakeholder perspective/social and cultural rationale,
internal business perspective/economic rationale, innovation and learning
perspective/academic rationale, and academic management perspective/political
rationale. These categories were then evaluated for internal homogeneity and external
heterogeneity. Through the processes of extension (building on items already known),
bridging (making connections among different items), and surfacing (proposing new
information that ought to fit and verifying its existence) (Patton, 2002), the researcher
then coded and analyzed the data using the perspectives of the academic scorecard (1999)
as well as the rationales and approaches of Qiang’s (2003) Internationalization
frameworks. As interview questions were formed to match the perspectives, approaches
62

and rationales, they were analyzed directly through these aspects to conclude what the
indicators of globalization are at universities.
Validity and Reliability
Patton suggests that it is crucial for validity – and, consequently, for reliability –
to try to picture the empirical social world as it actually exists to those under
investigation, rather than as the researcher imagines it to be, thus the importance of
qualitative approaches of depth interviewing and detailed description (2002). Researcher
bias is a threat to validity and reliability where the researcher’s pre-conceived notions
and understandings can cloud analysis of data. Consideration was made as to how values
and preconceptions may affect what is seen, heard, and recorded in the field, and
wrestled with values, made biases explicit, took steps to mitigate their influence through
rigorous field procedures, and discussed their possible influence in report findings in
chapter four of this study (Patton, 2002). Reactivity was also a threat. This refers to the
influence of the researcher on the setting being studied. Completely value-free inquiry is
impossible (Patton, 2002); the goal of the researcher is to mitigate these influences and
verify the rigor of fieldwork and verifiability of the data collected to minimize bias,
maximize accuracy, and report impartially (2002). The aim was to emphasize empirical
findings with good, descriptive analysis, and not personal perspective or voice.
Acknowledgement is made that some judgment and subjectivity may be introduced.
However, through a triangulation of data, credibility and accuracy will be maintained
(Patton, 2002). Being aware of these threats, the goal was to provide the most objective
and neutral data analysis and objectivity.

63

Limitations
The limitations of this study are time and geography. The researcher was limited
to a predetermined amount of time to collect and analyze the data. Also, the study
focused on comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities
with global academic and research standards, common values and similarities in
organization and management, which do not reflect the full spectrum of types and
categories of higher education institutions represented globally. Data collection was
limited to institutions and persons whom the researcher had an existing relationship with
as well as to whom the researcher was referred during the process. Also, though pertinent
to fully understanding the study, ways to operationalize the indicators of global
engagement at universities were not pursued during the current study due to time and
research constraints. These factors limit the scope and breadth of the current study.
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study are type of institution being studied and that the
intention of the study was to create a scale of global engagement through a list of
indicators of globalization. Further studies will be needed to use the scale, whereas the
creation of the list of global indicators and scale of global engagement is the goal of the
present study. Two-year institutions are not being focused on in this study and the use of
the study for two-year institutions, specialized schools, for profit institutions, tribal
colleges and historically black colleges and universities is implied. The focus of this
study is explicitly stated and does not infer a broad and unlimited use.

64

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study focused on one overarching research question:
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at
comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities with
global academic and research standards, common values and similarities in
organization and management?
The aim was to answer the research question by providing a list of indicators of
globalization at universities delineated by international rankings, institutional leaders and
globalization executives and experts. The interview questions were designed to elicit
responses that further defined the four perspectives of globalization and rationales for
globalization derived from data collection (Figure 4.1, page 74, also Appendix A). The
resulting globalization indicators were then matched to these predetermined categories
according to participants’ responses to the interview protocol. These responses were
organized by priority, based on the highest number of corresponding responses from a
majority of the participants.
This study analyzes the data against the hypotheses presented in chapter three that
the elements of globalization in higher education need to be identified and enumerated
and then quantified in order to determine the effectiveness of globalization indicators at
universities. This study used qualitative inquiry interview data to measure the
effectiveness of global programs, policies and profiles at comprehensive, geographically
diverse universities that share the common goal of becoming world-class universities
engaged on a global level. Additionally, this study looks at a broad range of experiences
of a small number of individuals involved in various aspects of international education in
65

order to provide a deeper understanding of the perspectives, motivations and approaches
to globalization within the sample.
This study defines global engagement by providing a list of indicators of what
constitutes a global university. As globalization trends continue to take hold at the
university level, leaders must be able to differentiate beneficial programs and policies
from rankings-driven ideas and abstract misgivings. Through a series of interviews, the
aspects of globalization that are important to both university administrators and
executives at globally-engaged higher education organizations were fit into various
perspectives and rationales for becoming globalized. Through this analysis, emerging,
collaborative parts of the institutions as adaptive mechanisms that help universities
evolve to meet the demands for new knowledge and knowledge transfer in more original
and timely ways (Frost & Pozorski, 2006) are presented.
Chapter four is organized into three sections: 1) Analysis, 2) Results, and 3)
Discussion. In the Analysis section, the participants are described, background and
demographic information is shared, and there is a description of the interview protocol as
well as a description of the analysis. The Analysis section discusses how the data was
prepared for this study and how it correlates to the data analysis plan discussed in
Chapter 3. Also in the section, there is an analysis of the data regarding the research
question, a discussion of the type of analysis conducted, and conclusions. The ideas that
arose from participants’ responses are discussed. The final section discusses the
importance of the findings in the study.

66

Analysis
Participants
Participant interviews were the primary method used to answer the research
question. Data collection in this study consisted of ten interviews conducted with five
administrators at universities and five executives at globally representative organizations
who meet the requirements of the sample. Data was culled from worldwide and global
university rankings methodologies and league tables, interviews were held with
administrators at globally connected and engaged universities, and another set of
interviews were conducted with executives at global higher education organizations in
order to receive the best and most thorough qualitative data regarding the current surge of
globalization efforts at universities around the world.
The universities and organizations in this study were chosen because of their
student and faculty populations, percentages of international students and faculty,
research orientation, geographic diversity between the institutions, institutional missions
and visions which include the globalization of academic programs and international
research collaboration. These characteristics also included their common embrace of
higher education internationalization, membership in international organizations and
associations, and similarities in size, values, and management. The study sample included
high-level administrators and organization executives tasked with providing their
respective institutions and organizations with effective international engagement and
promoting the image of world-class universities.
Included in the sample of university administrators are five institutional leaders.
Each, at the time of this study, held a position of leadership within globalization or
67

internationalization offices at major, world-renowned institutions that have international
partners, large numbers of international students and faculty, and are located in various
diverse locations around the world. Each university was founded more than one hundred
years ago and has student populations ranging from 32,000 to 54,000. These interviewees
are tasked, as part of their assignments, with managing and maintaining globalization
efforts on campus while simultaneously researching best practices in globalization across
the university spectrum.
The sample of experts and executives of global-centric organizations includes
directors, a president and secretary general of global higher education organizations.
These organizations’ main focus is to observe and advise institutions on how to become
global both as individual institutions and an aggregate of institutions. On the whole, they
provide universities the opportunity to collaborate through association as well as share
information, ideas and institutional strategies. Of the five associations, three are loosely
affiliated with universities, while the other two are stand-alone interactive organizations
that serve as hubs for international academic activity. Two of these organizations are
based within the United States, one is based in the United Kingdom and one in France.
The fifth represents a multinational and worldwide presence, having offices in several
key countries around the world. The importance of including this group of experts in the
data collection and analysis is to get a panoramic view of globalization from the
perspective of associates who are not invested in a singular university’s interests and
motivations.

68

Table 4.1: Sample*
Sample
University
Administrators

Title Organization/Office University Founded
Student
Pop.
Faculty
Pop. Location
1
Vice
President
International Studies
Canada
Southwester
n University
1908 54,000 N/A
Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada
2
Manager
Office of
Internationalization
Victoria
University
1855 47,000 6,500
Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia
3
Director of
Student Life
Student Experience
South
Oxford
University
1824 39,700 5,500
Manchester,
United Kingdom
4
Director Global Studies
Japanese
International
University
1858 33,800 3,000 Tokyo, Japan
5
Vice Provost
Office of
Globalization
University of
Northern
California
1905 32,700 4,000
Bay Area,
California, United
States

Global Executives/Experts

1
Pro-Vice
Chancellor
European Office of
International
Studies
Camelot
University
1881 34,000 N/A
Calverton, United
Kingdom
2
Director
International
University Network
New England
Colonial
College
1863 14,600 740
Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
United States
3
Secretary
General
Center for Global
Curriculum
Orange
University
1861 N/A 650
Orange County,
California, United
States
4
President
International
Organization of
Global Universities
Multiple 1997 N/A N/A
Multinational,
Worldwide
5
Director
Center for Trans-
Global Higher
Education
Multiple 1945 N/A N/A Paris, France
*Pseudonyms used *N/A – Not Available
Once the sample requirements were established, ten institutional leaders and
organization experts responded to requests for interviews. As noted in the above table,
the participants spanned five continents and epitomized a representative sample
conducive to the current study. In order to adequately answer the research question, each
interviewee needed to represent regions and countries from China to the United States,
Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Korea, New Zealand,
Singapore, and Japan. Although not an expansive list, the participants provided a
diversity of perspective that was invaluable in the process of devising a list of indicators
that signify what it means to be a global or world-class university.
69

Description of Analysis
Qualitative analysis turns data into findings (Patton, 2002). Once interview data
for the study were collected and measured comparatively against rankings methodology
data, the data was analyzed through a pure qualitative strategy. This means that
naturalistic inquiry was used, in conjunction with qualitative data, and a content analysis
of the data collected was conducted. Each interview question received responses that
reflected a range of possibilities with regard to the indicators of globalization. The
following analysis highlights the three predominant responses in each of the themes. The
top three responses in each category that emerged from the participants have been
organized into a scale of global engagement framework and discussed in later sections.
The challenge of this type of qualitative analysis lay in making sense of massive amounts
of data. It involved reducing the volume of raw information, sifting trivia from
significance, identifying significant patterns, and constructing a framework for
communicating the essence of what the data revealed (2002).
Interviewees were asked about the indicators of a global university, what social
and cultural programs and activities have the most impact, what internal business
practices could be implemented to promote globalization, what are the most innovative
learning opportunities with regard to international curricula and international research
collaboration, and what proactive structures for globalization exist or should exist on
globally-oriented university campuses. Supplemental questions (Appendix B, pages 119-
120, questions 5-9) focused on the approaches to internationalization and elicited
responses about the activities, competencies, ethos (culture and climate), and processes
that need to be present in order to increase institutional global engagement. The resulting
70

data was content analyzed to identify the patterns of experiences interview participants
bring to their global programs, what patterns characterize their participation within the
programs, and what patterns of change are reported by and observed by the interviewees
(Patton, 2002). This is important because, as the data is content analyzed, strong
correlations in responses were retained and synthesized in order to assimilate the varying
perspectives and geographic, social, and cultural differences of the participants within the
sample. Understanding different perspectives from inside and outside a phenomenon
goes to the core of qualitative inquiry. Experience affects perspective; perspective shapes
experience (2002). It is important to this study that, although the participants are in
different contexts, leadership positions and geographic locations, their responses
overlapped to provide concrete indicators of globalization at universities that are similar
and have common values and consistent management styles and organization.
Data Preparation
The image of the world-class university is germinating at a rapid pace. As these
"new and improved" institutions of higher education are being measured through direct
correlation to popular magazines’, newspapers’ and periodicals’ rankings, it is important
to comprehend what this progress means to the greater global community through a scale
of global engagement model. Using global and worldwide university rankings and league
tables as a guide, aspects of globalization such as study abroad and exchange programs,
numbers of international faculty and students, international research and citation, awards,
grants, certifications, global presence and recognition were frequently mentioned. Less so
were the ideas of branch campuses, dual-degree and other global indicators which could
dilute the brand image. When taking all of these phenomena into mind, it is easy to
71

observe that the global expansion of higher education has been accompanied by myriad
missteps and problems. There are the numerous examples of satellite campuses that have
fallen short of expectations or have been closed; quality problems rooted in the difficulty
of persuading home-campus faculty to venture abroad; and the controversies over free
speech, women's rights, gay rights, and recognition of Israel that have erupted when
institutions such as University of California, Berkeley and New York University have
created new campuses or forged academic partnerships in the Persian Gulf (Wildavsky,
2010). This study prepares universities against these missteps by providing indicators that
assist administrators and governing boards with providing global engagement and
consciousness to their constituents.
Through the inventory and definition of key phrases, terms, and practices that are
distinct in globalization and at comparable, yet geographically-diverse, universities, a set
of perspectives and rationales were matched from the theoretical frameworks in order to
elicit in vivo coded responses. Understanding the indigenous categories that the
interviewees have created to make sense of their world and the practices they engage in
that can be understood only within their worldview (Patton, 2002), emic analysis was
used to search for labels interviewees used to define and describe globalization programs,
policies and profiles at universities. Emic analysis involves analyzing cultural
phenomena from the perspective of one who participates in the culture being studied.
Analyzing such an indigenous practice begins by understanding it from the perspective of
its practitioners, within the indigenous context, in the words of the people, in their
language, within their worldview (Patton, 2002). Through this method, indicators that
effectively measure global engagement at the study sample universities are revealed. An
72

expert noted, “Nobody’s really designed such a [tool]. I have general view that most
colleges don’t know what they’re doing and at the end of the day are not active in it. It’s
a relatively small, mostly elite group at the top that seems to be focusing in a detailed
way.”
Theory/Conceptual Framework
The frameworks for this study are organized into four categories, with indicators
of globalization taken from the literature on the subject and methodologies from
international rankings listed under each category. Once the four perspectives/rationales
for globalization were established, rankings methodology data and literature about the
rankings with regard to globalization were used to list preliminary indicators of
globalization at universities. The following table, Figure 4.1 on page 74, was created as a
preliminary framework of globalization indicators in higher education. The resulting
table, in Figure 4.1, which is reproduced as Appendix A, represents a blending of the
academic scorecard (1999) and Qiang’s framework for internationalization (2003) as a
guide to discovering and confirming the indicators of a global university discussed in the
interviews.
Using the theoretical frameworks of this study as a guide, interview questions
were developed according to the four perspectives/rationales of the study. These are
stakeholder perspective/social and cultural rationale, internal business
perspective/economic rationale, innovation and learning perspective/academic rationale
and academic management perspective/political rationale. The responses to these
questions not only provide an answer to the research question in the form of indicators of
global engagement at universities within each of the categories, but also provide the

73

foundation of a framework for a future globalization scorecard that can be developed
based on the results of this study which can be used to assist institutions that have the
mission of connecting to and engaging with a global community.
In developing codes and categories, the analysis first dealt with the challenge of
convergence – figuring out what things fit together. This was begun by looking for
recurring regularities in the data, and those regularities revealed patterns that were sorted
into categories. The categories were then judged by two criteria: internal homogeneity
and external heterogeneity (Patton, 2002). This was done by processes of extension –
building on items already enumerated through the analysis of rankings methodologies,
bridging – making connections between differing responses from administrators and
experts, and surfacing – proposing new information that ought to fit (2002).

74

Figure 4.1: Framework

What are the indicators of a global university?
As stated in the literature review portion of this study, during the examination of
global universities, it is valuable to consider international rankings, as they provide a
framework from which indicators of global engagement can be culled. However,
rankings can only go so far in the actual definition and description of what constitutes a
global university. “Transparency and accountability in internationalization are not in
place yet. To this end, a set of indicators was developed with relevance to all higher
education institutions. It provides options for comparison on the one hand, but also offers
opportunities for higher education institutions to choose their individual profile of
internationalization. Such a set of indicators ensures both relevance and acceptance in the
community” (Berthold, 2011). As universities operate in an environment of increased
competitiveness and global engagement, focus and attention needs to be placed on the
Theory/Conceptual Framework
75

aspects of internationalization which prove to be beneficial for the university as well as
its stakeholders. This process can shift the perspective of the universities in such a way
that it provides accountability to the students, faculty, alumni, and entire community.
This study created a balanced framework that provides universities with a quick
and easily comprehensible illustration of the activities and means through which global
engagement is achieved. The goal was to create a scale of global engagement based on
indicators of globalization at universities that will “increase the overall performance of
universities in globalization” (Berthold, 2011). The milestones of this project are a
toolbox for universities to profile their globalization, as well as a number of programs
and policies (study abroad programs, international research collaboration, partnerships)
which will bring together stakeholders from different levels to discuss the results and
start implementation (Centre for Higher Education Development, 2011).
The following section of this report details the indicators of what constitutes a
global university, which were extracted from international rankings’ and league tables’
methodologies, and then compared with data from interviews with five university
administrators and five executives at organizations whose mission is to promote
globalization amongst universities. The following is an analysis of the responses of the
interviewees to the individual questions in the interview protocol.
During the interviews, each interviewee was given a working definition of
globalization. Taken from Altbach (2002, 2004, 2007), the definition of globalization as
“the cross-pollination of educational theory and practice, diversity of thought and culture
and the sharing of ideas and collaboration on a worldwide scale; economic, political and
societal forces inducing international involvement beyond borders” (2002, 2004, 2007),
76

was provided as a cognitive frame to get interviewees to consider their own institutions
and organizations, what they have observed other institutions and organizations doing, as
well as provide a response which details the best practices of universities in this era of
globalization.
In the rankings and league table methodologies, features such as study abroad
programs, international research collaboration, the number of international students and
faculty, worldwide publications and citations, globally recognized awards, grants and
funding, as well as prestige and being world renowned are most prevalent. University
administrators felt that globalization efforts needed to be grounded in the proportion of
international students and faculty from other countries. “The number/proportion of
international students and the diversity of nationalities and ethnicities are the most
important indicators of a global university,” argued the Director of Global Studies at a
large university in Tokyo, and a vast majority of the participants agreed. They also noted
that social responsibility is a good reason to internationalize both the campus and
curriculum. Another administrator, Director of Student Life at a large, research-oriented
university in the United Kingdom, reasoned, “I think from the perspective where we
[administrators] work, it is research, internationalization on campus that would cover a
broad spread of activities and then we also include social responsibility from the
perspective of [academic management].”
Organization experts/executives, on the other hand, felt that global consciousness
is important, as well as cross-cultural and cross-national perspectives and understanding.
At successful global universities, there is a tendency on the part of leaders to affirm the
primacy of people and programs rather than buildings and administrative structures
77

(Frost & Chopp, 2004). The Secretary General of a Global Curriculum Center in Orange,
California feels, “the phrase world-class is probably more comfortable for me in the
sense that it would have a high quality of teaching research, which is internationally
recognized as such, so it’s a quality issue first.”
The idea of broadening the scope of the term globalization to include the idea of
the global university as a world-class university was predominant during the interviews
with global executives. The President of an association of global universities even
admonished, “It is knowledge of global trends. Part of it is really an effort to
internationalize by having students abroad, having collaborations with institutions in
other countries. Other people have called it commercialization that is the current trend in
international higher education. The definition of globalization is changing today. We’re
in a period of mechanization and increasingly universities in different countries are
seeing internationalization and globalization as a process.”
When asked what the indicators of a global university are and what aspects of
globalization in higher education are important, a great majority of the interviewees, both
administrators and experts, cautioned that globalization to date has been difficult to
define and deducing what indicates a global university is mainly contextual, changing
depending on the university observed. However, both groups of interviewees agreed that
innovative, high-quality teaching and learning within an international curriculum,
research collaboration and global partnerships represent globalization at modern
universities. A globalization expert said, “A focus on high quality teaching and research,
highly connected internationally, most in the sense that its faculty and research have
mobility and outreach of students and faculty to other institutions is what I presume to be
78

most of the context within schools.” This means faculty and student mobility and being
globally connected and having a global presence, having greater flows of students,
faculty and international mobility are ways in which globalization on university
campuses could be measured.
As a group, the globalization experts and executives added that global
engagement at every level in a variety of forms, having an international campus and
internationalization on campus, having an overarching global perspective, and being
internationally recognized represent the indicators of a global university. University
administrators also added to this list that global universities are socially responsible, see
globalization as a long-term process, have a significant number and proportion of
international students and faculty, and house an overall diversity of nationalities and
ethnicities. Global experts/executives felt that global universities also had a
consciousness of global trends, that there were three primary factors to being a global
university: generating knowledge, disseminating knowledge, and applying knowledge,
that they fashion themselves in the image of a "world-class university” (Deem, Mok, &
Lucas, 2008), that there is cross-cultural/cross-national development, and, on all levels,
that there is an understanding of political, economic, social, technological, and cultural
systems. The responses of the interviewees to this question have been graphically
illustrated in the form of a Venn diagram (Figure 4.2, page 80 and Appendix D), which
shows how the responses from both the administrators and experts overlapped and
differed to answer this question.
As illustrated in the center of the figure below, the primary response and focus of
the interviewees’ answers centered around the number and proportion of international
79

students and faculty, a diverse campus, and connections on a worldwide scale. These
findings are consistent with Deem, Mok and Lucas’ (2004) assertion that there are certain
qualities that coincide with world-class status and that, in order to have a world-class
education system, several main things are involved:
 Understanding the world in which we live
 The values and cultures of different societies and the ways in which we all, as
global citizens, can influence and shape the changes in the global economy,
environment and society of which we are part
 Knowing what constitutes world-class educational standards, measuring ourselves
against them and matching them
 Being a global partner overseas
 Benchmark performance against world-class standards, drawing on best practice
everywhere
 Develop capacity to engage strategically with a wide range of partners across the
world that can help universities realize their goals to become the most competitive
and dynamic knowledge-based economies in the world
 Promote the role of universities as international hubs for learning and research
(Deem, Mok & Lucas, 2004).

80

Figure 4.2: Diagram of Responses: Indicators of Globalization/Important Aspects in
Globalization

What are the indicators of a global university?
What aspects of globalization in higher education are important?

Emerging Themes
The previous section discussed the general question of what is the overall
indication of a global university. The following section details responses to questions
specifically focused on the four domains of the scale of global engagement that were
taken from the theoretical frameworks for the study. This section describes the responses
to the interview questions which correlate to the four domains of the scale of global
engagement. The thirteen indicators of global engagement that were identified through
the interviews were then compared to the theory/conceptual framework (Figure 4.1, page
University
Administrators
Organizational
Experts/
Executives
1. Large body of international
students, faculty, administrators
2. Brand image/recognition
3. International partnerships
4. Funding/fundraising for global
activities
5. International research
collaboration
6. Publications/citations worldwide
7. Active, academic cross-border
engagement
8. Closely-coupled systems
9. International offices
10. Top-down administrative
support and involvement
11. Meaningful
interaction/integration on
campus
12. Global programs and activities
13. Global consciousness
Social Responsibility

Globalization as a long-term
process

High proportion of
international students

Diversity of nationalities
and ethnicities
Consciousness of global trends

3 primary factors: generate
knowledge, disseminate
knowledge, and apply
knowledge

“World-Class University”

Cross-cultural and cross-
national development

Understanding of political,
economic, social, technological,
and cultural systems
81

74 and Appendix A). The indicators that perfectly matched the prospective indicators of
the figure were then refashioned from that preliminary framework that was created using
rankings methodologies and the literature review. The above Venn diagram center data
was then recreated into a new scale of global engagement model that will be introduced
later in this chapter (Figure 4.3, page 97). The indicators are reported and organized in
order of prominence as discussed by interview participants and according to international
ranking methodologies. Each domain was provided a range of possibilities expressed by
the interviewees, yet only the top three responses from each domain were chosen and
highlighted in the framework as meaningful indicators of global engagement. The
predominant themes that emerged are based on those responses receiving the highest
number, or majority replies from participants.
Questions two through five of the interview protocol were designed to elicit
responses that provided indicators of global engagement within the four
perspectives/rationales of the study design. Each question was purposefully constructed
to gather strong evidence for or against the existence of global indicators within each of
the four domains: Stakeholder Perception/Social and Cultural Rationale; Internal
Business Perspective/Economic Rationale; Innovation and Learning
Perspective/Academic Rationale; and Academic Management/Political Rationale.
Throughout the interviews, it became evident that in the center of the globalization trend
lays the idea of international presence on campuses. Both university administrators and
globalization experts espoused the virtues of having large numbers of students, faculty
and leadership who come from overseas. Throughout each of the domains, a significant
presence of members of the international community at universities is paramount. This
82

study provides a clearer, more coherent understanding of globalization processes in the
higher education industry by aligning the most important aspects of globalization with
the programs and policies taking place on 21
st
century university campuses.
The aspect of globalization that emerged highly within all four of the domains of
the research framework was the presence of international students, international faculty,
as well as international administrators and members of governing boards. This included
the numbers and percentages of international students, faculty and administrators, as well
as how their interests and influences affected the academic and social environment. This
indicator of globalization serves as the foundation, or hub, of the newly created
framework. Without the influence, interaction, and general presence of members of a
global community, a university cannot portend to call itself a global university. One
administrator stated succinctly, “it is most important to have a strong international
student presence on campus.” The inclusion of these global perspectives and experiences
assists universities with breaking down the barriers around them, providing the right mix
of skills and competencies for universities’ stakeholders and human resources, enhancing
interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, facilitating the interaction of knowledge in
society, and making the overall institution more visible and attractive to the world
(Deem, Mok & Lucas, 2008). Another administrator, the Manager of an Office of
Internationalization at a large, well-established university in Australia, observed, “Most
national universities still tend to have a perception that the principal areas of the
university are domestic.” He expressed that, by looking at the composition of the council
at his institution, which is their governing board, and looking at some of the major
focuses of their work with the community in their “third stream activities,” which are
83

focused on globalization, they have a “strong domestic flavor” because they are funded
principally by the federal government in order to do their teaching and learning. In terms
of external stakeholders, alumni, prospective students, members of the community, the
campus leadership needs to be constantly thriving to remind them that it is actually an
international institution playing on an international stage and domestic concerns are
important, because they remain a domestic institution that is funded domestically, but, in
fact, the university derives much of its revenue from international activities. Sometimes
there is a bit of a “hidden face in a domestic context” to the globalization of an
institution.
In every domain of the research framework, social and cultural, economic,
academic and political, international students and faculty were portrayed by interviewees
as playing an integral role in the development of global universities. Because university
rankings and league tables, university administrators, and globalization experts all agree
across the four domains that members of the international community converge on global
university campuses, this indicator of globalization serves as the foundation of the
framework from which all other indicators derive and extend. Creative leaders recognize
the importance of their institution’s culture as a source of strength.
Culture is defined as the habits and traditions that set the tone for an institution –
that is, the specific ways that stakeholders come together or stay apart (Frost & Chopp,
2004). It makes sense that students, faculty, and academic leaders from geographically,
ethnically and culturally diverse regions of the world represent the most relevant and
pertinent, and also necessary, indicator of globalization. It is through the international
communities’ historical and cultural perspectives and divergence of thought that provides
84

an institution with a well-rounded culture of globalization. The Global Gauge is a
comparison of education activity in different countries by the British Council. One of the
themes of the Global Gauge is to promote a more international approach to higher
education; countries and universities need to do much more than just recruit foreign
students. Three aspects of internationalization - student mobility, academic and research
collaboration, and national policies – are examined (British Council, 2010).There are
various policies at the national and university level that can encourage or discourage
students and faculty from considering options abroad and some of them require
universities to give up a bit of money or autonomy (Jaschik, 2011). This high regard for
international students, faculty and administrators at global universities illustrates and
suggests that, without the internationalization of its stakeholders and human resources,
universities cannot even begin to become global.
Stakeholder Perspective/Social and Cultural Rationale
The second question of the interview protocol asked interviewees about the social
and cultural programs and activities that have the most impact at universities and also
addressed the importance of the perception of stakeholders that a university is, in fact,
global or world-class. Overwhelmingly, the interviewees’ responses pointed toward the
importance of having a large body of international influence on campus, which included
stakeholders at every level from all over the world. A Vice-President for International
Studies at a leading research university in Canada critiqued “mainly, [universities need]
to see beyond the recruitment of students. We see a role of the university in
internationalization as supporting universities in developing countries as well as
supporting our own country in globalization.” The most immediate follow-up to the
85

question of stakeholders’ perspective of universities’ social and cultural environments
was that it is not enough just to have international students, faculty, administrators and
members of the governing board present on campus, but that these stakeholders also need
to have meaningful interaction and integration within the university community. The
consensus was that, far too often, members of the university community from different
countries and cultures end up polarized from the main body and gravitate toward those of
the same background and heritage. This was viewed as a failure of the university system
to fully integrate these international personalities, knowledge, and cultural influences into
the globalization of the social and cultural milieus of the campus.
Completing this first domain was also universities’ providing global programs
and activities, not just for students and faculty, but also for alumni. An administrator,
Director of Student Life at a large comprehensive university in the United Kingdom,
suggests, “We also have a series of programs for international alumni, and have chapters
overseas which is another component.” International alumni, in the opinion of many of
those interviewed, were the best source of word-of-mouth marketing and brand imaging
for an institution, and should be valued as such. In addition to alumni programs, the types
of programs mentioned in the responses included both long- and short-term student
exchange programs, study abroad programs, as well as home-school programs that allow
students to gain global consciousness without having to leave home. The above-
referenced administrator notes, “Probably one of the most significant programs that we
run is our ‘Departure Program’ which sends students on exchange or on short-term
programs overseas. We know from surveys the students who opt to take those activities
86

find them to be of great value in the professional development part of their studies and
their future.”
Additionally, in the domain of social and cultural perspectives, administrators and
experts agreed that global universities must have global consciousness. This means that
the university as an institution and as a community must be immersed in an international
and intercultural perspective providing engagement, recognition, and entanglement to the
world outside of its walls and beyond its borders. An expert who heads the Center for
Global Curriculum for a mid-sized university in California argues, “In a lot of the
internationalization efforts, whether good or bad ideas, the faculty stakeholders are kind
of dragged kicking and screaming into it.” A strategy for any world-class research
university is major higher educational reform that cultivates the creative and high-quality
human resources necessary for a knowledge-based society. The expert continues to note,
“Regarding the perception of the university as world-class or on an international level,
clearly it’s research productivity and the eminence of its faculty, there’s no substitute for
that.” Higher education in today's society has gone beyond the stages of elite education
and mass education and has entered the stage of universal education (Altbach & Balan,
2007). “Some universities are wonderful research institutions, but will not be seen as
global or international in character because they don’t have sufficient and critical mass of
those things. One of the reasons that people will go from one place to another is to learn
what’s different,” concludes the President of a multinational organization of global
universities.

87

Internal Business Perspective/Economic Rationale
The third interview question asked the administrators and authors about their
perspective of the internal business processes of universities and how economic concerns
provide a rationale for aspiring to be a global university. When viewed from a purely
business and economic perspective, globalization in higher education mirrors that of
globalization and internationalization within the business community. Closely connected
to having international students, faculty and administrators who influence and affect
one's business practices, the respondents argue that having brand recognition and
brokering a brand image is just as important. “The impact of an institution’s global
profile is great. They are trying to build an image that they are international and
sometimes they are successful and sometimes not, and if you screw up one of these
initiatives, you get mud on your face, at least for a while, so it’s not a positive,
necessarily,” notes an expert who directs an International University Network in the
United States. World-class universities provide their students, staff, and alumni with such
an experience that it becomes almost second nature to frequently don their logos,
mascots, and school colors on a regular basis. In this manner, students, staff and alumni
will speak highly of the institution, promoting it to their friends and family members, and
even strangers. Also, faculty members become experts with eminence in their field who
are called upon by the media and subsequently cited throughout the world. “The starting
point is that all international activities that take place first need to focus around the goals
of the individual institution, so the activity that takes place off the campus should fit
directly into the brunt of the institution. Any activities we take should reflect global
ambition,” replied a university administrator from the United Kingdom.
88

The other responses which completed this domain were global partnerships,
which include business and academic partnerships, and funding/fundraising. The idea of
partnerships was related often during the interviews, especially within the domain of the
internal business perspective. These partnerships should establish activities within partner
countries, create interest in offshore activities, and provide academic rigor around
partnerships. A global organization executive explains, “Institutions face the charge of
how to irrigate their research capability in a strategic manner to enable international
partnerships which should enable more than one institution to leverage their joint
capabilities and that requires a parallel of organizational forms, including the attempt to
have an institution-wide international strategy.” The importance of these global
connections and alliances will assist universities in obtaining the international brand
recognition they seek.
With regard to funding and fundraising, both administrators and experts agreed
that neither throwing money at attempts toward globalization nor expecting revenue from
globalization activities should be the main focus. An administrator who manages an
Office of Internationalization at one of the oldest and consistently ranked leading
universities in Melbourne, Australia responded, “The different ways of mapping out for
people the value of globalization of the institution or collective, the aggregate value of
everybody’s activities and how they add to things is one of the hardest things we struggle
with, actually measuring outcomes and measuring values of this particular era and that
activity.” Through the interviewee’s responses, it became very clear that, in order to
reach world-class status and become a global brand, revenue could not be the emphasis.
Instead, universities should seek ways to provide:
89

 Funding for these activities
 Incentives for participants of these activities, and
 Real benefits from and for these programs and activities:
A Vice-President of International Studies at a major research-oriented university
in Canada criticizes:
We are still stuck in a fairly old paradigm in terms of what we do; we tend to be
striking up relationships on a bilateral basis, from institution to institution, or
otherwise sometimes in networks of universities. They are quite useful
mechanisms for profiling purposes, the ability to claim a relationship with another
leading institution is quite useful, but in terms of driving research activities, they
are not drivers at this time. The right incentives are not in place to make them
drivers.
Universities will be able to meet their internal business goals as well as add a strong
rationale for the reorganization of the economic structure from revenue generation to
attention on quality global experiences by shifting this paradigm and defining the “top-
down activities, the top-down strategies that might support the institution, support its
members, and its staff effectively in their globalization efforts,” he continues.
Innovation and Learning Perspective/Academic Rationale
The fourth question of the interview protocol pertained to the next domain of the
scale of global engagement framework, innovation and learning perspective/academic
rationale. This section includes ideas introduced previously in a general manner, yet more
intently focused. The most predominant aspect of this domain, per the university
administrators and experts in globalization that were interviewed, is international
research collaboration. The Vice Provost of Globalization at a university known for
academic excellence and global impact in Northern California observes, “There’s lots of
research that demonstrates that citation is much greater within international publication
than just national publication. So in terms of the brand of the university, we encourage
90

our top researchers to work with the best researchers around the world that increases the
profile of the institution as well.” The idea of research collaboration on a global scale is
important because it is a proactive internationalization strategy. It provides for cross-
border collaboration between students and faculty, and also addresses social and cultural
issues across borders as well as within single borders. It is through international research
collaboration that the profile of the university is heightened; and active research
collaboration will also enrich the quality of research and discovery at and between
institutions. According to the participants of this study, the innovation and learning
perspective is significant as it raises the consciousness and awareness of global issues, it
weaves global issues into the perspective of the university, and it actively engages the
university populace across borders. The administrator continues, “The most innovative
learning opportunities in a globalized context are having joint appointments with some of
our partner institutions overseas, actually formalizing some of those relationships that
already exist.”
Consistent with international research collaboration, the respondents to the
interview considered publications/citations and overseas programs the indicators of
globalization that complement international collaboration. To be innovative, learning
programs and outcomes need to have an impact on students. This form of active
engagement will allow significant members of the academic community to have
international experience. The Secretary General of the Center for Global Curriculum says
it best when he proclaims, “The benefits are obviously students immediately get the
advantages of a world-class faculty, secondly they get the benefit of each other, which is
the knowledge of different people, and long lasting personal networks around
91

international contexts.” The movement among and between universities should be both
incoming and outgoing, providing the institution and its partners with a global and
diverse body of academics.
In virtually every interview, respondents cautioned against the drive to build
branch campuses and invest large amounts of money and time into having actual
overseas campuses. The rationale for this unanimous response was the fact that branch
campuses are seen by administrators and experts of the sample as high-risk ventures,
which could dilute brand quality and, therefore, negatively affect universities’ brand
images and brand recognition. During preliminary data collection, when rankings
methodologies were used to gather preliminary indicators of globalization, branch
campuses were seen as an important aspect of internationalization. During the interviews,
this was not the case. One expert notes, “Many people are quick to praise double degree
programs, joint degree programs and branch campuses, but I think there is a general
tendency to exaggerate the benefits of such programs.” To everyone who participated in
this study, this was an ill-advised pursuit. Instead, the interviewees felt that research
collaboration and programs overseas will help leverage joint capabilities and aggregate
the research competencies of those involved and ultimately have a positive effect on
brand image/brand recognition. An administrator from a major civic university in
England concludes:
Any activities we take internationally should reflect our global ambition. That, for
us, would mean no branch campuses. We believe that you dilute your brand by
having a branch campus where as we would argue the strategic research
partnerships at the world’s best universities very much supports our brand
aspirations. The answer depends on your brand and your brand footprint. What
often happens is many universities are reactive rather than proactive and I believe
that a reactive approach in internationalization results in dilution of brand and
lack of clarity.
92

Academic Management Perspective/Political Rationale
The fifth question of the interview protocol leading to the final domain of the
scale of global engagement framework discusses the perspective of academic
management as well as a political rationale for globalizing universities. The indicator that
was suggested most often through the interviews was administrative support and
involvement in globalization processes. Many of the interviewees felt that the approach
to globalization at universities has been more of a bottom-up approach that is generally
staff managed. Buy-in and input from central administration is vital to the success of any
globalization process and program. Administrators found the benefit in having dedicated
senior officers who oversee international activities and efforts. One notes, “We have a
structure where we have an international development department and within that there
are two teams: one is called the global office, which focuses on student recruitment, the
other is international relations, which focuses on the broader issues, around alumni,
around stakeholder relationships with governments and universities.” Through their
responses, the interviewees felt that with top-down support, there would be better
information flow, a wider range of expertise, and more concrete connections of people,
departments and schools. Another expert agrees, “A lot of campuses don’t have what are
now being called senior international officers. That would be a good idea, so you have
somebody at the top who knows what’s going on internationally with the whole
university and can put things together.” This top-down approach needs to be balanced
with the bottom-up approach, which includes support from governing bodies and
provides an efficient and cost-effective organizational structure. As a means for
achieving administrative support, global activities through some form of academic
93

senate, strategic planning and strategic relationships should all be made the responsibility
of administration.
Completing the fourth and final domain of the newly created globalization
framework of this study, international offices and close coupling of university systems
were mentioned as indicators of globalization through the academic management
perspective. “This university already has a number of offices that handle different
components of internationalization. We have an alumni office which has an international
alumni program, we have an office of admissions that does marketing and recruitment,
we have my office, International Studies, which runs our partnerships, and a set of offices
overseas called our international office network. I suppose we have significant structures
there already in terms of the central administration.” Academic managers need to look at
establishing central hubs in other countries that can serve alumni, families, partners,
prospective students and other stakeholders around the world. These international offices
can help universities procure international leadership and senior international officers as
well as connect people around the world to the university brand.
Both administrators and experts felt that the offices, departments and schools
within the universities should also be very closely coupled, meaning they work together
in concert to address other indicators of global engagement such as research
collaboration, programs overseas, global programs and activities, partnerships and
funding/fundraising. “We have eleven faculties, as we call them, comprised of different
schools. Sometimes there is a loss in translation due to a large faculty with multiple
schools, without the right communications and coordination mechanisms within the
faculty to actually communicate and get things going,” expounds a university
94

administrator from Australia. This means that even the best laid plans, at many of the
world’s best universities are failing because the pipeline of information does not flow
freely, and especially at larger schools, can get disregarded or misunderstood. This is
important because it shows that through collaboration and cooperation, global
universities are able to succeed because the institutional community is engaged, well-
integrated and interrelated.
Using the information from the previous sections on the perspectives and
rationales for globalization, the 13 indicators enumerated through the interviews were
organized by response to match the categories from which the responses were elicited in
the interview protocol. They were also compared to the preliminary framework
developed from rankings methodologies and the literature review for this study. As
detailed later in this chapter, the responses were divided evenly between the categories
with the most prevalent response, international students, faculty and administrators,
serving as the foundation, representing the core activity of globalization. A new
framework was created that details and describes the main indicators of globalization at
universities within four categories, or domains, which embody the perspectives and the
rationales for internationalization at universities that can be developed into an actual
globalization scorecard the future using the list of globalization indicators developed in
this study. This is explained in more detail in a subsequent section of this study.
Summary of Results
There were five findings that emerged in this study:
 International faculty, students and administrators are vital to globalization
processes
95

 Global consciousness should be integrated throughout the institution at all levels
 Brand image and recognition are important aspects of a university’s global profile
 International collaboration and cross-border engagement are essential
 Administrative involvement and support are necessary for successful programs
and policies to exist
The research question, "What indicators may be used to effectively measure
global engagement at comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse
universities with global academic and research standards, common values and similarities
in organization and management?” is answered in this research study through the
framework of a scale of global engagement which looks at the perspectives of
globalization and the rationales for globalization. Segmenting the framework for this
study into four perspectives and rationales provided a frame to organize the indicators
into meaningful sects. The four domains are stakeholder perception/social and cultural
rationale, internal business perspective/economic rationale, innovation and learning
perspective/academic rationale, and academic management perspective/political
rationale. The results of the data analysis and the answer to the research question have
been organized graphically into a scale of global engagement framework in figure 4.3,
page 97, which follows, as well as in Appendix E in the Appendices section.
In the following table, Figure 4.3, the indicators of global engagement are
organized according to the responses from the interviews that correlate to each of the four
domains of the scorecard model. The Scale of Global Engagement – Indicators of
Globalization at Universities table takes the preliminary indicators culled from rankings
methodologies and compares them with responses from interviews that were agreed upon
96

from the center of the preceding Venn diagram, Figure 4.2, page 80 (Appendix D), and
reorganized the thirteen indicators presented into the respective domains represented by
perspectives and rationales. The foundation of the framework represents international
students, faculty, administrators and members of the governing board. This indicator of
global engagement was reported as being crucial within all four domains by all of the
participants interviewed for this study. In the stakeholder perspective and social and
cultural rationale domain, the indicators of a global university are meaningful interaction
and integration, global consciousness and global programs and activities. Within the
internal business perspective and economic rationale the indicators of a global university
are brand recognition, partnerships and funding/fundraising. According to the
interviewees, in the innovation and learning perspective and academic rationale, the
indicators of a global university are international research collaboration, publications and
citations, and overseas programs. In the final domain, academic management perspective
and political rationale, the indicators of a global university are administrative support and
involvement, international offices and close coupling. These fore-mentioned indicators
represent globalization and global engagement at the study sample institutions.
Several differences emerged between the preliminary framework, Figure 4.1,
page 74 (Appendix A) and the Scale of Global Engagement model (figure 4.3, page 97,
Appendix E) that resulted from the analysis of the data. The most significant change
between parsing indicators from rankings and literature and gathering indicator data from
qualitative interviews was that the data obtained from the interviews was more specific
and focused on particular issues and programs. Where rankings methodologies measured
general ideas, administrators and experts provided specific ideas, programs and policies
97

that could be implemented. In addition, there were important ideas presented in rankings
methodologies that were not discussed in the interviews. These missing indicators have
been added to new framework as they are extensions to ideas that were presented as
significant indicators of globalization during the interviews and most definitely as a part
of rankings and league table methodologies.
Figure 4.3: Scale of Global Engagement – Indicators of Globalization at Universities
Stakeholder
Perspective/
Social and
Cultural
Rationale
Internal
Business
Perspective/
Economic
Rationale
Innovation and
Learning
Perspective/
Academic
Rationale
Academic
Management
Perspective/
Political
Rationale
International Students, Faculty, and Administrators
Global
Consciousness
Brand
Image/Recognition
International
Research
Collaboration
Top-Down
Administrative
Support and
Involvement
Global Programs
and Activities
International
Partnerships
Publications/Citation
s Worldwide
International Offices
Meaningful
Interaction/
Integration on
Campus
Funding/Fundraising
for Global Activities
Active, Academic
Cross-Border
Engagement
Closely-Coupled
Systems
Student
Exchange/Study
Abroad Programs
Joint
Ventures/Degree
Programs
Visiting
Scholars/Joint
Appointments/
Faculty-Staff
Mobility
Awards/
International
Recognition/
Fellowships

Discussion
In this chapter, a new framework was created based on the theoretical frameworks
of this study. Where the academic scorecard (O’Neil, et al, 1999) provided academic
98

management a view of education management through four perspectives, this study
attached these perspectives to the rationales of Qiang’s framework for
internationalization (2003). By coupling these ideas from the frameworks, this study
provided the perception of globalization from an array of stakeholders and invested
agents as well as justification for the inclusion and placement of globalization indicators
on the preceding framework (Figure 4.3, page 97 and Appendix E). Comparative to the
theoretical frameworks of this study, the resulting scale of global engagement focused on
designing and implementing a framework that can provide administrators and academic
management a balanced view of globalization activities, processes within the institution
and international profiles. Overall, the creation of this study’s framework represents a
new emphasis on the business of university management with regard to globalization.
Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of this study, the implications for practice and
recommendations for future research.

99

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
At many universities around the world, the challenge of becoming global has led
to many problems and missteps. International rankings and league tables were being used
to guide institutional profiles and programs without attention to how these policies would
affect the institution. The purpose of this study was the development of indicators of
global engagement at universities to assist administrators in finding the programs and
policies which can have the greatest impact and affect the institutions’ global profiles.
This study investigated how universities propose to call themselves global institutions
and provided the enumeration of global indicators through four domains that were
coupled using the perspectives of the academic scorecard (2003) and the rationales for
internationalization from Qiang’s framework (2003). The qualitative results reported in
chapter four illustrated 13 indicators of global universities:
 large body of international students, faculty, administrators
 brand image/recognition
 international partnerships
 funding/fundraising for global activities
 international research collaboration
 publications/citations worldwide
 active, academic cross-border engagement
 closely-coupled systems
 international offices
 top-down administrative support and involvement
 meaningful interaction/integration on campus
100

 global programs and activities
 global consciousness
The above indicators were categorized to match the perspectives and rationales of the
newly created scale of global engagement. This chapter presents a synthesis of the
results, implications of the study’s outcomes, opportunities and recommendations for
future research, and conclusions based on the study’s findings.
Summary of Findings
The study yielded five findings:
 International stakeholders are vital to global processes
 Global consciousness should be integrated throughout an institution at all levels
 Brand image and recognition are important aspects of institutional profile
 International collaboration and cross-border engagement are essential
 Administrative involvement and support are necessary to successfully globalize
These findings represent what administrators and experts in globalization feel are most
vital to the success of universities who are trying to interact and be immersed in a global
community. The newly created scale of global engagement synthesized responses to
interview questions from university administrators and experts in globalization and
compared those with indicators extracted from international university ranking
methodologies. This yielded thirteen indicators of global engagement at study sample
universities and organization that were listed in the center of the Venn diagram on page
80 (Figure 4.3 and Appendix D). On the whole, the list of indicators can be used to
provide valuable information to universities aspiring to meet the demands of providing
the world with global scholars and having global impact. Each column of the global scale
101

(Figure 4.3, page 97, Appendix E) illustrates an aspect of the university through which
globalization processes can be used to positively affect institutional global immersion.
From the responses emerged a scale and measurement tool that can help universities
focus comprehensive activities toward more useful processes and undertakings. Sadlak
(2008) argues that a very important factor impacting a geopolitical map of higher
education is the global competition for talent and academic excellence. As such, leading
universities are now heading towards becoming global universities and more and more
universities are competing internationally for resources, faculty and the best students.
The resulting framework simplifies and directs attention toward those indicators that can
have the greatest impact. In addition, the perspectives/rationales are designed to
synthesize with a university’s global perspective and justification for pursuing
internationalization.
Discussion
What does it mean to be a global university? Although a simple question, the
answer involves a complex process that no single measure can yet capture. The approach
taken by this study was to combine two separate, but equally useful, frameworks and
synthesize them into a third, efficient and effective framework for providing the answer
to the research question (Figure 4.3, page 97 and Appendix E). In the 21st century,
student mobility, transnational education and research collaboration are the pillars that
support institutions’ missions and visions of creating global citizens and providing a
global education experience to its constituents. In the process of answering the research
question and discovering which indicators of globalization effectively measure
engagement and immersion at the universities and their peers, a framework was designed
102

to better understand and compare national and international policies, programs, and
institutional profiles. The foundation and starting point of this framework, and, many in
the sample would argue, at the center of an institution's global processes, is student and
faculty mobility. This idea of ease of movement and cross-pollination lies also at the
center of the question that guides this study.
The Director of Global Studies at a university in Tokyo, Japan suggested, and
many of his peers agreed, "The number/proportion of international students and the
diversity of nationalities and ethnicities are the most important indicators of a global
university." This illustrates that, no matter the domain, perspective or rationale for
globalization, having a large proportion of international students, which include short-
term exchange programs, attracting international students and faculty, having students
and faculty immersed and engaged overseas, and on-campus student interrelationships
are paramount to providing a global education in the 21st century. Scholars,
policymakers, and observers of higher education have argued that colleges and
universities across the world must institutionalize an international dimension to prepare
students for the complex challenges of globalization.
The fervor to internationalize has focused more on development and less on
evaluation, which, ultimately, circumscribes the advancement of internationalization and
fails to maximize educational outcomes. Moreover, although the need for assessment
extends across the higher education sector, a failure to monitor the state of
internationalization could be especially pernicious for research universities (Horn,
Hendel & Fry, 2007). The ideas discussed through this study illustrate that, in addition to
political and economic rationales, several sociocultural and academic motives for
103

internationalization are delineated. Cultural rationales include the export of national
values and ideologies. Social rationales echoed the virtues of intergroup contact as a
means to reduce prejudice and develop a critical reflection of one's own culture. Finally,
academic rationales are derived from the realization that a prosperous participation in the
global knowledge network necessitates international collaboration, global competencies
among students and faculty and competitive international recognition (2007).
These themes were continually repeated by the interviewees. One interviewee, a
university administrator observed, "We have seen greater flows of students, whether that
be flows of students coming to study with us, or our students going to study overseas,
that has taken on prominence within all universities. These are two principal pillars on
what we perceive to be globalization of higher education." However, even with this
knowledge pervading the leadership of universities and global organizations, there still
exists a need for more definition and denotation of what it really means to be a global
university. The dilemma appears to be that academic leaders have made various attempts
over the years to define international plans and strategies. They are finding, however, "it
requires a different type of metrics for management; it actually requires a different type
of leadership. It's the metrics nature of the activity and making sure we've got the right
structures in place to support globalization." This study provides that for university
leaders: a clear and simple scale that can evaluate global engagement. As this study
developed, it became increasingly important to have established a simple and easy to
follow, yet detailed, framework for measuring globalization at universities: a scale of
globalization that utilizes the list of indicators created through this study. The newly
created framework provides a basis for universities to be able to:
104

 Provide meaningful, globally conscious student experiences
 Ensure the curriculum is internationalized and innovative
 Allow for faculty experiences that include active, academic, collaborative cross-
border engagement
During the data collection process of this study, much of the information
contained within the new framework was consistent with Qiang’s (2003) idea that the
internationalization of higher education is a process of integrating intercultural
dimensions into the functions of an institution. This framework for internationalization is
“a dynamic process and not a set of isolated activities” (2003).
Implications for Practice
Three significant implications emerge from this study. The first is the concept of
globalization as an added value. A recurrent theme of globalization is the value added
when stakeholders are fully included in the process. Ideas such as global consciousness,
research collaboration, cross-border engagement, and partnerships focus on the value
added by those systems and activities. One of the findings of the study was that
stakeholders from diverse, international backgrounds (students, alumni, faculty,
administrators, and board members) are vital to creating a global community. Cho and
Palmer (2012) assert that stakeholders are individuals or groups involving government,
employers, students, academic and administrative staff, institutional managers,
prospective students and their parents, and taxpayers who believe that universities and
their policies are accountable to them and therefore provide this type of added value. In
one of the interviews, an expert who heads a world-renowned global education center
suggested that universities must view globalization “in terms of what the stated goals are
and start with the impact on students and faculty.” Perspective is important to this study.
105

All stakeholders should be in agreement and the development of a world-class image
must be clearly understood.
Second, the findings of this study that global consciousness should be infused
throughout the institution and that brand recognition and image are essential to cross-
border engagement provide the backdrop for universities trying to create an impactful
global milieu. The suggestion of a large proportion of students, faculty and administrators
from overseas as a central indicator of global engagement served as a highly prominent
feature of this study. However, for the presence of large proportions of international
stakeholders to be useful, they need to be fully integrated and immersed in meaningful
interaction on campus. In each of the domains, international members of the academic
community stood as the most frequent response and, subsequently, serve as the
foundation of the scale of global engagement. Each of the four domains is influenced by
and filtered through the number and impact of international stakeholders. This is
important because, as Cho and Palmer explain, “Stakeholders’ perception is significant
due to the fact that the decision-making processes in higher education institutions are
predominantly influenced by a triangular exercise of stakeholder groups involving
governance, administrations, and faculty” (2012). The proper interaction and integration
of these international stakeholders is vital to the success of any university’s globalization
strategies.
Third, by including the approaches to internationalization in this study, a new
outlook was provided on the ideas brought about through the coupling of the perspectives
and rationales for internationalization. In Qiang’s framework for internationalization
106

(2003), he discusses the ways or approaches universities can take to fully
internationalize. These are:
 The Activity Approach (what can people do?)
 The Competency Approach (what can people learn?)
 The Ethos Approach (what can happen in the culture and climate?)
 The Process Approach (what can be integrated or infused into programs?)
The inclusion of the approaches illustrated how student experiences, faculty experiences
and development of curriculum offer universities three choices: development of specific
programs, like global economies; collaborative work across disciplines, i.e. a literature
class connecting classes in international art or world history, which bring greater
perspective; and the idea of “localites/cosmopolites” – which represents the infusion of
an international curriculum toward a global perspective. Embracing ideas such as
embedding the home country’s history and culture into concurrent world history and
culture will open students and faculty to global consciousness and cultural connection to
those around the world. For future research, the creation of a globalization scorecard
from the results of this study using the data regarding the approaches to
internationalization can add to the proliferation of research surrounding higher education
globalization and the creation of a worldwide citizenry.
Recommendations for Future Research
Results from this study led to recommendations for future research that would be
worthwhile and beneficial for researchers and practitioners. The scale of global
engagement serves as groundwork for the future development of a globalization
scorecard. Having defined a set of indicators of global engagement, the task now is to
107

operationalize a globalization scorecard for university campuses. The purpose of this
study was the enumeration of vital indicators of global engagement, and actually using a
scorecard model to evaluate and improve global activities, brand recognition and
presence is the logical next step. The scale of global engagement is designed to be used
holistically or sorted by individual domains, and any other combination necessary. The
use of the scale in this manner will help universities answer the two principal questions in
international strategy (Kogut, 1985):
1. Where should the value-added chain be broken across borders?
2. In what functional activities should a firm concentrate its resources?
The design of international strategies is based upon the interplay between the
comparative advantages of universities and the competitive advantages of a global
economy. Answers to both these questions are affected by comparative and competitive
advantage (1985). A measurement tool such as a globalization scorecard can use the scale
of global engagement framework created in this study to assist academic managers in
evaluating, defining and describing global activities and strategies through a simple, yet
useful, process, by providing a basis for the further development of the framework in this
study into a global scorecard model.
In sum, comparative advantage, also referred to as location-specific advantage,
influences the decision of where to source and market. Competitive advantage, also
referred to as institution-specific advantage, influences the decision on what activities
and technologies along a value-added chain an institution should concentrate its
investment and managerial resources in (Kogut, 1985), relative to other institutions in its
peer group. The scale of global engagement created by this study offers academic
108

managers ways to track both the competitive and comparative advantages to the benefit
of their educational programs and visions.
Further, in order to extend the reach and breadth of this research study, an actual
measurement should be constructed to guide the scorecard into a more consultative and
evaluative model that can provide valuable data to administrators seeking to create global
universities under their tutelage. A suggestion is to employ a construct modeling
framework that takes the scale of global engagement model and reinvents it by
developing it into a scorecard framework that uses each of Wilson’s (2010) four
measurement construction “building blocks.” These are 1) The Construct Map, 2) The
Items Design, 3) The Outcome Space and 4) The Measurement Model. The Concept Map
reflects the purpose for which the instrument is needed and the context in which it is
going to be used. The Item Design defines the way in which this theoretical construct
should be manifested in a real-world situation. The Outcome Space is the decision
making process that details which aspects of the responses to the items will be used as the
basis for inference, and how those aspects of the responses are categorized and then
scored. Finally, The Measurement Model relates the scores to the construct and how they
conceptualize an interpretive model (2010). The four building blocks can help illustrate
the directions of causality and inference on campus as they pertain to globalization at
universities.
The final recommendation reflects a need to institutionalize the scale of global
engagement model in the form of a multi-disciplinary inquiry approach that can assist
universities to become more accountable to stakeholders. There are several successful
models of this across campuses throughout the world. One model is the Center for Urban
109

Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California. Established at the University
of Southern California in 1999 as part of the university’s urban initiative, the Center for
Urban Education (CUE) leads socially conscious research and develops tools needed for
institutions of higher education to produce equity in student outcomes (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009). The CUE Framework was developed through the foundation of the
academic scorecard (O’Neil et al, 1999). CUE studies and enacts organizational change
for equity using a multi-level research focus on individual practitioners and on political,
socio-cultural, and policy contexts (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). This research and inquiry
process can be adapted to the globalization scorecard model and used to increase
institutional global engagement and impact in much the same manner. The most
developed and extensively used of CUE’s tools is the Equity Scorecard, which is based
on the Balanced Scorecard model from the business world (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009).
This approach can be used to further develop a Globalization Scorecard. For future
studies, the development of these recommendations and opportunities to advance this
research would be vastly beneficial.
The following figure, “Activating the Globalization Scorecard Cycle” (Appendix
F) is an attempt of the researcher to provide a foundation for the constructs needed to
formalize a global assessment at universities. It is designed to illustrate the cyclical
nature of using the scorecard model for organizational development as well as provide
salient questions to each of the parts of the cycle. It also attempts to provide graphic
representation of the process of operationalizing the scorecard at universities, as well as
how to adjust the scorecard to match the context of each university and institutional type,
as there are many differences throughout the global spectrum:
110

Figure 5.1: Activating the Global Scorecard Cycle

The Third Wave – Conclusion
As stated early in this study, higher education has entered a third wave of
internationalization in higher education. In this third wave, globalization processes have
altered the educational landscape around the world. It is clear that the internationalization
of education has created a new market place that is very different to the local markets of
recent memory. Competition has changed, as have competitors, and education
administrators must come to grips with the risks and returns of complex international
Vision
(What)
Purpose
(Why)
Goals
(When)
Data
Collection
(Where)
Informed
Action
(How)
Scale of Global Engagement/
Indicators of Globalization
111

environments (Mazzarol, Soutar, & Seng, 2003). Navigating this third wave requires new
tools that can assist in monitoring and measuring not only impact, but influence and
immersion as well. “Rapidly changing technology has also meant that educational
institutions are faced with some very significant investment decisions, especially given
the tight resource constraints most face,” observe Mazzarol, et al (2003). This wave of
educational activity is ushering in new processes and procedures for doing research and
impacting academia on a world stage. These third wave institutions will need to work
carefully and deliberately to address these issues if they are to survive the ride (2003).
The current trends in higher education can also be described as a Third Mission in
Higher Education (Sadlak, 2012). The classifications of this third mission are activities
related to research, teaching, and social engagement – a variety of activities that involve
many constituent parts of universities and require a suitable culture and mindset; different
people with specialized skill sets; and supporting structures and mechanisms, in order to
achieve its potential (2012). These ideals are vital to the proliferation of globalization on
a university campus. The importance of integrating these dimensions into the structure of
an institution will provide many benefits, help to develop research, teaching and learning
methods that address the needs of a broader spectrum of learners, and facilitate the
development of graduates who are well suited to participate in professional life and are
aware of their social context (2012). The resulting indicators of this study are designed to
provide the much needed focus many universities strive to achieve in the face of broad
internationalization strategies. Sadlak (2012) argues, “Good indicators can serve to
provide a handle on things that were previously hard to grasp; they render such activities
monitorable and to an extent influenceable.”
112

The process of globalization in higher education forces universities to answer
several questions. When considering the impact of large numbers of international
students and faculty, extending a brand image, establishing world-class status,
developing markets in other countries, and performing well on global university
rankings, administrators are tasked with navigating difficult areas of university
management. “Higher education has become a form of international trade,” advises
Wildavsky (2010). “With fewer restrictions on the circulation of students, professors, and
ideas around the globe, this intellectual commerce could be called free trade in minds,”
he continues (2010). What does it mean to be a global university? Global universities
provide competition and academic rigor that is both positive and beneficial to the global
community. Global universities inspire even larger amounts of academic migration
through both people and ideas, “but its net positive effect seems certain – which is why
free trade in minds holds the key to sustaining the world’s knowledge economy and
ultimately to restoring global prosperity” (Wildavsky, 2010).
113

REFERENCES
Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2011). About ARWU. National Research
Council. Retrieved from: http://www.arwu.org/aboutARWU.jsp
Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2011). Ranking Methodology. National
Research Council. Retrieved from:
http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp
Altbach, P.G. (2002). Knowledge and education as international commodities. Inside
Higher Ed, 28, 2-5.
Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalisation and the University: Myths and Realities in a Unequal
World. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3-25.
Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education:
Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4),
290-305. doi: 10.1177/1028315307303542
Altbach, P.G. (2010). The State of Rankings. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com.
Armstrong, Lloyd. (2007). Competing in the Global Higher Education Marketplace:
Outsourcing, Twinning and Franchising. New Directions for Higher Education,
140, 131-138.
Association of American Universities. (2010). AAU Facts and Figures. Association of
American Universities. Retrieved from: www.aau.edu.
Association of Pacific Rim Universities Secretariat. (2008). Bridging the Pacific Rim
Community through Education, Research and Enterprise. Association of Pacific
Rim Universities. Retrieved from apru.org.
A.T. Kearney. (2007). Globalization Index Methodology. Retrieved from:
http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/globalization-index-data-
2007.html
A.T. Kearney & Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2007). The Global Top
20. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.atkearney.com/images/global/pdf/GIndex_2007.pdf
Berthold, Christian. (2011). Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation.
Gutersloh, DE: Centre for Higher Education Development.
Blossfield, H.P., & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting Barriers: Changes in Educational
Opportunities in Thirteen Countries. (pp. 245-260). Persistent Inequality.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
British Council. (2010). Measuring and benchmarking the internationalisation of
education. Presented at the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Economist.
114

Buarque, C. (2004). The Global University. Peer Review, 6(2), 8-12.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). Summary Tables: Basic
Classification. Carnegie Foundation. Retrieved from: carnegiefoundation.org.
Centre for Higher Education Development. (2011). Indicators for Mapping and
ProfilingInternationalisation: Information on IMPI. Retrieved from:
http://www.impi-project.eu/
Cho, Young Ha and Palmer, John D. (2012). Stakeholders’ views on National Policy for
Internationalization of South Korean Higher Education. Table Presentation at the
American Educational Research Association Conference, Vancouver, BC.
Council on International Educational Exchange. (2009). CIEE at 60: Celebrating Sixty
Years of International Educational Exchange.Council on International
Educational Exchange. Retrieved from: ciee.org/home/about/about-ciee.aspx
Croxford, L. (2001). Global University Education: Some Cultural Considerations. Higher
Education in Europe, 26(1), 53-60. doi: 10.1080/03797720120054184
Deem, R., Mok, K.W., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming Higher Education in Whose
Image? Exploring the Concept of the ‘World-Class’ University in Europe and
Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 83-97. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300179
Diamond, M.A., Robison, M.P., & Gallagher, K.S. (2011). Global Programs: Critical
Perspectives and Innovative Approaches. Presentation at World Universities
Forum, Hong Kong.
Dowd, Alicia, and Bensimon, Estela. (2009). CUE Frameworks for Action, Research and
Evaluation. Los Angeles, University of Southern California.
Dowd, Alicia, and Bensimon, Estela. (2009). The social learning theory and tools
underlying CUE’s facilitation of action inquiry for equity. Los Angeles: Center
for Urban Education, University of Southern California.
Dwyer, M. (2010). Measuring Excellence. M ac l e an’s. Retrieved from:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/11/11/measuring-excellence/
Fischer, K. (2009). U. of Cincinatti Builds a System to Track Its Place in the World.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://www.chronicle.com.
Fischer, K. (2011). Consortium Wants to Help Universities Get a Clearer Picture of Their
Global Partnerships. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.chronicle.com.
Frost, Susan and Chopp, Rebecca. (2004). The University as Global City: A New Way of
Seeing Today’s Academy. Change, 36(2), 44-51.
Frost, Susan and Pozorski, Aimee. (2006). Chaos and the New Academy. What makes
academic leadership so challenging? 1-14.
115

Gilroy, Marilyn. (2007). Going Global. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education,
17(15), 52-55.
Gladwell, Malcolm. (2011). The Order of Things: What College Rankings Really Tell
Us. The New Yorker, 68-75.
Horn, A.S., Darwin, D.H., and Fry, G.W. (2007). Ranking the International Dimension of
Top Research Universities in the United States. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 11(3/4), 330-358. doi: 10.1177/1028315306294630
Ishikawa, M. (2009). University Rankings, Global Models, and Emerging Hegemony:
Critical Analysis from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(2), 159-173. doi: 10.1177/1028315308330853
Jaschik, S. (2011). Global Comparisons. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com.
Jaschik, S. (2010). Using the Rankings. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com.
Jaschik, S. (2010). You’re Not No.1. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com.
Jiang, E. (2008). A comparative analysis of key construction projects of higher education
in China, Korea, and Japan. Frontiers of Education in China, 3(2), 225-235. doi:
10.1007/s11516-008-0014-6
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – Measures That Drive
Performance. Harvard Business Review. (January/February), 71-79.
Kim, Ki-Seok & Nam, S. (2007). The Making of a World-Class University at the
Periphery. In Altbach, P. & Balan, J. (Eds.), World Class Worldwide:
Transforming Reasearch Universities in Asia and Latin America (pp. 122-139).
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kogut, Bruce. (1985). Designing Global Strategies: Comparative and Competitive Value-
Added Chains. Sloan Management Review, 26(4), 15-28.
Kwiek, M. (2001). Globalization and Higher Education. Higher Education in Europe,
26(1), 27-38. doi: 10.1080/03799920120054157
Levin, J.S. (2001). Globalizing the Community College: Strategies for Change in the 21
st

Century. New York: Palgrave.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G.N., & Seng, M.S.Y. (2003). The third wave: future trends in
international education. The International Journal of Educational Management,
17(2/3), 90-99.
116

McBurnie, G. (2000). Pursuing Internationalization as a Means to Advance the Academic
Mission of the University: An Australian Case Study. Higher Education in
Europe, 25(1), 63-73.
McCormick, A.C., & Zhao, C.M. (2005). Rethinking and Reframing The Carnegie
Classification. Change, September/October, 51-57.
Morris, L.V. (2008). Global Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 33: 139-
140. doi: 10.1007/s10755-008-9080-1
National Academy Press. (2010). A Data Based Assessment of Research Doctorate
Programs in the United States. National Research Council.
O’Neil, H.F., Bensimon, E.M., Diamond, M.A., & Moore, M.R. (1999). Designing and
Implementing an Academic Scorecard. Change, 32-40.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). About the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from oecd.org.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3
rd
Ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of Higher Education: toward a conceptual
framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-270.
Robison, M.P. (2004). The Past, Present, and Future of American Research Universities.
Unpublished paper. University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education, Los Angeles, California.
Rossman, Parker. (1991). The emerging global university. The Futurist, 25(6).
Sadlak, Jan. (2008). The emergence of a new ‘Geopolitics’ of higher education: context,
causes and frameworks. Beyond 2010: Priorities and Challenges for Higher
Education in the next decade. Bonn: Lemmens Medien, 133-139.
Sadlak, Jan. (2012). Fostering and Measuring ‘Third Mission’ in Higher Education. Draft
Green Paper. European Indicators and Ranking Methodology for University Third
Mission.
Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and Higher Education: Challenges for the 21
st
Century.
Journal of Studies in International Education.
Sternberg, R.J. (2010). Defining a Great University. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
http://www.insidehighered.com.
Times Higher Education Supplement. (2010). Robust, Transparent and Sophisticated.
World University Rankings. Retrieved from:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-
2011/analysis-methodology.html
117

Times Higher Education Supplement. (2010). No Borders, Only Frontiers. World
University Rankings. Retrieved from:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/
Wildavsky, Ben. (2010). The Great Brain Race: How Universities Are Reshaping the
World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Wildavsky, Ben. (2010). Why Should We Care About Global Higher Education?
International Educator, 19(5), 60-63.
Wilson, Mark. (2010). Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach.
New York: Routledge.

118

APPENDIX A
Research Methodology Framework

Theory/Conceptual Framework
119

APPENDIX B
Research Questions/Interview Protocol Correlation Grid
Administration/Institutional Leaders
Research Question
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at comprehensive,
highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities with global academic and
research standards, common values and similarities in organization and management?
1. Which aspects of globalization in higher education do you believe are important? What
do you think are the indicators of a global university?

2. (Stakeholder Perspective/Social and Cultural Rationale) What would you like to see
happen with regard to stakeholder perception of the campus as a global institution?
Which social and cultural programs and activities do you think have the most impact?

3. (Internal Business Perspective/Economic Rationale) What is your opinion of global
partnerships, joint ventures and degree programs, and off-shore branch campuses?
What would you like to see happen internally to promote globalization?

4. (Innovation and Learning Perspective/Academic Rationale) Academically, what do you
think about the current levels of international students and faculty and international
research collaboration and what impact do you think these have on the institution as a
global university? What do you believe are the most innovative learning opportunities?

5. (Academic Management Perspective/Political Rationale) What proactive structures for
globalization would you like to see happen? What do you think about the amount of
funding currently being appropriated for global initiatives?

6. (Activity Approach) What activities do you believe will increase institutional global
engagement?
7. (Competency Approach) What do you think people need to know, be able to do, and
value to promote globalization?
8. (Ethos Approach) What would you like to see happen within the culture and climate
that values and supports international and intercultural perspectives and initiatives?
9. (Process Approach) What is your opinion of the integration or infusion of international
and intercultural dimensions into teaching, research and service?

120

Research Questions/Interview Protocol Correlation Grid
Experts/Executives
Research Question #1
What indicators may be used to effectively measure global engagement at
comprehensive, highly research-oriented, geographically diverse universities with global
academic and research standards, common values and similarities in organization and
management?
1. What in your opinion constitutes a global university? What are some indicators of a global
university?

2. (Stakeholder Perspective/Social and Cultural Rationale) What impact do you think
social and cultural programs and activities have on students and other stakeholders? What
is your opinion of the importance of the perception of students/stakeholders of an
institution as global?

3. (Internal Business Perspective/Economic Rationale) How do you think institutional
global partnerships, joint ventures and degree programs and off-shore branch campuses
impact an institution’s global profile? What do you believe higher education institutions
can do to change their internal business practices to include global initiatives and
programs?

4. (Innovation and Learning Perspective/Academic Rationale) What is your opinion of
the impact international students and faculty and international research collaboration has
at a global university? What do you believe are important learning innovations on global
campuses?

5. (Academic Management Perspective/Political Rationale) What proactive structures for
globalization would you like to see materialize on college campuses? What would you
like to see happen with regard to prospective funding opportunities for global activities
and programs?

6. (Activity Approach) What activities do you believe will promote global engagement at
higher education institutions?
7. (Competency Approach) What do you think administrators, faculty, staff and students
need to know, be able to do, and value to promote globalization on campus?
8. (Ethos Approach) What would you like to see happen within the culture and climate of
colleges and universities that values and supports international and intercultural
perspectives and initiatives?
9. (Process Approach) What is your opinion of the integration or infusion of international
and intercultural dimensions into teaching, research or service?

121

APPENDIX C
Sample
Sample
University
Administrators

Title
Organization/
Office University Founded
Student
Pop.
Faculty
Pop. Location
1
Vice
President
International
Studies
Canada
Southwestern
University 1908 54,000 N/A
Vancouver,
British
Columbia,
Canada
2 Manager
Office of
Internationaliz
ation
Victoria
University 1855 47,000 6,500
Melbourne,
Victoria,
Australia
3
Director of
Student Life
Student
Experience
South Oxford
University 1824 39,700 5,500
Manchester,
United
Kingdom
4 Director Global Studies
Japanese
International
University 1858 33,800 3,000 Tokyo, Japan
5 Vice Provost
Office of
Globalization
University of
Northern
California 1905 32,700 4,000
Bay Area,
California,
United States

Global Executives/Experts

1
Pro-Vice
Chancellor
European
Office of
International
Studies
Camelot
University 1881 34,000 N/A
Calverton,
United
Kingdom
2 Director
International
University
Network
New England
Colonial
College 1863 14,600 740
Cambridge,
Massachusett,
United States
3
Secretary
General
Center for
Global
Curriculum
Orange
University 1861 N/A 650
Orange
County,
California,
United States
4 President
International
Organization
of Global
Universities Multiple 1997 N/A N/A
Multinational,
Worldwide
5 Director
Center for
Trans-Global
Higher
Education Multiple 1945 N/A N/A Paris, France
*Pseudonyms used *N/A – Not Available

122

APPENDIX D
Diagram of Responses (What are the indicators of a global university?)
Diagram of Responses: Indicators of Globalization/Important Aspects in
Globalization

What are the indicators of a global university?
What aspects of globalization in higher education are important?

University
Administrators
Organizational
Experts/
Executives
1. Large body of international students,
faculty, administrators
2. Brand image/recognition
3. International partnerships
4. Funding/fundraising for global
activities
5. International research collaboration
6. Publications/citations worldwide
7. Active, academic cross-border
engagement
8. Closely-coupled systems
9. International offices
10. Top-down administrative support and
involvement
11. Meaningful interaction/integration on
campus
12. Global programs and activities
13. Global consciousness
Social Responsibility

Globalization as a long-term
process

High proportion of
international students

Diversity of nationalities
and ethnicities
Consciousness of global trends

3 primary factors: generate
knowledge, disseminate
knowledge, and apply
knowledge

“World-Class University”

Cross-cultural and cross-
national development

Understanding of political,
economic, social, technological,
and cultural systems
123

APPENDIX E
The Scale of Global Engagement - Indicators of Globalization at Universities
Stakeholder
Perspective/
Social and
Cultural
Rationale
Internal
Business
Perspective/
Economic
Rationale
Innovation and
Learning
Perspective/
Academic
Rationale
Academic
Management
Perspective/
Political
Rationale
International Students, Faculty, and Administrators
Global
Consciousness
Brand
Image/Recognition
International
Research
Collaboration
Top-Down
Administrative
Support and
Involvement
Global Programs
and Activities
International
Partnerships
Publications/Citation
s Worldwide
International Offices
Meaningful
Interaction/
Integration on
Campus
Funding/Fundraising
for Global Activities
Active, Academic
Cross-Border
Engagement
Closely-Coupled
Systems
Student
Exchange/Study
Abroad Programs
Joint
Ventures/Degree
Programs
Visiting
Scholars/Joint
Appointments/
Faculty-Staff
Mobility
Awards/
International
Recognition/
Fellowships

124

APPENDIX F
Activating the Global Scorecard Cycle

Vision
(What)
Purpose
(Why)
Goals
(When)
Data
Collection
(Where)
Informed
Action
(How)
Scale of Global Engagement/
Indicators of Globalization

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

PDF

The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution

PDF

An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study

PDF

The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management

PDF

The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program

PDF

Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study

PDF

The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs

PDF

Third culture kids and college support: a case study

PDF

Increasing international student application and enrollment to a branch campus

PDF

Recruiting faculty abroad: examining factors that induced American faculty to work at branch campuses in Qatar's Education City

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing Emiratisation in engineering faculty position at the higher colleges of technology

PDF

Examining the market entry strategies of a university's international expansion into a developing country

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

Restructuring Hong Kong higher education: a case study of Lingnan University and its preparation for the new four-year track in 2012

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at an East Asian university: a gap analysis

PDF

The influence of globalization and multinational corporations on schools and universities in Costa Rica

Asset Metadata

Creator Johnson, Lincoln Duane (author)

Core Title Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/04/2012

Defense Date 08/16/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag global engagement,global university,Globalization,Higher education,internationalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,scale,scorecard,universities

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robison, Mark Power (committee chair), Diamond, Michael A. (committee member), McGillivray, Kenneth J. (committee member)

Creator Email ldjohnso@usc.edu,LincDJ@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-99749

Unique identifier UC11290251

Identifier usctheses-c3-99749 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JohnsonLin-1225.pdf

Dmrecord 99749

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Johnson, Lincoln Duane

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA