University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
GLOBALIZATION, INTERNATIONALIZATION AND THE FACULTY:
CULTURE AND PERCEPTION OF FULL-TIME FACULTY
AT A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

by

Alison Izawa Hirano

_______________________________________________________________________

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 Alison Izawa Hirano
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Having loved my undergraduate years and been so enriched by my experience, I
adamantly believed that a doctorate in higher education would be the natural and ideal
culmination to my academic career. I soon found, however, that life in a doctoral
program is neither a natural nor an ideal existence. Thankfully, I was fortunate enough to
have a brilliant network of people who uncannily knew what I needed to succeed in this
chapter of my life. Many of these individuals have accompanied me through other
journeys and endeavors. To all of these people, I would like to express my thanks and
gratitude.
To the dissertation group, Fiona, Linc, Noosha, Ryan, Shirley, Suzanne, Virginia
and Xin: I have learned so much from all of you and am grateful for your insightful
comments, suggestions, and camaraderie throughout this challenging process.
To the friends who took this ride with me, above all Kristin, Shannon, and
Svetlana: despite the challenges in your lives – from attaining a doctorate in a second
language, to overcoming personal heartaches, to moving far from home to pursue your
dreams – you are superstars and I am grateful to have met you on this journey.
To Elynar and Lina: I will always be thankful for the conversations, laughs and
adventures we have shared; your beautiful, intelligent, courageous and passionate spirits
have helped me to stay on this path. Thank you for inspiring me.
To Wes, I could not have even thought of beginning this journey without you!
Thank you for keeping me sane and balanced; I am so grateful for your dependability,
thoughtfulness, and especially the desserts and kanikapila. You have been my support
system more than is reasonable for a best friend.

iii

To my extended families – the Azamas, Hiranos, Izawas and Kusunokis: thank
you for all of your love, support, and millions of kindnesses at home and thousands of
miles away. Also, a special thanks to Becky, for being my family away from home and
my own Air Force hero.
To the faculty who helped me immeasurably during this program and throughout
the dissertation process: Dr. Alicia Dowd and Dr. Darnell Cole, thank you for generously
making yourselves available with the little time you had to spare, for your
encouragements, and for the opportunities you have offered to me. To my Co-Chairs, Dr.
Mark Power Robison and Dr. Michael Diamond: after a late start, you both graciously
accepted me into your group, and I never looked back. Your combined experience,
intellect and resources were a huge benefit to me; thank you for your guidance and
support, and for somehow knowing when to push, when to reassure, and when to let me
do my own thing.
To my Mom, Dad and brother, David, thank you for allowing me to do what I
need to do. I will never be able to list the millions of ways you offered and gave your
unfailing support. I could not have completed this dissertation, this program, or any of
the achievements I have accomplished in my life without your enduring strength and
love.
Lastly, a thank you to Steve: I am deeply indebted to everything you have done to
help me complete this program, and with the many other paths we have taken together.
Your determination to always strive to be better encourages me to do the same. Thank
you for your generosity, patience, humor, and your unconditional love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 8
Definitions 9
Limitations 11
Organization of the Study 12

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Globalization 14
Defining Globalization in Society 14
The Factors of Globalization and How they Influence Higher Education 17
Internationalization in Colleges and Universities 22
Defining Internationalization 23
Rationales 25
Internationalizing the Campus 28
Internationalization Efforts: The Current Picture and Faculty Responsibilities 29
Faculty, Globalization and Internationalization 36
How Globalization and Internationalization affect Faculty 38
Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs and Perceptions of Internationalization 46
Framework: Umbach’s (2007) Faculty Cultures Model 53
Figure 1: Umbach’s (2007) Cultural Model 56
Conceptual Model 67
Chapter Summary 68

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 70
Population and Sample 72
Instrumentation 77
Data Collection 78
Data Analysis 80

v

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 82
Faculty Sample 84
Part One: Results for Research Question One 86
Section One: Defining Globalization and Internationalization, a Culture of
Uncertainty 86
Section Two: Globalization and Internationalization Effects on Higher Education92
Research: A Culture of Cooperation 108
Language: A Culture of Multilingualism 113
Western Influences: A Globally-Inclusive Culture 120
Location: A Culture of Global Receptiveness and Representativeness 125
Summary of Research Question One 132
Part Two: Results for Research Question Two 133
Section One: Natural Sciences, an Enthusiastic and Encouraging Culture 134
Natural Sciences Summary 148
Section Two: Social Sciences, an Adapting, Accepting, and Critical Culture 148
Social Sciences Summary 161
Section Three: Humanities, an Uncertain and Institutionally-Critical Culture 162
Humanities Summary 179
Summary of Research Question Two 180
Chapter Summary 181

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 182
Impetus of the Study 182
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 184
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 189
Limitations of the Study 193
Implications for Practice 195
Implications for Future Research 199
Conclusion 203

REFERENCES 204

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL WITH FACULTY 216

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of Departments within Each Discipline at WRU 85

Table 2: The Benefits of International Students in the University: A Culture of
Enthusiastic Acceptance 96

Table 3: Concerns with International Students in the University: A Culture of
Accommodation 97

Table 4: Study Abroad: A Culture of Support and Progress 105

Table 5: Research: A Culture of Cooperation 110

Table 6: Language: A Culture of Multilingualism (English and a Second Language) 116

Table 7: Western Influences: A Globally-Inclusive Culture 122

Table 8: University Location: A Culture of Global Receptiveness and
Representativeness 127

Table 9: Natural Sciences, Academic Professional Subculture:
An Enthusiastic Culture 136

Table 10: Natural Sciences, Institutional Subculture: An Encouraging Culture 137

Table 11: Social Sciences, Academic Subculture: A Culture
of Adapting Acceptance 152

Table 12: Social Sciences, Institutional Subculture:
An Institutionally- Critical Culture 153

Table 13: Humanities, Academic Professional Subculture: A Culture of Uncertainty 164

Table 14: Humanities, Institutional Subculture: An Institutionally-Critical Culture 165

Table 15: Disciplinary Cultures of Globalization and Internationalization 181

vii

ABSTRACT
The processes of globalization have an impact on society in numerous ways. As a
result, higher education institutions around the world attempt to adjust to these changes
through internationalization efforts. Amongst the key stakeholders who play an important
role in assuring that these efforts are successful is the faculty because it is this body of
academics and scholars who are primarily responsible for the research and teaching
aspects of the university. However, very little is known about faculty perceptions of
internationalization and virtually no studies have investigated faculty perceptions of
globalization. Furthermore, the cultures of faculty, specifically one of the most influential
cultures – the disciplinary culture – could potentially have a significant impact on their
perceptions.
This study set out to investigate how faculty perceived globalization and
internationalization, the faculty cultures that might be indicated by these perceptions, and
whether or not these perceptions and cultures varied between the faculty disciplines. In
this study, thirty full-time faculty at a research university were interviewed. All
participants were selected based on their faculty position in one of three broad
disciplinary groups: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. In implementing
a qualitative methods approach, this study utilized an open-ended interviewing method.
In the data analysis, Umbach’s (2007) model of faculty culture was employed as the
theoretical framework.
This study found that faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization
do vary substantially amongst the disciplines, and, although faculty do define these
processes in a variety of contexts, faculty tend to understand globalization and

viii

internationalization through particular practices and policies within the higher education
landscape. Due to the considerable differences in faculty perceptions and cultures, the
researcher recommends that institutions of higher education take into account the cultural
differences that may have an impact on faculty perceptions of globalization and
internationalization, and that the contexts revealed by the faculty in this study – as ways
in which they perceive these processes – can be utilized by institutions who seek to
implement cohesive and successful internationalization efforts that address globalization.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Globalization indelibly alters societies around the world through the rapid
evolution of technology, economy, culture and politics. This phenomenon also influences
higher education institutions worldwide. Yet, if globalization is a process that cannot be
controlled, then internationalization describes actions that individuals and organizations
around the world can take to evolve with, adjust to, and address globalization. In order to
navigate the emerging developments occurring in society as a result of globalization,
colleges and universities become more internationalized. As postsecondary institutions
seek to develop and maintain internationalization efforts that are comprehensive,
appropriate and successful, it is important that colleges and universities consider the
values and beliefs of their stakeholders, including – and perhaps most crucially – the
faculty. This constituent body of educators plays a key role in an institution’s efforts to
globalize and internationalize as they shoulder primary responsibility for the teaching and
research endeavors of these organizations.
This study, therefore, examined faculty perceptions of globalization,
internationalization, and the related efforts taking place at their research university, and
sought to gain a better understanding of the ways in which various faculty cultures may
shape these perceptions. To uncover the relationship between perception and culture,
faculty at a research university were qualitatively examined through interviews. The
objective of this investigation was to determine in what way disciplinary cultures may
affect faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization, and – subsequently –

2
how these perceptions may affect institutional efforts of internationalization that address
globalization.
Background of the Problem
Globalization describes the distinct and fundamental changes occurring in
specific facets of society, most notably in the political, economic, cultural and
technological spheres (Altbach, 2006; Appadurai, 1996; Armstrong, 2007; Deem, 2001;
Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton, 1999; Kose, Prasad & Terrones, 2003; Marginson
& Rhoades, 2002; Mok, 2003; Smith, 2004; Urry, 1998; Wagner, 2004). In this new era,
governments demand more accountability in higher education – even as they decrease
financial subsidies guaranteed to colleges and universities – in the midst of an economic
downturn and growing budget deficits (Alexander, 2000; Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002; Levin,
1999; Mok, 2000). These calls for accountability in postsecondary education are
supported by public demands for the development of a superior knowledge-economy that
can support, and benefit from, the rapid advancements in technology and science and
cultivate a highly-educated workforce to manage and improve upon these advancements
(Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002; Johnstone, 2004; Knight, 2006; Levin, 1999; Naidoo, 2003;
Scott, 2000). Furthermore, this insistence on a highly-educated workforce can be
attributed to another phenomenon resulting from globalization: the massification, or
recent upsurge, of college enrollment around the world (Alexander, 2000; Carnoy &
Rhoten, 2002; Johnstone, 2004; Naidoo, 2003; Scott, 2000). According to a 2009 report
from UNESCO, the number of students pursuing higher education globally rose from
28.6 million in 1970 to 152.5 million in 2007. Moreover, colleges and universities in the
United States discovered that embracing foreign cultures, knowledge and experiences is

3
more important than ever. The international dimension of higher education is
increasingly essential and significantly more complex (Knight, 2004).
In response to the persistent demands of globalization, internationalization is a
prevalent strategy of contemporary higher education institutions, who seek to adopt
policies and initiate programs that infuse an international dynamic into the educational
experience (Childress, 2009; Chan, 2004; Cooper & Niu, 2010; Murphy, 2007). Efforts
towards internationalization in postsecondary education are also an answer to calls from
governments, businesses and scholars, demanding that colleges and universities prepare
globally competent citizens for an increasingly interdependent world (Committee for
Economic Development; 2006; National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges, 2004; Olson, Green & Hill, 2005). As the necessity of
internationalization in higher education builds, researchers of these organizations catalog
an ever-expanding and increasingly complicated framework of approaches that colleges
and universities frequently implement in order to internationalize the campus (Knight,
2004; Qiang, 2003).
Though internationalization efforts vary by institution, the approaches adopted by
a college or university can have an enormous impact on the academic environment
(Altbach & Knight, 2007; Mohrman, Ma & Baker, 2008). For example, one approach
practiced widely throughout higher education is the recruitment of international students
(Altbach & Knight, 2007). According to the Institute of International Education (2011),
the United States hosted 20% of the 3.3 million students who were internationally
mobile. This is approximately 691,000 students, most of whom come from China, India
and South Korea. In a separate report listing the colleges with the highest share of

4
international students in the U.S. from 2009-2010, the Chronicle of Higher Education
ranked the Illinois Institute of Technology first, with international students comprising
49.8% of the total student enrollment. Hosting a considerable number of foreign students,
while offering many benefits to the academic culture of an institution, may also cause
concerns on campus as faculty and staff must be prepared to support these students in and
out of the classroom.
Therefore, as a strategic priority, internationalization efforts require institution-
wide support, resources and coordination (Dewey & Duff, 2009). In particular, research
indicates that the faculty in higher education plays a key role in an institution’s efforts to
globalize and internationalize largely because this group of academic constituents has
primary responsibility for the teaching and research components of the university (Stohl,
2007). Gumport (2000) asserted that, “the role of faculty within academic governance
should not be overlooked, particularly when restructuring the academic landscape” (p.
78). Furthermore, it is believed that, though organizational efforts may start with the
administrative leadership, such as a university president, such efforts will not survive
without the participation and commitment of the faculty (Clark, 1972; Lindquist, 1978).
Faculty are, therefore, an essential part of an institution’s internationalization efforts.
Achieving widespread faculty consensus of institutional efforts, however, can be
a difficult process due to a number of factors. One such concern is that literature
demonstrates globalization and internationalization as complex constructs that are not
thoroughly understood amongst students, staff, and faculty. A recent study of the
internationalization plans at 31 institutions found that among the factors hindering the
implementation of these plans was a lack of understanding – amongst the faculty,

5
students and staff – of what international education or internationalization meant, making
it difficult to develop the necessary support to carry out the plans (Childress, 2009).
Without a clear understanding of the important concepts, its significance to the institution
and how relevant goals might be achieved, internationalization efforts may not come to
fruition.
A second concern lies in the differences amongst the cultures of faculty who are
trained in a spectrum of scholarly fields, pedagogies, research techniques and resources
(Stohl, 2007), in addition to their varying personal characteristics. Perhaps the most
influential culture in a faculty member’s professional life is that of the discipline (Clark,
1987). Faculty are immersed in these disciplinary subcultures which have unique
approaches to initiating new members and social interactions, methods for classifying
knowledge, and structures for specialization within the discipline (Becher, 1987). These
differences may cultivate a variety of perspectives and cultures amongst the faculty that
should be addressed, particularly in efforts that seek unified participation from the
faculty.
Therefore, in order to carry out campus-wide efforts effectively and achieve
institutional goals, it is important for colleges and universities to determine how faculty
perceive globalization and internationalization, and, furthermore, that – despite
differences – these stakeholders are in agreement with, and want to be involved in, the
institution’s efforts. Thus, these higher education organizations should seek to understand
the perceptions of the faculty in institutional endeavors (DeAngelo, Hurtado, Pryor,
Kelly, Santos, Korn, 2009). Despite this assertion, however, there are currently very few
studies considering the perceptions of faculty in regards to the internationalization of

6
their work or workplace, and virtually no studies looking at faculty perceptions of
globalization.
Statement of the Problem
Faculty are cited in the literature as a potential obstacle to the implementation of
internationalization efforts due to their autonomous nature (Childress, 2009), and
engagement of the faculty is seen as one of the chief challenges to the internationalization
of higher education (Stohl, 2007). Faculty – as major stakeholders of an institution – can
be influential proponents or opponents of a college or university’s attempts to expand
globally and enrich the institution internationally, as they are protected by the principles
of academic freedom and the structures of tenure. Childress (2009) found that widespread
faculty engagement can be a comprehensive enabling factor in the implementation of
internationalization plans. Therefore, it is to an institution’s advantage to gain the support
of the faculty in order to achieve a smooth and successful realization of efforts towards
globalization and internationalization.
Another obstacle to internationalization efforts in higher education is a lack of
empirical research on the role of the faculty. There are currently a limited number of
studies that consider faculty perspectives of globalization and internationalization.
Additionally, most of these previous studies use a survey method to investigate their
research questions. As a methodological approach, surveys are useful for gathering data
from a large sample of the population and in deriving quantitative analyses from the
information collected (Creswell, 2009). However, it is difficult to get a clear and in-depth
understanding of faculty perceptions and cultures from surveys, as these instruments can
produce mixed and confusing results. For example, contradictory findings were evident

7
in the results of the Siaya and Hayward (2003) study which polled faculty members at
144 research universities. Faculty at these institutions reported that they were very
supportive of international activities; however, this enthusiasm was not reflected in their
participation in these types of activities (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Previous research on
this topic suggests using methods other than surveys – such as case studies and
interviews – in order to explore the complex culture of higher education from a different
perspective (Schwietz, 2006). The methodology used here sought to incorporate a case
study and interviews in the analysis.
Moreover, several scholars argued that faculty cultures, such as the disciplinary
subculture, are influential forces that guide faculty behaviors and the ways in which these
academics view their professional responsibilities (Austin, 1990; Umbach, 2007).
Umbach (2007) believed that administrators and faculty leaders must first fully
understand and assess campus cultures, lest they run the risk of implementing
unsuccessful and counterproductive policies or programs. Institutional actions are likely
to be more successful if they do not run in opposition to the values of faculty cultures
(Umbach, 2007). Therefore, this study presumed that faculty cultures do affect the
actions and behaviors of faculty. Furthermore, this investigation attempted to uncover the
relationship between faculty cultures and faculty perceptions of globalization and
internationalization on campus.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to contribute to the literature by examining the manner in
which globalization and internationalization are perceived by the faculty and the ways in
which the disciplinary characteristics of faculty, specifically referred to here as

8
disciplinary subcultures, might affect their perceptions of these two complex constructs.
A critical study of faculty from one institution was undertaken in order to provide a
richer analysis of the disciplinary cultural factors that were integral to engaging in
globalization and internationalization at this particular research university. This study
interviewed faculty, with a focus on cultural differences amongst the academic
disciplines, in order to determine if these differences played a role in influencing faculty
in regards to globalization and internationalization.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this study were as follows:
 How do faculty at a research university perceive globalization and
internationalization?
 Do faculty members’ perceptions of globalization and
internationalization in higher education vary depending on their
disciplinary subculture, and, if so, in what ways are the perspectives
different?
Significance of the Study
Higher education institutions that initiate plans to become more global must
recognize and understand the perceptions of the faculty, and the possible underlying
influence of faculty cultures on these perceptions, which may support or not support on-
campus globalization and internationalization efforts. Thus, this dissertation attempted to
add to existing literature in four overarching ways. First, this study qualitatively
supplements the literature regarding the perceptions of faculty toward globalization and
internationalization and provides a deeper understanding of the ways in which faculty

9
cultures can impact faculty motivations. More importantly, faculty perspectives of
globalization have not been studied previously. This examination attempted to determine
if there is a relationship between faculty perspectives of these two constructs. Second,
this study was the first to empirically test Umbach’s (2007) model of faculty culture in
order to ascertain if and how these disciplinary subcultures affect faculty perceptions
related to globalization and internationalization efforts at their research institution. Third,
the results and findings of this study will be helpful for stakeholders at the particular
university being studied, as they may reveal areas of strength or of concern in
globalization and internationalization efforts. Fourth, and finally, this study offers a
qualitative methodological model, along with supporting data and analysis, which can be
used to further understand the effects of faculty cultures on faculty perceptions of
globalization and internationalization. This model may be adopted by, or offer
suggestions to, administrative leaders of similar research institutions who hope to engage
in internationalization efforts in order to address the changes of globalization.
Definitions
For the purposes of this dissertation, Altbach’s (2004) description of globalization
forms the basis for the definition used here. Thus, globalization is defined in this study as
the broad economic, political, technological, and social trends that directly affect higher
education and are largely inevitable in contemporary society. Furthermore,
internationalization is defined here as a process that integrates an international,
intercultural or global element into an institution’s purpose, major functions or delivery
of education (Knight, 1994; 1999; 2003). The term effort, which is consistently used
throughout this study is conceptualized here as any action undertaken by the stakeholders

10
of a college or university. Subsequently, internationalization efforts are defined as any
one of a multitude of actions an institution can take to promote or support the
globalization or internationalization of an institution. These efforts also align with
internationalization strategies, as discussed in Chapter Two.
This study further characterizes the term perceptions as the ways in which
different faculty members subjectively view globalization and internationalization
(Finegan & Theriault, 1997). Scholars have noted that a person’s perceptions shape
his/her attitudes and behaviors (Finegan & Theriault, 1997). Therefore, it is important
that the perceptions of faculty are understood, as they may have an impact on faculty
support for, or against, globalization and internationalization efforts. Due to time and
resource constraints, this dissertation does not seek to understand the underlying
development of the perceptions of faculty, but it does acknowledge that faculty cultures
can have an impact on faculty perceptions.
In understanding, as well as defining, the cultures that typically surround the
faculty, this investigation borrowed a great deal from Umbach’s (2007) framework on
faculty cultures and how these cultures influence this academic body. Consequently, the
current study borrows the definition of subculture used in Umbach’s framework, adopted
from Bolton and Kammeyer’s (1972) definition of subculture:
A normative value system held by some group or persons who are in persisting
interaction, who transmit the norms and values to newcomers by some
communicated process, and who exercise some sort of control to ensure
conformity to the norms. (pp. 318-382)

11
In the present study, the disciplinary subcultures are the primary focus. However,
additional cultures – such as the academic profession and institutional cultures – as
described by Umbach were also considered in the study.
Limitations
Each research university is unique, with a distinct mission as well as structures,
stakeholders, assets and challenges. Therefore, given the timeframe and resource
limitations of this study, it was impossible to address all differences that exist within all
research universities, and that may affect the faculty and faculty perceptions or cultures.
This study focused on only one institution, a research university in the western United
States, discussed further in the methods section, Chapter Three. Thus, the findings of this
study may only hold relevance for this one institution. However, though this analysis
concentrated on only one research university, this investigation primarily focused on
faculty perspectives amongst different disciplinary subcultures. These differences may be
applicable to faculty at a variety of institutions and not solely limited to the particular
institution under consideration. Nevertheless, results discussed here should be considered
carefully in respect to this limitation.
Moreover, this study focused primarily on research that applies to higher
education institutions in the United States and, more specifically, research universities.
Though certain parts of this dissertation may be relevant to other types of educational
institutions (e.g. community colleges, liberal arts colleges, for-profit organizations), this
study does not claim to address the unique issues that relate to globalization,
internationalization and faculty at institutions other than research universities.

12
A final limitation is inherent in the qualitative method used for this study. Faculty
were sent requests for interviews; respondents who agreed to be interviewed in this study
were therefore, self-selected. Furthermore, these faculty might have had particular
opinions about higher education internationalization and, thus, may have been more
inclined to participate in this study. However, the researcher actively attempted to recruit
faculty for interviews who might represent a variety of cultures and offer a variety of
perspectives on globalization and internationalization, as these phenomena affect higher
education.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation proceeds as follows: Chapter Two provides a thorough
discussion of the literature for the various topics that this study attempted to explore
further in addition to an introduction of Umbach’s theoretical framework employed in
this investigation. Chapter Three discusses the empirical methodology used to answer the
research questions of this study. In Chapter Four provides a description and discussion of
the results of the study. Finally, Chapter Five concludes the study with a summary of the
key findings as well as implications for practice and further research.

13
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purposes of this study was to determine how faculty at a research university
perceived globalization and internationalization by examining whether and how
professional disciplinary backgrounds, referred to here as cultures or subcultures,
influenced faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization in higher
education. Before this relationship can be analyzed, however, it is important to consider
carefully the constructs of globalization and internationalization. This is necessary
because the terms globalization and internationalization are frequently used
interchangeably in the literature and, therefore, this study benefits from some
clarification (Bartell, 2003). Additionally, there is a great deal of research considering the
significance of globalization and internationalization to higher education and the faculty,
but very little of it specifically considers how the various cultures of faculty may affect
their perceptions of institutional internationalization efforts that support globalization.
Cultural factors are important to consider because of the influence they have on
perceptions. Thus, this literature review connects the related but distinct nature of the
relevant topics: globalization, internationalization, faculty perceptions and faculty
cultures.
The first section of this review explores scholarship describing globalization in
order to gain a deeper understanding of this worldwide phenomenon and to carve out a
concise definition of the term for this study. This section also introduces the evolution of
postsecondary education as a direct result of globalization. The second section of the
review focuses on internationalization in colleges and universities, beginning with a

14
discussion of definitions and rationales for internationalizing the campus. Subsequently,
the strategies – or resulting efforts – of internationalization employed in institutions is
considered, followed by a brief assessment of the status of internationalization in higher
education. The third and final section of this review discusses the instrumental role of the
faculty in efforts toward globalizing and internationalizing postsecondary education.
Consequently, this section first considers how the teaching and research responsibilities
of faculty are affected by globalization and internationalization; the second section looks
at three prior studies analyzing faculty perceptions of internationalization and the related
efforts taking place at their institutions. Finally, the theoretical framework that was used
in this study to explore the dynamics between faculty culture and faculty perception is
introduced. In summary, this literature review sought to provide a solid foundational
exploration of these three topics – globalization, internationalization and faculty – from
which this study can build upon in order to answer the research questions being
considered.
Globalization
In order to better understand the significant impact of globalization and the ways
in which it influences post-secondary education today, this review first seeks to define
the term globalization as described in the research. With an appropriate definition
identified, the analysis discusses factors of globalization affecting higher education from
two integrated perspectives: economical/political and social/technological.
Defining Globalization in Society
Globalization is considered to be entrenched in the current order and future
direction of humanity; it is widely acknowledged to be a multifaceted, uncontrollable and

15
inevitable phenomenon, pervasive and powerful, a condition of our time (Altbach, 2006;
Burnett & Huisman, 2010; Chan, 2004; Knight, 2006; Wagner, 2004). In an attempt to
establish a basic and appropriate definition of this complex construct, parallels are found
in the literature that help to piece together an accurate description of globalization.
Several points of consistency in the scholarship appear to indicate that globalization is
directly tied into particular sectors of society, most notably politics, economy, technology
and culture. This section describes how international changes in these four sectors
encompass globalization in order to validate the definition used in this study.
The phenomenon of globalization is frequently portrayed in the literature as a
decrease in the influence of government and an increase in the power of business, the
markets, and/or the economy; trends occurring around the world (Armstrong, 2007;
Deem, 2001; Kose et al, 2003; Mok, 2003; Scott, 2000; Smith, 2004; Urry, 1998).
Globalization has been made responsible for the disintegration of state borders, the
reduction of national power, the disruption of government structures and the blurring of
differences amongst societies (Mok, 2003; Urry, 1998). Simultaneously, several authors
focused globalization’s impact on international business and the world market,
contending that this phenomenon is indicative of the proliferation of businesses, trade,
and financial integration throughout a global economy supported by transnational
companies and technology (Deem, 2001; Kose et al, 2003; Scott, 2000; Smith, 2004).
Similarly, Armstrong (2007) affirmed that globalization significantly affects the way
economies around the world operate: dismantling national boundaries of domestic
corporations, radically altering organizational structures and embracing the formation of

16
emerging markets. As these scholars demonstrate, globalization can most clearly be seen
as worldwide evolutions in business and politics.
In conjunction with these changes to governments and economies, the scholarship
states that globalization is further characterized by developments in technology and
culture (Altbach, 2006; Armstrong, 2007; Scott, 2000; Wagner, 2004). Relative to the
business sector, Armstrong (2007) defined globalization as a process that links innovative
technology with production modularization. Scott (2000) further stated that, as a
byproduct of globalization, national boundaries are rendered obsolete by the limitless
potential of emerging technology and mass culture, which has had a transformational
effect on societies worldwide. Yet, globalization is also frequently distinguished by a
particular cultural dimension (Wagner, 2004). As a result of the dynamic forces of
globalization, economic, political, technological and social systems become globally
integrated, cultivating an increased interconnectedness amongst nations, societies and, in
particular, organizations such as colleges and universities (Beerkens, 2004; van der
Wende, 2004). For higher education, the effects of globalization yielded a wealth of
information, resources and people from around the world, which led to the convergence
of knowledge on a global scale, as well as a separation of institutions from their national
context and an entrenchment into a multinational one (Beerkens, 2004; Denman, 2000;
Wildavsky, 2010). As new technology is developed, the flow of people, production,
culture and communication increases, thereby flooding and fortifying the connections
between individuals and organizations.
Thus, in an attempt to incorporate the salient points in the scholarship discussed
here, this study utilized Altbach’s (2006) description of globalization as a foundation in

17
order to build a definition appropriate to this particular investigation. Therefore,
globalization is defined here as the broad economic, political, technological, and social
trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable in contemporary
society. This definition highlights the significant changes occurring globally in particular
sectors of society as a direct result of the globalization phenomenon worldwide, which
plays an enormous role in the current evolution of colleges and universities. The
following section discusses research considering this evolution.
The Factors of Globalization and How they Influence Higher Education
Having defined globalization, this section considers the various factors
necessitating the transformation of colleges and universities to adapt to globalization. In
order to provide for a more concise discussion, the elements of globalization have been
combined, similar to the previous section: economic/political and technological/social.
The economic and political elements were linked to highlight the direct relationship
between the higher education sector (or market, see Mok, 2000) and government.
Similarly, the technology and social elements were also linked to observe their particular
effect on colleges and universities.
According to Altbach and Knight (2007), for the first time in history, global
resources heavily invest in knowledge industries, such as higher education, around the
world. This movement is indicative of developments worldwide that necessitate a
knowledge society – which describes an increasing government reliance on advanced
products and processes and a highly educated workforce – in order to develop, sustain
and promote the economic prosperity of countries. This knowledge society is viewed as
an integral element of globalization and directly dependent upon developments in the

18
higher education sector (Knight, 2006; Naidoo, 2003; Scott, 2000). Additionally, this
dependence is exemplified in multiple trends. First, there is an increasing need for
postsecondary education to provide more structures for professional development,
continuing education and lifelong learning opportunities. Second is the demand for new
skills and knowledge that encourages new programs and qualifications in higher
education. Third is the more commercialized role of universities in regards to research
(Knight, 2006). As a result, colleges and universities must shift their policies, practices
and structures accordingly, which requires a significant amount of planning,
organizational effort and funding.
However, the ability for states to provide funding to higher education is
increasingly strained (Knight, 2006). In fact, several scholars maintained that the basic
relationship between state funding and higher education has changed; colleges and
universities find that the government is no longer as willing or able as it once was to
finance higher education, and institutions are increasingly compelled to look to the
market for funding opportunities (Alexander, 2000; Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002; Levin,
1999). Related to this development, in an era of fiscal crises combined with
consumerism, popular opinion of higher education underwent a major paradigm shift: the
current belief asserts that a college education is less of a public responsibility – thus
making it less worthy of public support – and more of a private good primarily
benefitting the consumer (Altbach, 2001; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Naidoo, 2003). This
shift in the financial burden of higher education from the government to parents and
students – a phenomenon known as cost-sharing – is recognized in the literature as a
trend occurring around the world (Johnstone, 2004). In turn, postsecondary education is

19
perceived by the public as a marketable product that can be sold globally, while
enhancing national competitiveness, to the advent of the commercialization of knowledge
and higher education (Altbach, 2001; Naidoo, 2003). Colleges and universities have
adapted to this popular market-focused opinion, where the interest of the consumer is
superseding the interests of society (Kezar, 2004). Furthermore, as a result of the
emerging necessity of a globally-competitive knowledge society, along with the current
realities of economic restraint, governments demand more accountability, efficiency and
productivity from colleges and universities (Alexander, 2000; Mok, 2000). Taken in
conjunction, these political and economic shifts add to the considerable financial
concerns of postsecondary institutions.
In order to combat these emerging financial concerns, institutions adopt global
business practices and transnational market strategies in order to boost revenue and foster
more financial independence. Increasingly, colleges and universities engage in
international collaborations with other academic organizations and businesses in addition
to searching out innovative opportunities to capitalize on their knowledge-production
capabilities (Douglass, 2005). Moreover, several scholars asserted that one approach
most widely adopted is to increase the enrollment of foreign students who can pay their
own – and often higher – non-resident student fees while stimulating the local economy
and subsidizing domestic student enrollments (Davis, 2003; Douglass, 2005: Kritz, 2006;
Ward, 2007). Other revenue-generating activities institutions engage in include
franchised degree programs, branch campuses, online courses, and specific marketing
strategies such as segmentation, targeting and branding (Altbach & Knight, 2007;
Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006; Douglass, 2005).

20
Perhaps the most significant example of higher education’s plunge into the
marketization of knowledge production is demonstrated in the increasing focus of
institutions – both publicly and privately – on institutional and program rankings.
Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley (2009) explained that, in the absence of an official
international certification system, rankings and academic league tables have been used by
many individuals and organizations around the world in order to make sense of the vast
landscape of international higher education. These scholars also maintained that, despite
intense criticism of the methodology behind these systems, both the number of rankings
and their influence – particularly on policies and practices within, and concerning, higher
education institutions – have increased. In addition, these forms of market mechanisms
(rankings and league tables) have exerted pressure on colleges and universities to align
with consumer demands, particularly in light of evidence which suggests that where an
institution falls in the rankings is often regarded as a measure of its quality by the public
(Altbach et al, 2009; Naidoo, 2003). Other research found evidence that rankings and
league tables can influence major stakeholders, such as the government, in key policy
areas, such as the allocation of funding (Altbach et al, 2009; Hazelkorn, 2007). The
international ranking of academic institutions and degree programs can be viewed as a
major force in the proliferation and intensification of global higher education (Altbach et
al, 2009). Rankings and league tables, therefore, have enormous influence as marketing,
publicity and recruitment tools.
Social (or cultural) and technological factors are also cited in the literature as two
of the key indicators of the effects of globalization on higher education and as causes for
concern in a new era of higher education. In fact, several scholars suggested that the vast

21
changes and challenges affected by the economic dimensions of globalization on higher
education pale in comparison to what is occurring on the cultural front (Marginson & van
der Wende, 2007; Teichler, 2004). This is because knowledge, as the basis for research
and teaching, is highly fluid – particularly as a result of technologies such as the internet
– and can be more immediately influential than economic or political trends.
Furthermore, scholarship considering the impact of globalization on society
appears to be mixed when considering its benefits and detriments. Wildavsky (2010), for
example, contended that the perpetuation of globalization arises out of the belief that
well-educated individuals must be exposed to ideas and people, regardless of national
boundaries, and that globalization produces widespread economic benefits and
opportunities. Challenging this notion, however, other research suggested that
globalization, in conjunction with technology-driven education, undermines the physical
experience of community, leads to the persistent imposition of Western values and
promotes the loss of indigenous culture (Yang, 2003). Though the exact nature of the
social and technological effects of globalization continues to be debated, evidence that
the results are far-reaching and profoundly influential abound.
As a central tenet of globalization, technology – particularly the instructional,
informational and communications technologies – is believed to be the most significant
cause of globalization in higher education (Altbach, 2006; Altbach et al, 2009;
Armstrong, 2007; Douglass, 2005; Scott, 2000; Wagner, 2004). The literature affirmed
that recent advances in technology accelerated globalization and have directly affected
higher education by rendering the physical location of the institution less relevant
(Huisman & Currie, 2004). Evidence of this can be seen in the advent and proliferation of

22
online distance education, as the extensive utilization of technologies are employed in
order to combat issues of time and physical space in teaching (Odin, 2004).
This review of the literature is not an all-encompassing analysis of the ways in
which higher education evolved in the face of globalization. However, the research
overall appears to indicate that higher education institutions were significantly altered by
the primary elements that characterize globalization. Due to these forces, colleges and
universities made great strides to adjust.
In order for institutions of higher education to adapt to the forces of globalization,
as discussed in this section, these organizations evolve through processes of
internationalization. The following section explores this concept of internationalization
from multiple perspectives, with a focus on why and how institutions internationalize.
This next discussion suggests that these colleges and universities appear to create a
culture that encourages its stakeholders to promote globalization as a means of
cultivating and promoting the institution.
Internationalization in Colleges and Universities
This section of the literature review examines the dimensions of
internationalization that most affect faculty. First, several definitions of
internationalization are considered in order to frame an understanding of the multifaceted
concept for this study. Second, the institutional rationales of internationalization are
introduced and discussed. Third, internationalization strategies, with particular focus on
efforts directly relevant to the faculty, are described, juxtaposed with an examination of
the current state of internationalization on higher education campuses in the United
States. This section presents a comprehensive analysis of internationalization, its impact

23
on colleges and universities, and the ways in which its manifestations directly affect
faculty cultures.
Defining Internationalization
Internationalization is most clearly defined by comparing it to the meaning and
significance of globalization. If the world is changing because of globalization, then
individuals and organizations are adapting through internationalization. Globalization is
described as uncontrolled and unalterable actions; internationalization is the reactions,
whereby organizations – including higher education institutions – respond through
changes in policy and procedure (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Altbach et al, 2009; Chan,
2004; Qiang, 2003). Globalization, frequently understood primarily in economic
applications such as mass consumerism and global capitalism, is often contrasted with
internationalization, which is generally expressed in political, social and cultural
contexts, such as in diplomatic relations and physical mobility (Scott, 2000).
Additionally, the differences between internationalization and globalization are reflected
in their distinct impact on nations: internationalization accepts the existence of distinct
nation-states, whereas policies and practices of globalization are critical, and even
hostile, to national borders (Chan, 2004; Scott, 2000; Teichler, 2004). Unlike
globalization, internationalization respects the distinctiveness of national identity, and
acknowledges that relationships between and among countries are shaped by their unique
cultures, histories, priorities and resources (Qiang, 2003).
Yet, the literature comparing globalization and internationalization can also be
confusing and, at times, conflicting. For example, Scott (2000) asserted that
internationalization reproduces and even legitimizes hegemonic and hierarchical power

24
structures of difference among nations, whereas globalization addresses the inequalities
between and within nations, while searching for solutions to global problems such as
climate change. Enders (2004), however, refuted this claim, maintaining that
internationalization signifies greater cooperation between nations and cross-border
activities, while globalization is characterized by competition and the establishment of a
Westernized global culture. Altbach and Knight (2007), similarly, believed that
globalization concentrates knowledge, wealth and power in nations, groups or individuals
that already possess these assets. Thus, given the confusion in the literature of the
significance of – and relationship between – globalization and internationalization, it is
important that these two constructs are clearly defined for the current study.
The complex paradigm of internationalization is frequently understood in
educational terms as well, for example, as a practice that incorporates academic
cooperation and the sharing of knowledge and ideas transnationally (Deem, 2001;
Teichler, 2004). Perhaps one of the most widely employed definitions of
internationalization in higher education comes from Knight, who described the
phenomenon as a process that integrates an international, intercultural or global element
into an institution’s purpose, major functions or delivery of education (Knight, 1994;
1999; 2003). The term process, Knight explained, indicates an ongoing effort of planned
and spontaneous initiatives in policies and programs, in responding to the evolving needs,
priorities and resources of a college or university (Knight, 1999; 2004). The idea of
integration also used in this definition, indicates the fundamental and maintainable
infusion of internationalization into the mission, policies, practices and systems of an
institution (Knight, 1999; 2003). Finally, Knight (2003) recognized the international,

25
intercultural and global elements as three separate dimensions of internationalization: the
relationships between nations and cultures (international), the diverse cultures that exist
around the world (intercultural), and the recognition of a universal perspective (global).
For the purposes of this study, Knight’s definition of internationalization was used.
However, this definition does not delve into the various reasons why colleges and
universities deliberately pursue internationalization efforts and goals. The following
section discusses these motivations.
Rationales
The rationales for undertaking internationalization efforts are indicative of the
mission, goals, resources, and circumstances of an institution. Yet, it is important to
recognize that internationalization is not a new priority in the higher education sector. In
fact, some institutions in the United States have been participating in international
activities for more than a century (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Moreover, colleges and
universities are traditionally considered some of the most internationally-focused
organizations in society; organizations where global knowledge is generated, stored and
shared, and where multinational values are respected (Teichler, 2004). Despite this
assertion, however, recent developments – in particular, the emergence of globalization –
have primed internationalization as a goal of escalating importance for postsecondary
institutions around the world (Childress, 2009). In keeping with the cause-effect
relationship between the two paradigms, several scholars noted that rationales of
internationalization often arise from developments that align with the various elements
that characterize globalization: economic, political, social/cultural, and academic (Qiang,

26
2003, Knight, 2004). The discussion that follows organizes the key rationales by these
themes.
Economic. A college or university that is motivated by economic rationales might
reveal institutional objectives that align with a national interest in developing a
knowledge-society for long-term financial or commercial benefit (Johnston & Edelstein,
1993; Qiang, 2003). Other institutions with economic priorities seek to capitalize on the
considerable amounts of global wealth currently being invested in knowledge industries
(Altbach & Knight, 2007). The presently restrained economic climate, combined with
decreasing public funds, has also made income generation a powerful objective for
internationalizing the institution (Armstrong, 2007; Knight, 2004). For example, the
intensification of international student recruitment at some institutions might arise from a
variety of economically-related rationales, such as combating reduced government funds
and controlling fee increases for in-state or domestic students – by charging higher rates
to foreign students – or for increasing the quality of the student body, and, thus,
increasing the marketability of an institution (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Douglass, 2005).
Political. For most non-profit colleges and universities, the federal and state
governments are major sources of funding for vital institutional activities such as
teaching and research. Thus, institutions are also motivated by political concerns, such as
the development of a knowledge society that can maintain and advance knowledge
products and capacity for a particular legislative area or district (Altbach & Knight,
2007). In addition, countries around the world look to colleges and universities to meet
the demands of a rapidly growing college-ready cohort and seek ways to provide access,
to higher education, to more of the population than ever (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

27
Other motivating factors behind a political rationale include advancing national security,
maintaining economic stability or competiveness, supporting foreign policy, and
increasing ideological influence (Aigner, Nelson & Stimpfl, 1992; Childress, 2009;
Qiang 2003). Furthermore, in order to secure government funds, institutions are under
increasing pressure to appease the priorities of the public and legislators.
Social/Cultural. The social/cultural rationales highlight an institution’s desire to
prepare graduates for citizenship and employment on a global playing field. According to
Qiang (2003), social/cultural motivations for internationalization evolved from
humanitarian aims – such as the development of intercultural understanding, in an effort
to promote peaceful coexistence – to a more market-driven focus, with close ties to
economic rationales. However, social/cultural rationales do appear to play a continuing
role in higher education. Increasingly, colleges and universities seek to produce graduates
who are linguistically and socially prepared for employment anywhere in the world
(Armstrong, 2007; Childress, 2009; Qiang, 2003). Institutions also seek to develop these
skills in their staff, not just their students (Knight, 2004). Additionally, the necessity for
intercultural understanding and knowledge has become a critical priority due to the
technological advancements of communication and transportation worldwide (Bartell,
2003; Knight, 2004). As many higher education institutions aim to foster certain abilities
and skills in their graduates, the social/cultural impact of colleges and universities are a
vital part of their missions and should not be underestimated.
Academic. More than any other impetus, an academic rationale is most directly
relevant to the purposes and principles of colleges and universities. Several scholars
noted that academic motivations often support the assumption that educational quality is

28
strengthened when an international focus is explored at the teaching, research and service
levels of an institution (Childress, 2009; Qiang, 2003). Internationalization efforts that
support these basic institutional functions include strategic alliances for research and
academic programs, and curricula that foster global knowledge and critical thinking skills
in students (Childress, 2009; Knight, 2004). Furthermore, Qiang (2003) maintained that
efforts generated by academic rationales indicate a close alignment with the mission of
an institution, as opposed to merely a peripheral undertaking. Other academic rationales
portray internationalization efforts as catalysts for change, such as institution building,
major institutional review processes, or the enhancement of an institution’s infrastructure
systems and global status (Knight, 2004; Qiang, 2003). As the primary custodians of
academic affairs at colleges and universities, the faculty are most keenly effected by –
and most directly affect – the academic rationales of an institution.
Internationalizing the Campus
In order to adjust to the numerous influences of globalization in society,
internationalization is manifested in a variety of approaches on college and university
campuses. However, despite the enormous growth of internationalization efforts in higher
education, assessment of these strategies and plans has been lacking in the research
(Horn, Hendel & Fry, 2007). The necessity to monitor internationalization efforts extends
to all colleges and universities, but is especially critical for research universities.
According to Horn et al. (2007), research universities are particularly accountable to
society, due to their higher proportion of baccalaureate degree conferrals and academic
research output. Additionally, a recent study of internationalization plans in higher
education found that a significant factor hindering the development of these plans was a

29
decentralized organizational structure (Childress, 2009). Research universities are
described in the literature as a federation of loosely coupled and decentralized units
(Checkoway, 2001; Weick, 1976). Thus, this final section describes and provides
examples of the wide variety of internationalization strategies defined in the literature in
conjunction with recent research that describes the operationalization of these specific
strategies currently taking place in research universities. In addition to a discussion of
these key bodies of literature, this section underscores the significant relationship
between institutional internationalization and the faculty.
Internationalization Efforts: The Current Picture and Faculty Responsibilities
Colleges and universities around the world are, at the time of this study,in the
process of developing or implementing numerous internationalization strategies, with
institutions in the United States leading the way as perhaps the most dynamic and
innovative country for a variety of strategies, including international programs and
provider mobility (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The American Council on Education (1995)
stated that exposure to other peoples, cultures and languages are important for all
undergraduate students at all institutions. Internationalization strategies, specifically,
refer to the programmatic and organizational initiatives occurring at an institution
(Knight, 2004; Qiang, 2003). The term strategy is utilized to underscore the deliberate,
integrative and strategic motivations of these institutional phenomena (Knight, 2004).
However, at some colleges and universities, internationalization strategies are often
disjointed and reside outside of the academic mission of the institution (Green &
Shoenberg, 2005). For the purposes of this study, the term efforts will be used
interchangeably with the term strategies.

30
In the discussion that follows, elements from Qiang’s (2003) and Knight’s (2004)
frameworks of internationalization strategies will be discussed. Moreover, this section
will incorporate findings from the Green et al. (2008) report, a comprehensive study
examining internationalization efforts at doctorate-granting universities – among others –
in order to provide a current picture of internationalization strategies at these institutions.
First, however, this discussion provides a brief introduction of the Qiang (2003) and
Knight (2004) frameworks and the Green et al. (2008) report.
Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003) provided similar conceptual frameworks that
separate program strategies from organizational strategies. Program strategies are further
divided into four groups: academic programs, research and scholarly collaboration,
domestic and cross-border (external relations) and extracurricular activities (external
relations). Organizational strategies were divided into three groups in the Qiang (2003)
framework – governance, operations, and support services – while Knight (2004) listed
all these, in addition to an extra group: human resources. Both frameworks are
comprehensive and are used in this study to identify strategies particular to the
professional responsibilities of faculty in research universities.
Many of the specific strategies listed in both frameworks were incorporated into
the report by Green et al. (2008) despite the fact that these three publications were
prepared independently of each other. In 2006, the American Council on Education
attempted to provide an update (Green et al., 2008) to a previous study, completed in
2001 by Siaya and Hayward, that considered internationalization efforts on U.S. higher
education campuses. Though Green et al. (2008) considered a variety of colleges and
universities, this section focuses on the results that pertain specifically to doctorate-

31
granting universities. In order to organize their findings by institution-type, the
researchers utilized the 2005 Basic Carnegie Classification (Green et al., 2008)
Doctorate-granting universities award at least 20 doctoral degrees per year, excluding
professional degrees, and are synonymous with research universities (“Classification
Description,” n.d.). In the Green et al. (2008) study, 145 universities responded; 70
percent of the institutions were public and 77 percent were categorized as “large”, with
more than ten thousand students. A number of aspects addressed in the survey, and
discussed in the report, reflect the Qiang (2003) and Knight (2004) frameworks and, thus,
provide a useful platform from which to survey the current status of internationalization
strategies at research universities, beginning with organization strategies.
In both the Qiang and Knight’s frameworks, several organization strategies
pertinent to governance are listed. Although most internationalization strategies are
realized as program activities, Qiang (2003) asserted that it is essential that
organizational processes are also recognized and differentiated from program activities.
Organization processes play an essential role in ensuring that program activities are
mutually reinforcing and relevant to the institution’s mission. Furthermore, in order for
internationalization strategies to be successful and sustainable, it is essential that these
efforts are embedded in the culture of the institution (Qiang, 2003). In comparing the
organization strategies of the two frameworks with the Green et al. (2008) report, the
strategies listed under governance seem to tie the work of the three scholars; this
connection is discussed below.
In both Qiang and Knight’s frameworks, the organization/governance strategies
are as follows: expressed commitment by senior leaders; active involvement of faculty

32
and staff; articulated rationale and goals for internationalization; and recognition of the
international dimension in the institution’s mission statement, planning and policy
documents. These four strategies appear to have been directly addressed in the Green et
al. (2008) report. For example, the report found that the majority of research universities
stated that international education was referenced in their mission. In fact, a majority of
these institutions reported implementing various institutional commitments to
internationalization; these included internationalization being one of the top five
priorities in their current strategic plan (59 percent), the presence of a related task force
(71 percent), or active engagement in an international education assessment (55 percent).
Moreover, nearly 80 percent of these research universities emphasized international
education in their literature for prospective students. These results appear to signify that
internationalization efforts are important enough for most research universities to
publicly state as a commitment, and to devote an internal structure to consider.
Additionally, judging by the large majority that noted their international efforts in
recruitment material, it appears that these institutions feel it added to the attractiveness of
the institution. Yet, as Green (2005) asserted, commitment to international education in
the mission statement and strategic plan, while essential, is not enough to promote
widespread internationalization throughout the institution. These types of articulated
commitments do not directly support institutional efforts towards internationalization,
thus suggesting that universities must implement efforts, such as program strategies, to
improve their international education.
In addition to organization strategies, Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003) both listed
program strategies in their frameworks. These programs include student exchange and

33
work/study abroad, which according to the Green et al. (2008) report are very popular
forms of internationalization at research universities. In fact, 97 percent of research
universities offered undergraduate study abroad programs, with 87 percent dedicating
funds for faculty to accompany groups of students abroad. Furthermore, many colleges
and universities are finding it necessary to internationalize the curriculum, in order to
equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary for prosperous careers and
informed citizenship (Green & Schoenberg, 2003). Likewise, internationalized curricula
are academic programs/program strategies listed in Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003)
frameworks. Moreover, most research universities (57 percent) required that all
undergraduates take at least one course that focused on international perspectives, issues
or events, as part of their general education requirements (Green et al., 2008).
Additionally, institutional support for funding faculty participation in internationalization
efforts grew in popularity amongst research universities. An earlier study undertaken by
the American Council on Education in 2000, reported that only 30 percent of research
universities offered workshops to faculty that assisted them with internationalizing their
courses, and only 37 percent offered workshops on ways to utilize technology to
incorporate an international dimension into their courses (Siaya & Hayward, 2003).
However, Green et al., (2008) reported that these figures had risen to 59 percent and 43
percent respectively, demonstrating that faculty are receiving more of the support
necessary for developing these types of courses.
A singular point of interest in the literature on internationalization is the
enrollment of foreign students (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Enders, 2004; Stromquist,
2007). In their frameworks, Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003) both listed international

34
students as an element in the academic programs/program strategies sections. However,
research indicated that international student enrollments dropped between the 2001 and
2006 academic years (Green et al., 2008; IIE, 2007; Siaya & Hayward, 2001). For
instance, in 2001, 43 percent of institutional respondents indicated that international
students made up 5 percent or more of their full-time undergraduate student population
(Siaya & Hayward, 2001). However, in 2006 this figure dropped to 38 percent (Green et
al., 2008). Despite – or perhaps as a result of – these declines, increasing numbers of
doctorate-granting institutions are spending more money to promote travel for officers to
recruit international undergraduate students – from 52 percent in 2001 to 65 percent in
2006 – and provide scholarships for international students – from 52 percent to 61
percent (Green et al., 2008). These figures suggest that growing numbers of research
universities determined an important relationship between a larger international student
body and the health and wealth of their institution.
The increased presence of international students, however, does not come without
some challenges, particularly for the faculty. For example, despite the assertion that the
on-campus presence of international students may be beneficial to the learning
environment (Leask, 2009), faculty may require significant amounts of guidance and
support for educating such students (Andrade, 2006; Carroll & Appleton, 2007). Though
the Green et al. (2008) report did not specifically address efforts at research universities
that prepared faculty to teach international students, the authors did note that these
institutions were more likely to support travel abroad opportunities for faculty than on-
campus activities.

35
Wagner (2004) stated that, if one is to assume that the post-secondary educational
sector has been affected by globalization, then the greatest developments will be seen in
the two principal “markets” of higher education: teaching and research. Correspondingly,
Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003) both listed research and scholarly collaboration
elements as program strategies. Moreover, most institutions in the Green et al. (2008)
study reported funding related efforts. For example, 86 percent of research universities
provided financial support for faculty to study or conduct research abroad and 91 percent
provided funds for faculty to travel to meetings abroad. Thus, globalization has a
significant impact on research university faculty, specifically in the form of
internationalization through research collaboration opportunities.
Yet, despite the significant efforts that research institutions are making towards
supporting internationalization, there appears to be a point of contention between the
financial support of professional activities and career-related incentives for faculty to
engage in internationalization efforts. According to Green et al., (2008), only 21 percent
of research universities specified international work or experience as a consideration in
tenure and promotion decisions and only 42 percent recognized faculty for their
international activities. Although these figures have risen from the initial report
conducted by Siaya and Hayward in 2001, rewards and promotion policies that reinforce
faculty contributions may further encourage faculty to internationalize their teaching and
research responsibilities.
Additionally, it is important to note that many – if not most – of the elements
listed in both the Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003) frameworks directly affect the faculty.
For example, both scholars listed the following elements, all of which are under the direct

36
influence of faculty: area or thematic studies, teaching/learning process, joint degree
programs, faculty staff mobility programs, student clubs and associations, institutional
planning, budgeting and quality review systems, faculty and staff professional
development, academic support units (Knight, 2004; Qiang, 2003). Faculty, as stated
previously, have enormous influence on and are greatly affected by the
internationalization efforts of institutions. This relationship between globalization,
internationalization and the faculty is explored in the next section.
The previous section detailed a definition of internationalization, the primary
rationales that promote and support internationalization in colleges and universities, and
provided a description and current status of related efforts on research university
campuses across the United States. The next section builds from the two earlier
discussions of globalization and internationalization and considers the ways in which
these phenomena directly affect the profession, culture and perspectives of faculty.
Additionally, the forthcoming section introduces a theoretical framework that used in this
study to examine how faculty culture may influence faculty perspectives of globalization
and internationalization.
Faculty, Globalization and Internationalization
When research universities seek to internationalize in order to address the forces
of globalization, it is the faculty who must retool and rework academic programs in order
to ensure that students develop the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to lead
successful personal and professional lives in a global society. Therefore, to successfully
plan and execute these efforts, the institution must have the support of the faculty
(Hudzik, 2011). Yet, if faculty are powerful advocates of internationalization for the

37
research university, they are also, potentially, the most formidable barrier to an
institution’s internationalization goals (Hudzik, 2011). Given the evolutionary nature of
globalization and internationalization, a faculty body or an individual member may have
one or more valid reasons to support, or not support, institutional efforts. For example,
increasing accountability measures demanded by the public and implemented by
governments may be viewed by some faculty as an infringement on academic freedom
(Teichler, 2004). Additionally, some research indicated that the faculty are increasingly
asked to contribute to the marketization of their knowledge and skills in order for their
respective colleges and universities to be more competitive in the global higher education
market (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). This marketization may run counter to the altruistic
goals or ethical responsibilities that some faculty may have in regards to their career.
Colleges and universities should be prepared to encounter negativity or discontent
amongst the faculty to changes initiated in response to globalization and
internationalization
The previous two sections considered the significance of globalization and how it
changes society and higher education as well as how it is manifested in institutions,
followed by a discussion of the literature on internationalization – definition, rationales
and strategies colleges and universities adopt to evolve in the face of globalization. The
next section presents literature concerned with faculty life through the twin lenses of
globalization and internationalization. First, research is examined that considers the ways
in which faculty teaching and research are influenced by these two phenomena. Next, this
section briefly analyzes three previous publications on the attitudes, beliefs and
perceptions of faculty towards internationalization. Finally, this section concludes with a

38
description of the theoretical framework used in this study, which considers faculty
cultures and how they may influence faculty behavior.
How Globalization and Internationalization affect Faculty
Studies on faculty work allocation are primarily focused on two aspects: teaching
and research (Lee, Cheslock, Maldonado & Rhoades, 2005). According to the 2007-2008
Higher Education Research Institute’s Faculty Survey, faculty at research universities
reported that the top two principal activities they engage in are teaching and research
(DeAngelo et al., 2009). Additionally, this study reported that more than 96 percent of
faculty at research universities felt that teaching was “very important” or “essential” to
them personally, and more than 77 percent of these faculty felt that research was essential
to them. Therefore, the following discussion takes a look at the literature that describes
some of the factors, related to globalization and internationalization, which may have an
impact on faculty teaching and research responsibilities.
Faculty teaching. One of the primary teaching responsibilities of the faculty is to
define, modify and deliver the curriculum, where research has shown that
internationalization efforts often have a minimal presence. In fact, internationalization is
generally limited to study abroad experiences and other international programs that
prepare only a handful of graduates for careers in cross-border settings (Leask, 2008).
Moreover, many students in the United States either are not able to study abroad, or
commute to campus and have responsibilities outside of school that may restrict or
prevent their involvement in international activities and programs (Green & Shoenberg,
2005). Consequently, the literature suggested that the curriculum in postsecondary
education should create more opportunities for students to explore interconnections

39
between knowledge, cultures, and disciplines (Odin, 2004). Other scholars asserted that it
is imperative that the faculty engage in thoughtful and genuine efforts to incorporate
international studies into the curriculum and positively affect student outcomes (Green &
Shoenberg, 2005; Leask, 2008). These best practices are essential to building an effective
internationalized experience that can have an impact on a majority of students. However,
these efforts may face resistance or indifference from some faculty as globalization and
internationalization have the potential to create vast changes in the way faculty approach
teaching. Some of these changes were described in previous sections; however, the
discussion below focuses on manifestations of globalization and internationalization as
they directly affect faculty teaching responsibilities regarding the online classroom and
the evolving student population.
Several scholars noted that, as a result of information technology and other
technological advances, traditional educational processes, such as the classroom and even
the institution, may soon be denounced as uneconomical, pedagogically flawed and even
obsolete (Altbach et al, 2009; Douglass, 2005). Adjusting to changes in the classroom as
a result of advancing technology means adjustments for the faculty. In their paper
considering the educational potential of blended learning – which integrates face-to-face
classroom learning experiences with online learning experiences – in the college
classroom and addressing some of the administrative and leadership issues inherent in
implementing such a program, Garrison and Kanuka (2004) stated that the current
challenge for administrators, policymakers, and faculty in particular, is to acknowledge
and accept that there is a critical need to meet and adapt to the significant and irreversible
changes occurring in society with creativity and assertiveness. These changes – such as

40
budget cuts in postsecondary education, technological innovations and student
demographics – are reflective of the consequences of globalization, and Garrison and
Kanuka (2004) reminded the reader that effectively responding to these emerging societal
demands requires modifications and a commitment to repositioning teaching and learning
in higher education institutions.
The changing nature of teaching, in the face of emerging technology, creates the
need for faculty to adjust. However, according to the results of the survey reported by
Green et al. (2008), in 2006, less than half of all respondents reported that their research
university offered faculty workshops that focused on technology use to enhance the
international dimension of their courses. Though this number increased from 2001,
efforts to improve teaching in higher education institutions may be mitigated by the fact
that institutional rankings do not take teaching into account (Dill & Soo, 2005). In times
of economic hardship and greatly reduced public spending on higher education,
advancing the curriculum may take a back seat to the drive for research dollars, a more
prevalent goal in the rankings market. However, even without calls from institutional
leaders to internationalize the curricula, faculty already experience increasing pressure to
adjust to globalization. One such pressure arises from the evolving student body.
The current faculty cohort at all institutions is called upon to educate a greater
number of the populace and a more diverse student body while providing more support
for them (Alexander, 2000; Ward, 2007). According to Alexander (2000), there exists in
the United States a general acceptance in society of the basic ideology of massification,
or the necessity for the rapid growth of enrollment in postsecondary institutions, and the
belief that universal access to higher education is a national priority. However, the

41
funding challenges inherent in educating a greater number of students, in addition to the
tightening of government spending on higher education, appear to have resulted in
overcrowded classrooms, less support for faculty research, loss of security in faculty
positions and the deterioration of facilities (Altbach et al, 2009). Moreover, the elements
of globalization support and sustain a massive movement of people across national
borders (Altbach et al., 2009; Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). According to Altbach
et al. (2009), there are presently more there 2.5 million students attending higher
education institutions outside of their home country, and it is estimated that this number
will increase to 7 million by 2020. Currently, the United States educates the highest
percentage of these students (Wildavsky, 2010), and these foreign students are generally
welcomed as they are thought to promote diversity within institutions, enhance the
international relations among nations, and provide a likely future source of skilled labor
for local businesses (Kritz, 2006). However, educating a more diverse population of
students – despite the benefits – also presents unique challenges to teaching, learning and
student engagement.
In order to successfully educate an international student body, research has
indicated that faculty must, among other skills, be able to adapt pedagogical approaches
to student needs and evolving course objectives; engage in effective communication with
individuals from different languages and cultures; and identify and incorporate a variety
of teaching tools and strategies – including international content and context (Leask,
2007). Furthermore, if colleges and universities seek to promote a deeper appreciation of
multiple cultures and identities, it is important for faculty to be able to recognize various
forms of knowledge expression and learning outcomes (Fox, 1994). Yet, research found

42
that faculty frequently misunderstand international student behavior and that efforts must
be made in order to support the adjustment and engagement of these students (Andrade,
2006). In addition, the literature stated that U.S. faculty have, historically, been less
likely or able to incorporate a global perspective in their teaching – as compared with
scholars from other countries. For example, between the years of 1991 to 1993, the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching surveyed faculty from fourteen
countries to consider various characteristics, such as demographics, attitudes,
governance, morale and participation in activities and scholarship. Analyses of the
Carnegie data, along with other studies, demonstrated that full-time faculty in the United
States reported having little contact with higher education peers in other countries despite
having positive attitudes towards interacting with these peers (Haas, 1996; Siaya &
Hayward, 2003). More recent data indicated that American scholars do not consider or
cite international research as often as foreign scholars, and are inclined to cross borders
less frequently than their international peers (Altbach, 2005). Although the literature
warned against generalizations of faculty behavior and its implications in the United
States, these findings may have a negative impact on institutional efforts to globalize and
internationalize.
Faculty research. As another fundamental component of the academic
profession, faculty research has become more practical, accessible and global, due in part
to the rapid evolution of information technology (Altbach, 2007; Douglass, 2005). The
internet, for example, expedites and simplifies access to scholarship; through online
search engines and databases, faculty can easily and immediately retrieve scientific
journals and laboratory results from around the world – all while progressively shaping

43
the culture of academic research through the international standardization of scientific
methods (Altbach, 2007). The research that faculty do has been described as the most
globalized activity in higher education and the research standing of a university indicates
the institution’s ability to produce outputs that are globally-relevant in addition to
attracting prospective students from around the world, international capital and the
interest of other institutions (van der Wende, 2008). Indeed, several scholars noted a
dramatic rise in international research collaborations. For example, along with an
increase in the number of scientific articles by almost 200,000 between 1988 and 2001,
the number of scientific articles published by multiple researchers from different
countries increased from 8 to 18 percent, and joint patent applications by scholars in
different countries doubled between the 1980s and 90s (Guellec & Cervantes, 2002;
Laudel, 2005; Marginson & van der Wende, 2007; Vincent-Lancrin, 2006). Likewise,
Marginson and van der Wende (2007) further asserted that significant numbers of these
collaborations appeared to take place between faculty in the United States and foreign
graduate students. Research activities, therefore, provide faculty with numerous ways to
support internationalization efforts at their institution. The next part of this overview
briefly discusses the ways in which globalization and internationalization influenced
academic research, specifically for faculty in the United States, as well as in cross-border
collaborations.
Developments in communication technology made it easier than ever for faculty
around the world to engage in and produce research, but these developments have most
noticeably solidified the dominance of faculty researchers in the United States (Altbach,
2005; Altbach, 2007). In the international rankings market, research universities in this

44
country often do extremely well, due in part to their high research productivity and the
emergence of English as the principal language in research publications. In fact, English
has become the universally-approved language for scientific, academic, business and
government communications (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Douglass, 2005; Marginson,
2006). This development gives colleges and universities in the United States and other
English-speaking countries a distinct advantage in the global rankings, as publications in
English disproportionately factor into institutional scoring methods. All of these factors,
in conjunction, help to promote American research institutions overseas.
In addition, faculty members often collaborate cross-nationally with other
scholars on research. These collaborations can take many forms, such as at conferences
and seminars, from participation in international activities to sharing research, equipment
and data, as well as the production of research (Katz & Martin, 1997; Wagner, 2005).
The literature noted that these types of collaborations frequently lead to higher citation
rates and greater visibility, in addition to expanding a network of scientific resources, for
the researchers, and prestige for institutions (Glanzel & De Lange, 2002; Hazelkorn,
2007; Katz & Martin, 1997; Melin, 2000). Thus, these findings indicate that research
collaboration does play a particularly important role in academia. However, opportunities
and motivations for collaboration may vary depending on the type of institution where
faculty are employed.
Additionally, the literature demonstrated that the rate at which faculty participate
in international research collaborations can vary depending on the nature of the discipline
of which faculty are a part. In a study considering why individual faculty members
collaborate in international research, Melin (2000) found that there was a clear difference

45
between disciplines and the frequency of collaboration. For example, faculty in the Social
Sciences and Humanities rarely collaborated with other scholars, whereas faculty in the
Technological, Medical and Natural Sciences almost always worked in teams. The author
reasoned that these differences in collaboration may be attributed to the varying natures
of scholarship within the fields and may reflect the value of consensus and
acknowledging multiple perspectives in research processes for a particular discipline.
Similarly, Kyvik and Larsen (1997) found that faculty in the “Hard Sciences” are viewed
– generally – as having a greater orientation toward internationalization than faculty in
the “Soft Sciences”. Furthermore, Smeby and Trondal (2003) posited that disciplines –
such as Physics, or Hard Sciences – that are not particularly influenced by the location
where research is conducted may be defined as more global than other disciplines that
focus on social, cultural or geographical characteristics – such as Psychology and
Sociology, or Soft Sciences. Therefore, faculty participation in collaborative international
research may also vary depending on the research values of their academic discipline. It
is also important to note that the degree to which faculty become involved in
globalization and internationalization efforts – either through their teaching or research
activities – has much to do with the particular way globalization and internationalization
is manifested in their classroom, discipline and institution type. In the next section, three
recent studies that examined faculty attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of
internationalization will be considered. Subsequently, this discussion seeks to describe
the particular perspectives of faculty, as well as to discuss previous methodology used to
explore this topic.

46
Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs and Perceptions of Internationalization
Very few studies considered faculty perceptions of internationalization, and
virtually no studies looked at this topic in conjunction with globalization. Three of the
most recent and related studies are from Siaya and Hayward (2003), Schwietz (2006) and
Fields (2010). These three studies are considered here, beginning with a brief description
of the study, followed by a discussion of the researchers’ findings. The studies detailed in
this section serve as foundations for the development of the current study.
The Siaya and Hayward (2003) report, published by the American Council on
Education, was the original study to the Green et al. (2008) report, both referred to earlier
in this literature review. The Siaya and Hayward report – although less current than the
Green et al. study – included an analysis of a survey that considered the international
attitudes of faculty. This faculty study was not discussed in the Green et al. report, which
is why this section focuses on the Siaya and Hayward publication. Although the Siaya
and Hayward study gathered and analyzed much more information, only results from the
faculty surveys and research institution surveys are discussed here as they are most
pertinent to the current study. For the faculty survey, completed via telephone, the
researchers obtained a random sample of 1,027 faculty members from 559 colleges and
universities. The researchers also surveyed a random sample of research institutions
(N=216) on their internationalization efforts. The following paragraphs describe the
findings of the survey regarding faculty’s perceptions, attitudes and activities.
Typically, faculty at research universities held positive perspectives of
internationalization in undergraduate education: 73 percent of faculty viewed
international education as a useful component of undergraduate education, 65 percent

47
agreed that all faculty members were responsible to provide undergraduates with an
awareness of other cultures, countries, and global issues, 63 percent disagreed that
teaching about other countries, cultures or global issues detracts from “teaching the
basics”, and 56 percent had used readings from foreign authors to educate students about
other countries, cultures, and issues. Moreover, a majority of faculty at research
universities were also in favor of requiring international education in some form. For
example, 81 percent of faculty agreed that all undergraduates should be required to study
a foreign language if they did not already know one, 81 percent believed that all students
should be required to take courses covering international topics and 61 percent of faculty
believed that all undergraduates should participate in study abroad. Overall, most of the
faculty that responded to this survey held favorable attitudes towards incorporating
international education in college.
Interestingly, however, Siaya and Hayward (2003) found that – despite having
positive opinions of the value of international perspectives and activities in
undergraduate education – most faculty members did not actually incorporate these
perspectives in their courses, or participate in international activities in their research. For
example, only 41 percent of the faculty who responded had taught an undergraduate
course where at least a quarter of the instruction was devoted to other countries, cultures
or global issues within the past three years, and only 36 percent had collaborated with a
foreign scholar in the past three years. There are many reasons faculty may not engage in
internationalization efforts to the degree that their favorable attitudes might suggest.
However, this difference between internationalization perspectives and actions also
reflects other areas of the academic profession as well as the institution. For instance, in

48
matters of institutional support of internationalization, Siaya and Hayward (2003) found
that most faculty believed that their institutions were supportive of international efforts
and faculty involvement in these efforts: 72 percent of faculty disagreed with the
statement that the commitment of their institutions to internationalization was symbolic
and 71 percent of faculty believed that they were actively encouraged by the institution to
include international perspectives and content in their courses. Yet, although 27 percent
of faculty members believed that international research or teaching were important
considerations for tenure or promotion decisions, only 4 percent of institutions
acknowledged having guidelines that considered international work or experience as part
of these decisions.
Thus, the Siaya and Hayward (2003) findings indicated a lack of motivation
amongst the faculty to act upon their favorable perspectives of internationalization as
well as divergence between faculty perceptions of institutional support of
internationalization efforts and the actual support structures in research universities. One
question that arises from these findings is, if most research universities are not
considering internationalization efforts in tenure and promotion processes, then what
motivates faculty to incorporate internationalization into their teaching and research
responsibilities? The current study seeks to delve into this particular dynamic.
In another study, Schwietz (2006) considered the beliefs, attitudes, experiences
and involvement of faculty, in regards to internationalization, at nine public universities
in Pennsylvania. This researcher sought to answer several research questions, including:
the extent to which faculty incorporated an international perspective into their teaching
and research responsibilities; to determine if relationships existed among attitudes,

49
beliefs and behaviors concerning internationalization, campus climate and faculty
characteristics; and to observe whether a faculty members’ orientation to
internationalization can be predicted or described. Furthermore, the methods used in this
analysis were quantitative; data were collected through on-line surveys and studied using
descriptive and correlational analysis.
Amongst her findings, Schwietz (2006) found, similar to the Siaya and Hayward
(2003) report, that large percentages of faculty responded that they did not know if their
institution’s tenure and promotions committees viewed faculty involvement in
internationalization favorably or, even, at all. This finding may be of concern to some
colleges and universities who want to internationalize, as it suggests that either faculty
are disinterested in internationalizing their teaching and research responsibilities, or
awareness of internationalization and globalization policies on campus is limited.
Additionally, Schwietz (2006) found differences in attitudes and beliefs when
considering other characteristics of the faculty member, such as discipline, level of
students taught, and preference for teaching or research and tenure status. For example,
the researcher reported that faculty in the Humanities, Business and Commerce, and
Social and Behavioral Sciences had more positive attitudes and beliefs, while faculty in
Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Engineering and Applied Sciences, and Life
Sciences and Health had the least positive attitudes toward internationalization. Schwietz
further determined that faculty with a preference for teaching were less likely to
participate in internationalization efforts than faculty with a research preference. Finally,
in making recommendations for future studies, Schwietz (2006) suggested utilizing an
ethnographic approach to study internationalization and the faculty. The current

50
investigation seeks to provide insight into the impact of faculty culture on
internationalization efforts at a research university.
In the third study considered here, Fields (2010) performed another quantitative
analysis that measured the attitudes and beliefs of faculty from a variety of higher
education institutions across the state of Vermont. For this dissertation, a survey was
used to collect information from faculty – including personal and professional
characteristics, as well as experiences and skills – in order to correlate these variables
with their attitudes and beliefs towards incorporating internationalization in their faculty
responsibilities and their perceptions of internationalization efforts occurring on-campus.
The following discussion focuses on the results from the Fields’ study that are relevant to
the current study.
One area of investigation in the Fields’(2010) study compared faculty member’s
attitudes and beliefs regarding internationalization in their professional role to the
discipline with which the faculty member felt they most closely identified. Through
ANOVA analysis, the faculty in “Agricultural and Animal Sciences,” “Education,” and
“Humanities” had the strongest attitudes and beliefs in favor of internationalization.
Moreover, faculty within the “Physical and Mathematical Sciences,” “Engineering and
Applied Sciences,” and “Life Sciences and Health Professions, including Medicine,”
tended to have less strong attitudes and beliefs. The remaining disciplinary options that
fell between these categories were, in no particular order: “Business and Commerce,”
“Social and Behavioral Sciences,” “Fine, Applied and Performing Arts,” or “Other.”
These results suggest possible cultural differences between the disciplines that may affect
faculty members’ perceptions toward internationalization.

51
In addition to faculty characteristics, Fields (2010) collected information on the
type of institution where the faculty were employed and analyzed the differences between
institutions. Scholars at research universities reported having participated in international
research activities more often than peers at other institutions. Faculty at research
universities also stated that, in the past three years, they had submitted to or published in
a foreign journal or press (40 percent) and collaborated with a foreign-born scholar in
another country (36 percent) at higher rates than faculty at community colleges, liberal
arts colleges and comprehensive universities. However, as previously discussed in the
faculty research section of this literature review, these findings may be indicative of the
value of research activities for these institutions and the importance of establishing a
presence in the scholarship while participating in a broader network of researchers in
order to promote the global stature of the research university.
Similar to the results of the internationalization attitudes and beliefs inquiry,
Fields (2010) also found a significant correlation between faculty perceptions of on-
campus efforts and the disciplines with which they most identified. The results suggested
that faculty members in “Agricultural and Animal Sciences,” “Fine, Applied and
Performing Arts,” and “Humanities” were most likely to have positive perceptions
towards on-campus internationalization, whereas faculty in “Engineering and Applied
Sciences,” “Life Sciences and Health Professions, including Medicine,” and “Physical
and Mathematical Sciences” were the least likely to have positive perceptions. These
results were in line with the attitudes and beliefs findings and, further, led Fields (2010)
to conclude that faculty in the Humanities and Arts tended to have positive views of
internationalization as compared to members of the Engineering and Physical Science

52
fields. Moreover, these results paralleled the researcher’s results from his analysis of
research university faculty and perceptions. The findings of this correlation indicated that
faculty from “Agricultural and Animal Sciences,” “Fine, Applied and Performing Arts,”
and “Humanities” tended to have positive perceptions towards on-campus
internationalization, whereas faculty in “Engineering,” and “Business” had the least
positive perceptions. The current study seeks to explore these, relatively consistent,
differences in perceptions amongst the faculty disciplines.
Overall, Fields (2010) found that faculty in Vermont institutions were
overwhelmingly in favor of internationalization. The majority of faculty at these
institutions agreed or strongly agreed with a number of statements in support of
internationalization. For example, they agreed that it is the responsibility of colleges and
universities to internationalize in order to better prepare graduates for professional life,
and that faculty support is the most important factor to the successful internationalization
of higher education institutions. However, a little less than half of the faculty who
answered this survey also believed that international teaching or research was not a
consideration in tenure and promotion decisions and that funds for faculty to develop
international skills and knowledge were not available at their institutions. Thus it appears
that, despite a keen interest in supporting internationalization efforts, institutions either
do not widely publicize the availability of resources or acknowledge reward systems that
promote internationalization – or simply do not have them.
The final section in this literature review introduces the theoretical framework for
this study. This conceptual model focuses on the influence various cultures of the faculty
have on the perspectives and behaviors of this academic body. The basic principles of

53
this model were used to support the research methodology of this study in order to best
answer the research questions.
Framework: Umbach’s (2007) Faculty Cultures Model
Faculty, collectively and individually, have enormous influence over the
academic direction of the research university, and it is, therefore, important to understand
what factors may influence the motivations of these stakeholders. Developing a greater
appreciation of faculty cultures can offer powerful insights into understanding the
complex dynamics of this key constituency in higher education and can assist
administrative leaders in anticipating potential obstacles or promising directions for
institutional efforts (Frost & Jean, 2000). Complicating these efforts are distinct
professional, institutional and disciplinary differences that shape a faculty body with
complex perspectives, values and motivations. Many scholars attempted to unravel and
unpack the broad array of faculty cultures in order to understand and predict how faculty
operate (or may operate) in their professional responsibilities and the decisions they make
in and for their institution (Amey, 1999; Austin, 1990; Lee, Cheslock, Maldonado-
Maldonado & Rhoades, 2005; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993; Toma, 1997). In order to answer
the questions of the present study, a cultural framework that considers the inherent
complexities, provides direction for navigating the ambiguous terrain, and incorporates
signs to piece it all together (Umbach, 2007), might be useful for institutions to decipher
the cultural impetus for faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization. For
the purposes of this study, Umbach’s (2007) model of faculty cultures was used.
In his initial study, Umbach (2007) proposed a conceptual model (Figure 1),
integrating three overlapping cultures within the professoriate: professional, institutional

54
and disciplinary. The original purpose of the model was to guide the researcher in his
investigation of the ways in which faculty cultures influence college teaching. In this
framework, Umbach also introduced four manifestations of culture that could be used to
study and understand how faculty perceive their roles as teachers and how to teach.
Umbach’s (2007) faculty cultures framework was used to assist the researcher of the
present study to frame different faculty cultures and guide the examination of how these
cultures may be indicated in faculty perceptions of globalization, internationalization and
related efforts. As an introduction to the theoretical framework, this section presents the
important overarching elements of the cultural model. First, the pertinent definition of
culture is presented. Second, a detailed description of cultural manifestations is provided.
The third part provides a discussion of the various types of faculty cultures. The fourth
and final part of this section describes the conceptual framework and its integrated
elements.
Culture has been conceptualized in a multitude of ways, and many methods were
considered by Umbach in his attempt to adopt one that was suitable for his model.
Ultimately, however, he borrowed Kuh and Whitt’s (1988) definition of culture in higher
education:
The collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and
assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups in an institute of
higher education and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the
meaning of events and actions on and off campus. (pp. 12-13)
The hypothesis presented in Umbach’s (2007) study argues that the three key
professional cultures of faculty directly influence the ways in which these educators

55
interact with and instruct undergraduate students. Moreover, in order to study culture,
researchers proposed manifestations of culture that can be examined (Hofstede, Neuijen,
Ohyav & Sanders, 1990; Peterson & Spencer, 1990; Schein, 1992). Building from the
work of the researchers, Umbach listed four levels of culture relevant to his model:
artifacts, behavioral patterns and processes, espoused values, and basic underlying
assumptions. Before describing these manifestations, however, it is important to note that
they are not discrete elements; one manifestation may be interpreted at two or even all
four levels, depending on the context
.
56

Figure 1
Umbach’s (2007) Cultural Model

57
The first manifestation in Umbach’s (2007) framework is artifacts, which
describes the tangible phenomena of an organization: overt elements that can be seen,
heard or felt. Examples of artifacts include members’ behaviors, programs, ceremonies,
written documents and institutional groups. Behavioral patterns and processes, a second
manifestation, are lasting and consistent behavioral actions that are formally or
informally developed within the institution. In internationalization efforts at a research
university, some behavioral patterns and processes might include the practice of
budgeting for international collaborations in the faculty promotion and tenure process.
Third, espoused values and beliefs are explicitly stated by members of an organization.
Some examples of these types of values and beliefs are declarations of
internationalization efforts that are incorporated into the university’s publications or the
announced goals of strategic plans. Finally, underlying assumptions are the unconscious,
embedded, beliefs and values that guide the day to day actions of individuals in an
organization. In the classroom, for example, a faculty member teaching a course may feel
that students who engage in group discussions tend to be brighter than those students who
speak less. Moreover, faculty may assume that internationalization is a key priority for a
research university, when, in fact, there may be no tangible evidence for this assumption.
Evidence of these manifestations was collected in this study through interviews with
faculty, in order to document, decipher and map out the various cultures that surround
these academic professionals.
Faculty subcultures. Understanding the different cultural dimensions of an
organization is a requirement for effective management (Frost & Jean, 2000). This can be
difficult, since within each institution are numerous groups of individuals that operate

58
within their own subculture, such as the disciplinary subculture of the faculty. The term
subculture, which will be used in reference to the specific disciplines considered in this
study, was defined earlier and is restated here:
A normative value system held by some group or persons who are in
persisting interaction, who transmit the norms and values to newcomers
by some communicated process, and who exercise some sort of control to
ensure conformity to the norms. (Bolton & Kammeyer, 1972, pp. 318-
382)
Due to the sharing of similar values, work roles, and histories, as well as formal and
informal functions and physical proximity, these subgroups interact with each other and
develop a collective understanding (Umbach, 2007; Van Maanan & Barley, 1985). The
next part of this discussion of the faculty culture model details in depth the three
subculture types described in Umbach’s (2007) model. Included with these descriptions
are examples that tie each faculty subculture to globalization, internationalization and
related institutional efforts, as relevant to the current study.
Academic profession subculture. In the academic profession, Umbach (2007)
asserted that there are a few universal tenets that faculty subscribe to, despite the vast
differences amongst institutions and the disciplines. Likewise, researchers recognized
multiple dimensions to this academic culture (Clark, 1985; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Rice,
1986). In her work on faculty cultures, Austin (1990) provided an inclusive and thorough
introduction of six values and concepts that form the foundation of the academic
profession. First is the idea that the pursuit, discovery, production and dissemination of
knowledge, truth and understanding are the purposes of higher education. These values

59
are reflected in the importance of teaching, research and publishing in the institution.
Second is academic freedom and autonomy in teaching and research, which protect
creative and controversial ideas and maintain the quality of scholarship. Tenure and peer
review are the structures that secure academic freedom and autonomy. A third value of
the academic profession is a dedication to intellectual honesty and fairness, which
encourages respect for the work of students and colleagues and discourages plagiarism or
falsification. Fourth is the support of collegiality with one’s peers in professional
decision making. Fifth, members of the faculty value a commitment to service and
recognize their role in the production of knowledge and the transmission of culture.
Lastly, Austin (1990) described a sixth concept within the academic profession: the
recognition and acceptance of an institutional hierarchy in the U.S. higher education
sector. Within this hierarchy, the research university is at the apex and elevated as the
ideal model for other types of institutions. Several professional responsibilities are also
given precedence in this value, including a central focus on research in academia, the
importance of publications and involvement in national and international associations,
and an emphasis on specialization in the field.
In considering this academic culture, an emerging phenomenon in higher
education has become a major concern of research universities, as these institutions
experience an enormous shift in the professional responsibilities of the faculty who were
at one time central to the university culture (Trow, 2001). Institutions worldwide witness
a serious decline in morale amongst the faculty, prompted by increased workloads, a shift
from teacher-directed to learning-centered higher education, a weakening of the
identification of faculty with their institutions and a growing reluctance to serve on

60
institutional bodies like academic senates and committees (Keller, 2001; Trow, 2001).
Subsequently, faculty members identify more with the communities of scholars in their
own disciplines and subdiscplines, industrial partners and consortia. As a result, power in
the institution is shifting to university administrators, state authorities, and the market –
through the commercialization of research and teaching (Trow, 2001). As Trow (2001)
further attested, the evolution of research universities in this globalized society presents
challenges that require quick decisiveness, and highly specialized knowledge, which the
faculty senates and committees often cannot provide. The influence of faculty has,
therefore, diminished (Keller, 2001). In the current study of faculty perceptions regarding
globalization and internationalization, it was important to be cognizant of the ways in
which these emerging developments affect the academic culture.
Institutional subculture. The next subculture, the institutional subculture, also
plays an influential role in the professional responsibilities of a faculty member.
Universities hire faculty who are believed to have values and attitudes that are aligned
with those of the institution. In turn, new faculty members are inculcated to the goals and
priorities of the university by faculty and administration (Umbach, 2007). The institution
at which a faculty member is employed defines specific aspects of that academic’s
professional life, including his/her duties, opportunities, rewards, prestige of experiences
and even standing within their own discipline (Austin, 1990). Umbach (2007) lists
particular institutional elements that contribute to faculty culture; these elements include
the mission, size, location and physical environment of the institution, governance and
reward structures, and academic policies (Austin, 1990; Kuh & Whitt, 1988).

61
Institutional culture, therefore, plays a multifaceted and influential role in the career of a
faculty member.
In describing faculty at research institutions, Austin (1990) believed that these
academics tended to be cosmopolitan and well-travelled, with more professional
autonomy. These characteristics can be an encouraging factor in the globalization and
internationalization of these universities. However, while an institutional culture can be
helpful in supporting related campus-wide objectives, recent scholarship also suggested
that there is a lack of practices and policies that support internationalization efforts in
research universities. For example, Green et al. (2008) found that almost 80 percent of
the doctorate-granting institutions in their sample do not have specific guidelines to
consider international work or experience in faculty promotion and tenure decisions.
Furthermore, 86 percent of doctorate-granting institutions reported that they never or
rarely give preference to candidates with an international background, experience, or
interest when hiring faculty in fields that are not explicitly international or global in
nature (Green et al., 2008). These findings suggest that the international or global work
of faculty, or potential faculty, is of little value to these institutions. In addition, this type
of institutional culture may discourage faculty from participating in globalization or
internationalization efforts, or from integrating similar perspectives into their work.
Several scholars have also noted that colleges or universities that are of the same
classification may also develop similar cultures, particularly amongst the faculty. For
example, the cultures within major research universities tend to prioritize research and
consulting before teaching, and faculty tend to favor their disciplinary and departmental
subculture above other cultures (Austin, 1990; Clark, 1962; Rice, 1996). These findings

62
may indicate favorable conditions for globalization and internationalization in research
universities as other research, mentioned previously, demonstrated that faculty with a
preference for research were more likely to participate in internationalization efforts than
faculty with a teaching preference (Schwietz, 2006). However, the discovery that faculty
at research institutions tend to identify more with their respective disciplinary subcultures
should also be considered. Subsequently, the next section discusses the dynamics of
disciplinary culture and its impact on the current study.
Disciplinary subculture. Several scholars noted that the most significant culture
within the faculty profession is that of the discipline (Austin, 1990; Frost & Jean, 2000;
Clark, 1987; Umbach, 2007). According to Becher (1981), academic disciplines are cultural
phenomena in that they are manifested as groups of like-minded individuals, with distinct
intellectual preferences, codes of conduct and values. Socialization to the culture of each
discipline begins in graduate school, where students become familiar with the language,
style, symbols, traditions, myths and acceptable professional activities that are unique to
their area of study (Austin, 1990). This enculturation is further ingrained during a faculty
member’s professional lifetime, where values are maintained and promoted by fellow
colleagues in their disciplines and subspecialties (Austin, 1990). Furthermore, from a global
perspective, Douglass (2005) pointed out a recent shift in the networks of academic cultures
from a campus-centered community to international networks of scholars who focus on
more specialized areas of scholarship. This finding implies a weakening in the cohesion
amongst the on-campus community, in the wake of increasing influences from peers of
similar specializations, at institutions that are nationally and internationally separated.

63
In his discussion on disciplinary cultures, Umbach (2007) introduced two theoretical
classification structures that he believes dominate the literature: Biglan (1973a, 1973b), later
developed by Becher (1987; Becher & Trowler, 2001), and Holland (1966, 1973, 1985,
1997). Rather than provide a similar discussion of these models, the following is a brief
description of each.
Biglan’s (1973a, 1973b) classification theorized that differences in academic
disciplines occur along three dimensions: hard-soft, pure-applied, life-nonlife. A discipline
is judged as hard or soft based on the degree of paradigm development and whether there is
consensus about theory, methods, techniques and problems. In the pure-applied category,
disciplines are measured in regards to the degree to which the practical application of
knowledge is valued. The life-nonlife category weighs a discipline’s involvement in
studying organic or living systems. Subsequently, the classification was revised by Becher
(1987; Becher & Trowler, 2001), who employed four disciplinary categories, as opposed to
Biglan’s three, and classified disciplines in four categories: hard-pure, soft-pure, hard-
applied, and soft-applied. The disciplines in the Becher typology are then sorted according
to nature and focus of knowledge within the discipline.
In his cultural framework, Umbach (2007) also considered the research on faculty
discipline typologies from Holland (1997). Umbach (2007) stated that the theory supporting
Holland’s typology is positioned on three tenets: First, professional choices are influenced
by an individual’s personality, evident in attitudes, interests and abilities, and manifested in
six categories: realistic, investigative, artistic, conventional, enterprising, and social.
Second, these six personality types correspond to comparable academic environments.
Third, the greater an individual’s attitudes, interests and abilities align with the academic

64
environments, the more stability, satisfaction and achievement an individual is likely to feel
in the environment (Umbach, 2007). Moreover, Holland (1997) hypothesized that, in the
socialization process, faculty are encouraged by members of the environment to participate
in certain activities and hold particular values important to that environment.
Though socialization into a particular culture can assist new members in
understanding the dynamics and expectations of an academic organization, disciplinary
cultures may be problematic for college and universities seeking to enlist a unified faculty in
tackling institution-wide endeavors. According to Frost and Jean (2000), the cultural
connections between faculty members of a university are loose because faculty are more
closely tied to national and even international disciplinary associations. These scholars
asserted that it is important for institutions that want to manage desired change to utilize
structural strategies aimed at supporting institutional culture. However, universities may
lack the structures necessary to nurture unifying aspects of culture within the organization.
Thus, it is important that universities perform an audit that will assist in illuminating the
culture of the organization to reveal tensions and bonds that may exist within and across the
units (Tierney, 1999). This study maintains that one of the initial steps an institution may
find helpful in the implementation of any internationalization effort is the empirical
consideration of faculty cultures, particularly disciplinary subcultures.
Considering cultural variations amongst disciplines and departments is particularly
important for institutions who are attempting to implement university-wide changes, as
previous studies have found that disciplinary subcultures may generate differing
perspectives amongst the faculty and, as a result, affect the actions of faculty in a variety of
institutional endeavors. For example, studies have shown that different academic disciplines

65
significantly impact faculty perspectives of service learning, grading policies, and faculty
turnover. These findings are discussed below.
In their examination of factors that motivate and deter faculty in terms of
incorporating service learning as a teaching strategy, Abes, Jackson and Jones (2002) found
large variations amongst the academic disciplines. For instance, faculty in the Physical and
Biological Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering and Computer Sciences frequently
perceived that service learning lacked relevance to their courses and were least likely to use
service learning. However, faculty in the Health Professions, Social Work, Education,
Agriculture and Human Ecology were the most likely to incorporate service learning into
their teaching. As a result of this study, these researchers concluded that faculty within the
same disciplines are greatly influenced by one another and recommended that faculty share
success stories with their disciplinary peers, in order to highlight the relevance and academic
rigor of service learning in their discipline.
Similarly, Barney, Bull, Campbell and Perry (2001) set out to examine the
differential grading patterns amongst the disciplines and, in particular, differences in faculty
beliefs about grades and their relation to student learning in college. The research indicated
that differences in grading between disciplines have been well established in previous
studies. Like Umbach’s (2007) theoretical model, the Barney et al. (2001) study utilized
Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines. The results of this study indicated that there
are discipline-related variances in attitudes regarding the function of grades; for instance, the
hard-pure disciplines held significantly different attitudes than faculty in soft-applied
disciplines. In conclusion, the researchers reiterated Clark’s (1987) claim that faculty beliefs

66
are embedded in the subcultures of academic disciplines. Subsequently, as Barney et al.
(2001) found, these beliefs, in turn, have a direct effect on how faculty grade students.
Furthermore, in a study that sought to understand faculty turnover, Xu (2008)
considered variations in faculty disciplines and how these differences are exhibited in
faculty expectations of professional responsibilities. As a result of this examination, the
researcher found that considerable and consistent differences between the academic
specialties do affect faculty turnover. Xu (2008) concluded that disciplines do have an
impact on the professional beliefs, attitudes, and actions of faculty, and that future research
should carefully consider discipline-specific behavior patterns.
Additionally, it has become increasingly important for institutions to analyze and
monitor the impact of globalization and internationalization on internal cultures, as the rise
of global institutional rankings may affect relations between academic disciplines. Ishikawa
(2009) posited that, given the rankings’ reliance on citation measures, faculty in fields
whose culture aligns with the ranking methodology may develop negative attitudes to
faculty in other fields, whose culture may not promote or even negatively affect the global
rankings. Moreover, scholars from different disciplines tend to perceive and approach
internationalization differently (Yang, 2003). Due to the nature of scholarship in a certain
discipline, some faculty may be inadequately prepared to restructure their courses and
research to accommodate an international perspective, and would benefit from institutional
support in developing this knowledge and approach (Green & Shoenberg, 2005).
Furthermore, several researchers recognized that the isolated nature of certain disciplinary
units may prevent faculty from coordinating and collaborating on internationalization
efforts, as cross-disciplinary partnerships are vital to comprehensive efforts that seek to

67
internationalize the curriculum (Childress, 2009; Green, 2005). In order to add to, and
clarify, these previous findings, the current study focused on academic disciplines and how
they may shape faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization.
Conceptual Model
Umbach (2007) found that, either very little – if any – empirical research has been
done to study cultural influence on faculty teaching, or that research has been focused on
only one faculty culture and not multiple cultures at one time. Thus, the scholar proposed a
framework that integrates faculty culture research, in order to analyze the effect of faculty
culture on college teaching. Umbach’s (2007) theory suggested that attitudes, values and
behaviors related to college teaching may be influenced by three primary subcultures:
Academic Professional, Institutional, and Disciplinary. Umbach (2007) further described
these subcultures as overlapping and interrelated, and influential to each other. As an
example of how this theoretical framework may operate, the author indicated research which
demonstrated that faculty at larger institutions are more likely to have stronger disciplinary
alliances than faculty who work at smaller institutions, which leads to greater variation of
instruction (Clark, 1983, 1987).
The framework Umbach (2007) proposed also highlighted the critical role of
socialization into the three subcultures, and the role it plays in shaping how college faculty
teach and interact with undergraduates, as well as the ways in which it can affect the
undergraduate experience overall. This model also aligns with a sociological understanding
of culture and assumes that cultures are independent variables that affect particular aspects
of higher education, such as college teaching and the overall undergraduate experience.
Though Umbach (2007) acknowledged that this particular conceptualization may assume a

68
simplistic and linear direction of attitudes and behaviors, he affirmed that this model
illuminates important aspects of the cultures being studied.
Umbach (2007) has also provided some implications for policy and practice,
some of which are described here. First, the researcher believed that assessing the
cultures within the university is an important step before institutional efforts are
implemented. Second, Umbach (2007) echoed the recommendations of several other
researchers who maintained that cultural audits can be valuable and illuminative in
managing desired change in colleges or universities (Frost & Jean, 2000; Tierney, 1999).
Finally, despite exercising a quantitative approach in examining his proposed model,
Umbach (2007) supported further testing through qualitative methods such as
ethnographic research. This study seeks to build off of Umbach’s (2007) theoretical
framework and explore these implications in the current study.
Chapter Summary
This section touched on a number of scholarly voices that have examined the
impact of globalization and internationalization on the faculty. Initially, the evolutionary
effects of globalization and internationalization were explored, in relation to the two
primary responsibilities of faculty: teaching and research. Next this literature review
considered three studies that investigated the attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of faculty
in regards to internationalization. As there have been no studies that have examined
faculty opinions of globalization, this facet of the current study has yet to be explored.
Finally, the theoretical framework, to be used in the research methodology of this
empirical study, was presented. Given the enormous impact of globalization and
internationalization on the faculty, and the complexity of faculty cultures and their

69
influence on faculty perspectives and actions, the relationship that connects these
dynamics should be researched. This study contends that, in regards to globalization and
internationalization efforts, it is beneficial for institutional leadership to appreciate the
ways in which faculty cultures affect, and may be revealed through, faculty perceptions.

70
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The literature reviewed in the previous chapter gathered research and evidence
from numerous scholars that demonstrate the extensive impact globalization and
internationalization have on higher education in the United States and, specifically, on
faculty at research universities. The literature also raised important questions that
necessitate a deeper examination into faculty perceptions of globalization and
internationalization and the professional and personal cultures amongst the faculty that
may be suggested by these perceptions. In this chapter, the research methods that were
used to study the relationship between globalization, internationalization, faculty
cultures, and faculty perceptions are described. However, before the empirical process is
discussed, the research questions of this study are restated:
 How do faculty at a research university perceive globalization and
internationalization?
 Do faculty members’ perceptions of globalization and
internationalization in higher education vary depending on their
disciplinary subculture, and, if so, in what ways are the perspectives
different?
As indicated in the first question, initially the study identified faculty at a specific
research university. In order to obtain an informative sample, the researcher sought to
locate an institution whose faculty may currently be dealing with change efforts toward
internationalization and globalization. Upon identifying this research university, faculty
from various disciplines, and – it was hoped – varying perspectives were contacted for

71
interviews. This faculty sample was asked a number of questions in order to gather data
that was used to gain an understanding of faculty views of globalization and
internationalization as well as to inform the study regarding how particular faculty
cultures – specifically academic disciplines – may be implied through faculty perceptions
of globalization and internationalization.
In addition, the research questions of this study were examined through a
qualitative methods approach, which sought to incorporate both breadth and depth in
order to better understand the factors that shape faculty perceptions. Research that
explores the relationship between faculty culture and faculty perception – as they relate
to globalization and internationalization – has not yet utilized a qualitative lens.
Therefore, this investigation hoped to illuminate this dynamic from a novel perspective.
In implementing a qualitative methods approach, this study employed a
constructivist view, through an ethnographic inquiry strategy, and utilized an open-ended
interviewing method. By adopting a constructivist view, the researcher hoped to define
the meaning of a phenomenon from the perspective of the subjects being studied
(Creswell, 2009). Furthermore, the constructivist approach closely considers the truths,
knowledge and cultural norms that are socially constructed and validated through group
consensus, which shape the multiple realities of individuals (Creswell, 2009; Patton,
2002). By interviewing faculty within specific disciplinary groups at a research
university, the researcher identified sample cultural groups, in order to determine shared
behavioral patterns.
Furthermore, utilizing an ethnographic strategy provided a platform that supports
Umbach’s (2007) cultural theoretical framework used in this study. The relevance of

72
understanding culture is fundamental to “applied ethnography”, particularly in change
efforts (Chambers, 2000). As globalization continues to impact society, colleges and
universities seek to address these influences by engaging in change processes through
internationalization efforts (Ellingboe, 1998). Additionally, various studies utilized
ethnographic methods for the purpose of program evaluation (Patton, 2002), which may
be directly beneficial for the research university being studied.
Through this process, the researcher sought to consider the ways in which
disciplinary cultures can shape faculty perceptions of globalization and
internationalization, which may also serve to motivate or deter faculty from integrating or
participating in related on-campus efforts. This chapter provides a detailed description of
the research design of this dissertation, including the population and sample,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Population and Sample
The population for this study was full-time faculty at research universities. The
sample, therefore, consisted of thirty full-time faculty members from various disciplines,
at a research university in the western United States. In the discussion that follows the
rationale for and a description of this population and sample are provided.
Globalization and internationalization affect institutions in a variety of ways, and
to varying degrees (Dale & Robertson, 2002; Douglass, 2005; Qiang, 2003; Sadlak,
1998). This study focused on faculty at research universities, due in part to the highly
influential role that these institutions play in the internationalization of higher education
in the United States. Research universities educate a significant share of the nation’s
population, as these institutions enrolled nearly 30 percent of students in 2009, though

73
they comprised only about 6 percent of all higher education institutions in the United
States (Carnegie Foundation, 2010). Furthermore, research universities are particularly
accountable to society, due to their higher proportion of baccalaureate degree conferrals
and academic research output (Horn, et al., 2007). In this age of globalization, when the
fostering of a knowledge economy is fast becoming a necessity in the development of an
advanced society, all institutions of higher education – and research universities in
particular – directly support economic and social development (Mohrman et al., 2008).
Additionally, from a global perspective, these institutions play a key role in educating
citizens worldwide, as seen in a recent report of the Chronicle of Higher Education,
which listed institutions in the United States with the highest number of international
students. In this report, 17 of the top 20 institutions were research universities.
Furthermore, with the rise of influential global institutional rankings, research institutions
have become increasingly motivated to internationalize. This motivation may be partially
attributed to the heavy focus, in ranking methodologies, on research performance
indicators, placing enormous pressure on research universities to strive for international
stature (van der Wende, 2008). Finally, the act of research is described in the literature as
the most globalized activity in higher education and the research standing of a university
indicates both the institution’s ability to produce outputs that are globally-relevant, in
addition to attracting prospective students, capital and the interest of other organizations
(van der Wende, 2008). Given their importance to a globalizing society and their
dominant position in the institutional rankings, it is important to understand how the
impacts of globalization and internationalization are reshaping research universities and
their constituents.

74
For this institutional case study, the researcher sought to locate a research
university whose faculty might have been grappling with issues of globalization and
internationalization at the time. Subsequently, the researcher identified a private research
university in the Western United States, or WRU, whose faculty were ideal subjects for
this case study. This was due to a number of factors specific to this university. For
example, WRU participates in a number of international organizations. Additionally, the
institution publicizes on its homepage that it enrolls the largest body of international
students of any research university in the United States. This assertion was confirmed
independently by the Institute of International Education (IIE). In fact, the researcher
noted that, at the time of the IIE report, WRU had hosted 700 more international students
than the second highest institution, and all of the top 20 institutions listed in that report
were research universities. Moreover, this institution retains an office whose sole
responsibility is to support and strengthen the global initiatives of schools across the
campus.
Another rationale for selecting this particular institution was the university’s
status in regards to their strategic plan. At the time the study was undertaken, WRU was
in the middle of creating a long-term strategic plan. A committee and six subcommittees
had been formed, and campus-wide forums were planned in efforts to create drafts
towards a final strategic plan. Most importantly, one of the goals of the strategic plan –
and a corresponding subcommittees’ primary focus – was to expand the institution’s
global presence. As a result of these particular circumstances, it was surmised that faculty
at this university would likely be in the midst of adjusting to, or situating their

75
professional lives amongst, on-campus globalization and internationalization efforts.
Thus, these faculty were likely greatly affected by globalization and internationalization.
Furthermore, this study focused the examination on full-time faculty. This is
important because full-time faculty have primary responsibility for managing and
implementing the educational mission of their respective postsecondary institutions and,
as such, wield a great deal of influence over the academic direction of the institution
through shared governance, particularly at high-prestige universities (Altbach, 2001;
DeAngelo et al, 2009), including WRU. Thus, this dissertation examined the perceptions
of faculty who, due to their positions within the institution, were eligible to participate in
the Academic Senate, faculty council, and other governance structures that can be driving
forces of change within the university. At this research university, these are full-time
tenure and non-tenure track faculty. This was the target population for the study.
In order to obtain an appropriate and diverse sample for this study, the researcher
considered the various disciplines, departments and overall organization of the faculty at
WRU. As a result, the researcher chose to focus on the Arts and Sciences College of this
institution. Faculty from the College were targeted, as they would likely have contact
with a variety of students (e.g. undergraduates and graduates) – indicating that they may
be engaging in a range of teaching and research activities. Furthermore, the basic division
of the College (i.e. Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences) created an already
established disciplinary distinction. Also, with nearly 450 full-time faculty members
across 24 academic departments, the College offered this study an ample number of
possible subjects. Finally, the College describes itself on its website as a global
organization: preparing graduates for cultural appreciation and global citizenship. Thus, it

76
was determined that faculty in the College may have been affected, influenced, or had
participated in internationalization efforts in their professional responsibilities.
Once the College was selected as the potential pool for the sample, the researcher
initially contacted one of the Vice Deans of the College for recommendations in
communicating with, and contacting, individual faculty. This high-level administrator,
and member of the faculty, recommended two organizations within the university in
which faculty were members and suggested that the researcher identify potential subjects
in the member lists of these two organizations. Once potential College faculty subjects
were identified, the researcher sent emails and made phone calls, requesting the
participation of the faculty member. Upon receiving a response that the faculty member
was interested in participating in the study, a time and location was arranged for the
interview between the researcher and faculty member. In addition, the initial contact for
the College, the Vice Dean, also agreed to be interviewed for this study.
Faculty who agreed to participate were interviewed in their offices at the agreed
upon date and time. Upon completion of the interview, the researcher requested
recommendations from the faculty as to other potential subjects from within the three
different divisions of the College. This particular research method is recognized as
purposeful snowball sampling, and assisted the researcher in locating information-rich or
critical cases amongst the faculty (Patton, 2002). With this technique, faculty who were
interviewed were asked to recommend other individuals who may represent particular
perspectives or offer exceptionally informative points of view of globalization,
internationalization and the relevance to academia, and would likely be willing to be
interviewed.

77
During the process of interviewing and receiving recommendations from the
faculty, however, the researcher became aware that faculty appeared to primarily
recommend people within their own department. The researcher believed that this may
have been due to faculty’s unfamiliarity with colleagues outside of their disciplinary
sphere and in the College. Furthermore, the researcher observed that many of the
recommended individuals were either like-minded colleagues of the faculty who
recommended them (e.g. colleagues who had similar views of globalization and
internationalization) or individuals who were thought to be “global” in their personal and
professional experiences. This trend within the sample, however, did not align with the
intent of this study: to examine the perspectives of faculty members with a diversity of
personal and professional experiences, related to or unrelated to globalization and
internationalization. Subsequently, in proceeding with the latter half of the data
collection, 15 of the 30 faculty members in the sample were selected randomly. In order
to procure a diverse sample with random authenticity, the researcher visited potential
faculty subjects during their office hours, or if they happened to be in their office at the
time. These faculty were given a brief verbal description of the study and the projected
length of time the interviews would take. If the faculty agreed, an interview date and time
were scheduled. Patton (2002) described this method as purposeful random sampling and
asserted that, although this method does not allow for representativeness within the
population, this sampling technique does give credibility to the data collected.
Instrumentation
One instrument, an interview protocol (Appendix), was used to assist with the
collection of data through one-on-one interviews with the faculty. In order to design an

78
interview protocol, the researcher considered questions that arose in the literature review,
along with guidance from the selected conceptual framework and other theoretical
assumptions. Umbach’s (2007) framework of faculty cultures, introduced in the previous
chapter, provided a lens through which the interview questions might explore the
influences of the disciplinary subcultures. This theoretical framework identifies specific
elements and values pertinent to faculty cultures and the ways in which aspects of the
disciplinary cultures may influence their perceptions of globalization and
internationalization. Furthermore, the qualitative instrument was designed to align with
constructivist theory. According to Creswell (2009), a constructivist approach to
interviewing favors open-ended questions, which allow the interviewee to explore the
meanings of a phenomenon and reflect on how these subjective meanings were
historically and socially formed. These resources provided a comprehensive tool which
was used to explore the unique relationship between faculty cultures and perceptions.
Moreover, the interview protocol followed an interview guide structure which
allowed the researcher to develop and sequence questions while allowing for flexibility
during the interview (Patton, 2002). The interview questions asked faculty to reflect on
various aspects of globalization and internationalization as they apply to their profession
as well as how they believe these particular cultures affect their current perspectives and
actions, in regards to globalization and internationalization.
Data Collection
In order to capture a deeper description of the faculty perspective and allow for a
free-flowing, dynamic and informative process, the sessions were one-on-one, semi-
structured interviews. According to Patton (2002), the purpose of qualitative interviewing

79
is to provide researchers a way to enter into another person’s perspective. This method is
based on the assumption that the perspective of the individual being interviewed is
significant, knowable and can be communicated clearly. Furthermore, through the
ethnographic interview approach, the researcher hoped to gain a better appreciation of the
daily realities of the faculty and a contextual understanding of the disciplinary cultures
(LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Patton, 2002).
This study also utilized an interview group protocol, in order to ensure consistent
data collection, and to allow the researcher to be better able to direct the conversational
flow of the interview. Additionally, data were collected in tape-recorded sessions, except
where the faculty member did not want to be tape-recorded. In that one case, the
researcher took hand-written notes. Though the targeted time commitment for these
interview sessions was no more than one hour, interviews lasted between 20 minutes to 1
hour and 20 minutes, depending on how much or how little the faculty member had to
say as well as the time constraints of the subject’s schedule.
The data collection process was beneficial to this study in a number of ways.
First, these qualitative procedures were cost and time effective, for both the subjects and
the researcher, while securing the quantity and quality of information necessary to
complete a thorough study. By limiting the number of faculty being interviewed, the
methodology allowed for the collection, as well as the analysis, of the data within a time
frame that was suitable for answering the research questions with rigor and efficiency.
Second, the inductive and descriptive aspects of these qualitative approaches supported
an objective of this study: to produce a formative programmatic evaluation of the
disciplinary cultures and perceptions of faculty at a particular institution in order to

80
identify untapped support or underlying dissent of globalization and internationalization
efforts amongst the faculty of this research university.
Data Analysis
In order to perform a comprehensive analysis of the qualitative data, the
researcher followed a research-tested process. Miles and Huberman (1994) believed that
there are three concurrent steps in data analysis. These steps are data reduction, data
display and conclusion drawing and verification. The following discussion briefly
describes these steps and their relevance to the current study.
In order to analyze the data from thirty interviews of varying length, this process
benefited from data reduction, which, according to Miles and Huberman (1994) occurs
with the selection and focus of data through such methods as coding and the selection a
conceptual framework. Initially, the researcher coded the data by highlighting frequently-
mentioned topics or overarching themes that arose in the faculty members’ answers to the
protocol questions. Furthermore, as described previously, this study utilized the four
levels of culture as listed in Umbach’s (2007) model –artifacts, behavioral patterns and
processes, espoused values and beliefs, and underlying assumptions – to guide the
researcher in examining the data and attempting to decipher meaningful patterns.
Another step in the analysis is a data display, or a structured, accessible and
condensed record of data that assists the researcher in drawing conclusions or taking
further action (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher used a role-ordered matrix type
of data display. As detailed by Miles and Huberman (1994), this matrix organizes
information by the subjects’ roles within the institution and notes brief descriptions of
what was found in the interview from the coded notes. This form of display was helpful

81
for the researcher to organize faculty by their disciplinary subcultures as well as to
further determine recurring topics and themes that arose in the interview transcripts.
Finally, Miles and Huberman (1994) described conclusion drawing and
verification as another concurrent step in the analysis process that arises out of data
collection, reduction and displaying. As conclusions are formed, however, the researcher
is required to remain open and skeptical until the conclusions become clearer and
grounded in the research. Once again, the data display assisted the researcher in noting
patterns or unique topics that emerged.

82
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The effects of globalization today require that institutions of higher education
undertake strategies of internationalization that incorporate a transnational dynamic into
the academy. These types of efforts require institution-wide support in order to be
successful. Support from the faculty is particularly critical, as these scholars are
responsible for the teaching and research aspects of the university. However, several
problems currently exist that may hinder the internationalization efforts in a college or
university. First, globalization and internationalization are complex and constantly
evolving processes that are not well understood amongst the faculty. Second, research
has demonstrated that the lack of understanding of what the word internationalization
means or entails can hamper institutional efforts of this type (Childress, 2009). Third,
there are currently no qualitative studies that examine the ways in which faculty
understand the term internationalization, and no studies have considered the ways in
which faculty conceptualize globalization. Fourth, there is an absence of qualitative
research that considers how faculty cultures may influence faculty perspectives of
globalization and internationalization. This is significant, as faculty disciplines are
believed to have the most impact on the professional lives of these individuals (Clark,
1987), especially given the vast and embedded differences between faculty cultures,
particularly amongst the disciplines (Becher, 1987; Becher & Trowler, 2001; Biglan,
1973a; Holland, 1997). These nuanced cultural differences, which may be difficult to
recognize through strictly quantitative methods, can also benefit or impede institutional
efforts. If the disciplinary culture of faculty is skeptical of, or hostile to, globalization and

83
internationalization, this may create a significant challenge for institutions attempting to
embrace or implement similar efforts. Faculty who have a negative perception of
globalization and internationalization, particularly as they relate to the university and the
goals of the institution, may present a significant challenge to these institutional
endeavors (Hudzik, 2011). Therefore, it is valuable for the university leadership to be
aware of these potential obstacles.
Consistent with the two research questions of this study, this chapter is organized
in two parts. The first part details the key findings that are relevant to the first research
question of this study: How do faculty at a research university perceive globalization and
internationalization? Thus, this section will analyze the themes and frequent topics that
arose in the interviews with all of the faculty, and describe the manifestations of culture
that appeared as well as the ways in which these manifestations may reveal the faculty
culture in regards to globalization and internationalization. As described earlier, the
manifestations of culture as delineated in Umbach’s (2007) model are artifacts,
behavioral patterns and processes, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions. In
his study, Umbach (2007) proposed these manifestations to be used as tools by
researchers in order to examine, recognize and understand faculty cultures, and in
determining how faculty make sense of their roles in an institution. Therefore, this study
utilized these manifestations to consider the relationship among globalization,
internationalization and the faculty.
The chapter then addresses the second research question of this study: Do faculty
members’ perceptions of globalization and internationalization in higher education vary
depending on their disciplinary subculture, and, if so, in what ways are the perspectives

84
different? In order to answer this question, the faculty were divided into three sections by
their broad disciplinary areas (Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities).
These sections are then divided further into two parts that will analyze the themes and
frequent topics raised by the faculty. These two parts are the primary faculty cultures, as
described in Umbach’s (2007) faculty cultures model, outside of the disciplinary culture:
the academic professional culture and the institutional culture. The academic professional
section examines the ways in which globalization and internationalization are perceived
by faculty in each discipline, followed by an analysis of how the faculty – collectively,
within each discipline – perceive globalization and internationalization are affecting the
institutional culture. Once again, in each section, the manifestations of culture that were
gleaned from the interview transcripts were considered, along with a discussion of what
these manifestations might indicate about each disciplinary culture. Finally, this chapter
also incorporates the research discussed in the literature review of this study to compare
with the current findings.
Faculty Sample
Thirty faculty members were interviewed for this study. These faculty came from
a variety of departments within the university’s College: eleven faculty from five Natural
Science departments, nine faculty from five different Social Science departments, and ten
faculty from seven Humanities departments. The information in Table 1 details the
number of departments at WRU in each discipline, with examples, along with the number
of departments the faculty sample represented in each discipline. Many of these faculty
members serve, or had served, in a variety of administrative positions within the
institution: from Chairs of academic departments to Vice Deans of the College, to a

85
former Provost of the university. The interview subjects, by their own account, were also
at a variety of stages in their careers: several individuals were recently out of a post-
doctoral fellowship and in their first faculty positions, another faculty member was on the
verge of retirement into an Emeritus Professor position – having been a faculty member
at the university for over thirty years, while another faculty member had already retired,
yet was still teaching as an Emeritus Professor. Though the researcher did not collect
demographic information during the interviews, the faculty sample were observed to
have comprised of fairly balanced groups of men (16) and women (14), and, in viewing
the faculty’s university webpages, the professors interviewed made up an equal
distribution of academic ranks: 10 assistant professors, 10 associate professors, and 10
full professors.
Table 1
Number of Departments within Each Discipline at WRU
Natural Sciences Social Science Humanities
Number of
Departments at
WRU*
8 5 11
Examples
Chemistry,
Mathematics
Biological Sciences

Anthropology,
Political Science,
Sociology

Classics,
Philosophy,
English
Number of
Departments
Represented in
the Sample
5 5 7
*figures from university’s website; programs not counted

86
Part One: Results for Research Question One
Research Question #1 asked: How do faculty at a research university perceive
globalization and internationalization? This part discusses the primary ways in which
globalization and internationalization are defined by the faculty sample in general and the
ways in which these academics believe these phenomena affect their own experiences in
higher education. The first section examines how faculty defined globalization and
internationalization. The second section considers the primary themes and topics that
were brought up by faculty as they relate to globalization and internationalization. These
themes and topics – international students and study abroad, research, English and other
languages, Western elitism in higher education and the university’s location – are
significant, as they represent the areas of faculty culture that these academic
professionals immediately perceive are affected by globalization and internationalization.
Section One: Defining Globalization and Internationalization, a Culture of
Uncertainty
The culture of the faculty that surrounded globalization and internationalization
appeared to reflect a level of uncertainty that may be problematic for WRU. For example,
the faculty did not have common definitions for the terms globalization and
internationalization: 15 of the 30 faculty interviewed felt that globalization and
internationalization were different phenomena; 12 of the 30 faculty felt that globalization
and internationalization described the same things, and the remainder of the faculty felt
that globalization was a type of internationalization. Moreover, this unfamiliarity was
reflected in the frequency with which a majority of the faculty – many of whom defined
globalization and internationalization as different process – would use the terms or

87
derivations of the terms (e.g. international, global, internationalizing, and globalizing)
interchangeably. It is significant that many of these faculty were not familiar or
comfortable with defining globalization and internationalization in higher education and
that the collective faculty understanding of what globalization and internationalization
meant, lacked cohesiveness and clarity. These findings may be of some concern to this
university, particularly in light of the fact that WRU promotes itself as a global university
and a leader in international education. These espoused values feature prominently on the
institution’s webpage. This discrepancy between WRU’s espoused values and the lack of
a commonly-held understanding or definition amongst the faculty indicate a culture of
uncertainty with regards to globalization and internationalization at the university.
However, there were some consistencies within the perceptions of the faculty.
Notably, nearly all of the faculty defined globalization and/or internationalization by
incorporating terms relating to the four areas of society described in previous literature as
being directly affected by globalization: politics, economy, technology and culture. One
Natural Sciences faculty member, used economic examples to frame his definition of
globalization and internationalization, “That’s the dual processes of extending the
production and consumption of goods and services beyond national boundaries.” In
another example, a Humanities faculty member, who had taught a class on globalization,
stated, “We try to think about the cultural dimensions of globalization, and how the
creation, production, dissemination of culture is changing today.” Although no professor
specifically mentioned all four societal sectors, all of the faculty members who were
interviewed for this study did allude to at least one of the sectors in their attempts to
define globalization and internationalization. Once again, there was very little

88
consistency in the ways in which these processes were discussed throughout the
interviews and the differences and lack of clarity in their statements indicated that the
faculty at this university may have inconsistent underlying assumptions of the related
institutional goals. These assumptions add to the culture of uncertainty that is prevalent
amongst the faculty, concerning the relationships between globalization,
internationalization, and this institution.
In order to better understand the particular attitudes of faculty regarding
globalization and internationalization, the interview subjects were also asked two
questions about their overall perspectives, as well as the perspectives of colleagues in
their discipline or department, with regard to these two phenomena. The faculty were
once again primarily split in their answers. When asked if they personally viewed
globalization and internationalization as positive or negative phenomena, 15 faculty
members stated that these processes were both positive and negative, 13 faculty members
believed they were generally positive, and 2 faculty members felt neither positive nor
negative about globalization and internationalization. For example, a Humanities faculty
member asserted, “It depends on who you’re asking. If you’re asking people in Third
World countries, it has created opportunities that are not ideal. A global awareness can be
good, if it raises the standards of living and human rights.” Conversely, one Social
Sciences faculty member stated, “They’re positive influences. As someone who is
interested in the world’s poor, I think that we need to be looking for ways, at the global
level, of trying to alleviate the people that are poor.” In these two examples, both the
Natural Science faculty and the Humanities faculty chose to answer the question from the
standpoint of an economic context, specifically in looking at how globalization and

89
internationalization might affect impoverished individuals. However, one faculty member
took an optimistic position while the other took a critical one. These answers demonstrate
the complexity of faculty thinking and how the academic culture of faculty may play a
role in influencing faculty perspectives of these two phenomena.
Moreover, the attitudes of the faculty towards these phenomena also appeared to
vary depending on the context in which they situated globalization or
internationalization. For example, another faculty member from the Humanities explored
the complex contexts of globalization and internationalization in this way:
[Humanities faculty] There’s the various kinds of cultural interchanges that I’m
most familiar with, and which I favor, but I certainly don’t favor a lot of the kind
of internationalizations where American oil companies really take charge of the
resources of another country and exploit those resources for its own advantage to
very little profit to the other country, expect for the other people who rule it. I’ve
got a lot of problems at the corporate level and, indeed, quite often at the
governmental level, as well. But, at the personal level exchange, I’m quite in
favor of it. I find it very helpful, very interesting, and even a sort of optimism. It
certainly has been positive for me in my particular area of teaching.
This faculty member introduced an artifact of the academic and social culture that he has
witnessed, cultural interchanges, which he felt positively towards. However, he also
mentioned economic artifacts, such as oil companies and the embedded belief that these
organizations negatively affect their surrounding communities. During the interviews,
faculty were asked to reflect on these two processes mostly in academic professional
contexts, as in how globalization and internationalization may affect higher education

90
and their responsibilities as professors. Faculty often felt that, in academic and also
cultural contexts, globalization and internationalization were a necessary and positive
part of their responsibilities, such as with their own research and in preparing graduates
for professional and personal success. Occasionally, however, these professors described
globalization and internationalization in economic or political contexts, as seen in the
example of the Humanities faculty above. These contexts were often used to define
negative aspects of globalization and internationalization. The complex nature of these
terms has contributed to an ambiguous and tentative culture that encompasses the faculty
and WRU’s attempts to support globalization and internationalization in the university.
However, faculty perceptions about their colleagues’ opinions of globalization
and internationalization were much less conflicted. Of the 29 faculty who were asked this
question, 17 faculty felt that their colleagues were mostly positive about these processes,
11 said both positive and negative, and one faculty believed his colleagues were
indifferent. It is not clear why the majority of faculty had mixed (both positive and
negative) perspectives of globalization and internationalization, whereas the majority also
believed that their colleagues would be only positive about these processes. Similar to the
context perspective that was mentioned earlier, in highlighting the positive aspects of
globalization and internationalization, many faculty mentioned examples from academia.
For example, in answering the earlier question about whether she felt positively or
negatively about globalization and internationalization, overall, this Social Sciences
faculty member felt that it was both positive and negative, depending on the particular
characteristics of an individual:

91
[Social Sciences faculty] Well, it’s a question of for who, right? My sense is those
who are well educated and who have a lot of resources, in terms of promoting
one’s own professional goals, then globalization would be a positive thing for
those people. While those who have not really gained either education or
professional, or a technical skills edge, it would probably be a negative thing.
This faculty member chose to answer the question from a professional perspective.
Similarly, when asked whether her colleagues would be positive or negative about
globalization and internationalization, this faculty member felt that her colleagues would
be very positive, “Generally, our faculty is all very pro-globalization, pro-
internationalization. I don’t think there will be anybody who would be strongly opposed
to it. Most of them are for student exchange programs…these are the things that
everybody really loves to establish.” This faculty member focused on the favorable
attributes of an academic cultural artifact, student exchange programs, in rationalizing
why her fellow departmental and disciplinary colleagues would be very positive about
globalization and internationalization. Perhaps, in speaking about their colleagues’
attitudes, most faculty members were hesitant to speak for others outside of the academic
and cultural contexts in which they were familiar with these individuals. Furthermore,
these faculty did appear to acknowledge an underlying assumption that – in the wake of
globalization and internationalization – they and their colleagues are direct beneficiaries
of these processes. This may help to explain why faculty felt their fellow academics
would view globalization and internationalization positively. However, these examples
further demonstrate that faculty do not appear to have a clear understanding of what
globalization and internationalization mean for them personally, or to their colleagues.

92
The researcher sought to determine how faculty at a research university perceived
globalization and internationalization, particularly as it related to higher education. The
findings described in this section are significant in that they demonstrate the culture of
uncertainty that influences the faculty perceptions of globalization, internationalization,
and their relationship to the university. These inconsistent perceptions may make it
difficult for WRU to successfully implement cohesive and comprehensive
internationalization efforts. Along with these diverse perspectives, the interviews also
revealed a number of topics that were consistently mentioned by the faculty in regards to
the impact of globalization and internationalization on the higher education sector. These
themes are discussed in the subsequent section.
Section Two: Globalization and Internationalization Effects on Higher Education
Throughout the interviews, the faculty who participated in this study were given
an opportunity to thoroughly describe their understanding of globalization and
internationalization, and the ways in which they perceived these processes affected their
departments, disciplines, the university and the higher education sector in general.
Despite the complex and multifaceted natures of globalization, internationalization, and
the faculty body, the interviews revealed a number of themes that were mentioned by all
or a majority of the faculty and general areas that were raised by at least a third of the 30
faculty who were interviewed. These themes and areas are discussed below in the
following order: students, research, languages, Western elitism, and the university’s
location. In addition, the cultural manifestations – which offer a glimpse of the faculty
culture that surrounds globalization and internationalization – are analyzed in each
section. Higher education institutions that seek to implement successful

93
internationalization efforts may find it helpful to determine the specific academic areas
that faculty perceive are most affected by globalization and internationalization as well as
the ways in which the faculty culture may embrace or reject these processes. This
information may serve to better inform the leadership of a university as to potential
advantages and obstacles that could arise for – and from – the faculty, as well as policies
and programs that may need to be implemented in order to support the faculty in their
responsibilities to promote these efforts.
Students: Perspectives of International Students and Study Abroad. By far,
the most discussed topic in the interviews with faculty was that of the students, in
particular international students and students who study abroad. The first part of this
section looks at the benefits and concerns faculty mentioned in having a large
international student population as well as the culture of enthusiastic acceptance and
accommodation that emanates from the faculty towards the international student
population. The second section looks at faculty’s mixed perspectives on the
implementation of study abroad in the curriculum of WRU, and the supportive – yet
progressive – nature of the faculty culture in this aspect.
International students: A culture of enthusiastic acceptance and
accommodation. International students are recognized in the research as a component of
an institution’s internationalization strategy (Knight, 2004; Qiang 2003). Accordingly, all
of the faculty who were interviewed for this study spoke to some degree about either
their experience with, or feelings about, international students. This overwhelming
interest and preoccupation by the faculty may be indicative of the significance of
international students to this particular institution: WRU is well known in the public, in

94
the higher education sector, and amongst the faculty, for its large international student
population. In the interviews, the faculty mentioned a wide range of benefits and
concerns that having such a large international student population can create. These
benefits include the academic strength of international students, their effect on the
national rankings, and being able to utilize the unique abilities and diverse experiences of
these students. Some of the concerns these faculty raised involved language difficulties
with students and teaching assistants, losing graduates to their home countries, and
cultural sensitivities and challenges in the classroom. The presence and size of an
international student population on a university campus is a tangible and highly visible
artifact that describes the culture of an institution and may also suggest other cultural
manifestations that are not as perceptible, such as embedded values and beliefs, within
the university. The cultural manifestations within this institution, related to the presence
of international students, are discussed in this section. Furthermore, in order to
supplement the discussion and further illustrate the ways in which the interviews with
faculty can provide a glimpse into the cultures of faculty in regards to globalization and
internationalization, Tables 2 and 3 provide some examples. In each table are a list of
quotes from the faculty describing their benefits and concerns related to international
students. In the next column are cultural manifestations, as discussed in Umbach’s (2007)
model, which may be used as possible indicators of faculty culture. In the last column, a
description of the type of faculty culture is given, as revealed by these quotes and cultural
manifestations.
International students: A culture of enthusiastic acceptance. In terms of their academic
strength, at least five faculty members, all from the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences,

95
mentioned the strong academic qualifications of the international student body. A few of
these faculty attributed the academic strength of these students to the intense preparation
they received in their home countries, similar to this Social Sciences professor: “There’s
some universities in China, they have like a three-year Master’s program that are like
PhD programs. So they’re extremely well-trained.” Faculty also valued the unique
attributes and strong work-ethic that foreign students were believed to bring to
institutions in the United States. In their experience, these academics recognized the
advantages that foreign students brought to the curriculum and co-curriculum of the
university. The faculty perceived the positive behavioral patterns that reflected their own
experiences with the international student body which reinforced their espoused belief
that international students are of great value to the institution. These findings demonstrate
the culture of enthusiastic acceptance amongst the faculty in regards to international
students.

96
Table 2
The Benefits of International Students in the University: A Culture of Enthusiastic
Acceptance
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
Academic strength of international
students:
 “A lot of international students, their
qualifications are better than
domestic ones.”
 “China has the most remarkable
diversity of hardworking,
intellectually excellent students.
They’ve been a source of really
strong students for every university
in this country.”
 Behavioral patterns:
positive previous
experiences with
international students
 Espoused belief:
international students
are valuable to WRU
Enthusiastic
Acceptance
Effect of international students on national
rankings:
“The reason that our university, at least in
our department, is so aggressively
recruiting international students has to do
with (the fact that) we are not in the first
three ranked departments in the country.
Therefore, we cannot compete with places
like CalTech or Harvard. Out of the
applicants, there is a distribution and the
high end of the distribution is likely going
to those places…. To have the same
qualified students that we would really
like to have, we are forced to look more
international.”
 Behavioral pattern:
active international
student recruitment
 Espoused value: to
obtain the best
students possible,
regardless of where
they are from
Enthusiastic
Acceptance
Utilizing the abilities and experiences of
international students:
“I actually asked her to just informally
speak for ten minutes about her internship
at the European Parliament…even though
she’s not a high level diplomat… the
students can relate to her better.”
Underlying assumption:
international student
abilities and experiences
are valuable

Enthusiastic
Acceptance

97
Table 3
Concerns with International Students in the University: A Culture of Accommodation
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
Language difficulties:
“It’s a real challenge when writing is a big
component. Writing is number one in this
class, beyond comprehension and analysis,
and I’m dealing with people who don’t
speak English at home, many of them.
They’re learning how to write here, yet,
they’ve gotten into this university based on
their abilities. So, we can’t say, ‘Well it
doesn’t matter, it isn’t important.’ It is
important because it’s not just any
university. It’s a major university. So, it’s a
challenge.”
 Behavioral
patterns: students
admitted to WRU
based on
academic skills
 Espoused belief:
faculty respect the
academic
reputation of
WRU
 Underlying
assumption:
concern over
students’ English
skills
Accommodation
Losing graduates to their home countries:
“The university has to be a little bit careful
about that. I mean, if they’re going to go
back to their countries, what’s the point? In
some sense, we’re spending resources on
them, but then they go back.”
 Espoused value: it
is important that
graduates stay in
the U.S. after
graduation
 Underlying
assumption:
international
students who
return to their
home country
after graduation
signifies a loss of
resources
Accommodation

98
Table 3, continued
Cultural sensitivities and challenges in the
classroom:
“I always think that this tension is a
good thing. It can be productive.
Where it’s not good is if it silences
people, or people on both ends…
so, an instructor feels he or she
cannot speak about a particular
issue because there will be silence.
Then I think we’re in trouble… and
vice versa, students feel like their
perspective… that they might not
share with the professor, with other
colleagues; [when that] cannot be
expressed in the classroom
environment, then we’re in real
trouble.”
 Underlying
assumption:
faculty must be
prepared to teach
students with
diverse
perspectives
Accommodation
Faculty were also aware of the ways in which institutional ranking and the
recruitment of international students influenced each other. For example, two Natural
Sciences faculty felt that international students both helped and hurt the school’s place in
the rankings. One of these professors articulated that, as a result of WRU’s place in the
institutional rankings, his department was compelled to recruit international citizens in
order to secure a competitive student body. He believed that other, higher ranked,
research universities were attracting most of the limited numbers of highly qualified
domestic students. The faculty member described an informally developed behavioral
pattern and process in his department, whereby international students are being recruited
in order to obtain the kind of student body that the department is looking for. This pattern
and process may stem from an espoused value amongst this faculty member’s
department: that the primary goal of student recruitment is to obtain the best group of
students possible, regardless of the state or country they are from. These cultural
manifestations support the culture of enthusiastic acceptance that faculty have towards

99
international students. Similarly, this culture can also be seen in the following quote, in
which another Natural Sciences faculty member expressed his discontent with the idea
that international students are counted against a university’s ranking, particularly when,
in his estimation – and as an espoused value – foreign students are generally more
capable than their domestic counterparts:
[Natural Sciences faculty] The national ranking, for instance, they’re always
counting how many international students you have at the school. I think the
schools that rank higher are the ones that have the most graduate students (that)
are domestic. I said, “This is just absurd,” and on top of that, a lot of international
students, their qualifications are better than domestic students.
The two faculty members quoted here also reveal a basic underlying assumption: that
domestic students are either not as strong, or not as plentiful, or both, in having the
requisite skills to excel in this particular discipline. These two faculty members, along
with many faculty, are very aware of the institutional rankings and understand that the
strength of the research in the university is heavily dependent on the ability level of
graduate students. Moreover, Van der Wende (2008) believes that the focus on research
performance indicators in the ranking methodologies has placed enormous pressure on
research universities. For this research university, the rankings have pushed faculty to
recruit students internationally, while questioning the veracity of the recruitment and
rankings processes themselves.
In addition to what international students may add to the national visibility of the
institution, faculty were also aware of the valuable abilities, experiences and perspectives
that these students bring with them to the classroom. One Social Sciences faculty

100
member described her experience with a student who, due to her background and
language capabilities, was able to assist the faculty member in her research, such as with
foreign media coverage. Additionally, in the classroom, this faculty member occasionally
called on this student to share her experiences of life in Europe as a European. This
professor felt that the experiences of this international student were more valuable due to
her being relatable and accessible amongst her fellow classmates than those of other
guest speakers who may have had more experience. This example suggests a basic
underlying assumption of this faculty member: that this student’s first-hand experiences
and student status give her perspective a certain value and relevance, which the faculty
member herself, or other individuals, could not bring to the classroom. This assumption
also aligns with the American Council on Education (1995) finding that it is essential for
undergraduate students to be exposed to individuals from other languages and cultures.
For this Social Sciences faculty member, exposure to international student perspectives
can be a valuable pedagogical tool in the college classroom. The perceived value of
international students to the academic experience, in the opinions of the faculty, supports
this culture of enthusiastic acceptance that these faculty appear to have towards these
students.
International Students: A culture of accommodation. Though a number of
faculty members in the sample did feel that international students added considerably to
the university, twelve faculty members also mentioned some difficulties in having such a
diverse student population. This has led to a culture of accommodation amongst the
faculty regarding international students, whereby faculty are placed in challenging
teaching environments and required to evolve to these challenges. For example, five

101
faculty across all three of the broad disciplinary categories felt that the language ability of
some non-English speaking students and teaching assistants were a cause for concern.
Three faculty members mentioned the difficulties of having to grade students based on
their writing skills despite their having significant language deficits. One Humanities
professor described the complications of teaching students who cannot write in English,
particularly at the level a research university – such as WRU – might demand. This
faculty member also mentioned that she knew of other professors in the Natural Sciences
who had concerns with teaching assistants who could not communicate effectively in the
classrooms. These teaching assistants, despite being excellent researchers and having
strong academic backgrounds, had poor language abilities, diminishing their
effectiveness as teachers. This professor described a behavioral pattern and process
whereby international students are admitted to the institution based on their overall
academic skills. However, the espoused values contend that the faculty clearly respect the
reputation of the university as an exceptional place of learning, which, in turn, sparked
some concerns over the academic abilities of international students, particularly those
who are teaching assistants and who may not have the language skills necessary to excel
in this particular institution. In this sense, faculty have been pressed to develop a culture
of accommodation in regards to international students.
Another concern raised by two Social Sciences faculty and two Humanities
faculty was the phenomenon of international students graduating and then returning to
their home countries. All four faculty felt that the university could be more mindful and
proactive in ensuring that international graduates stay, or receive assistance with being
placed in positions, in the United States. Faculty particularly noted this trend occurring in

102
the STEM classrooms, in which seats were being filled increasingly by foreign students
and less often by domestic students. The espoused value in this example indicates that
while the faculty do recognize the benefits of international students in classroom and to
the university, it is also perceived as important to the faculty that these students stay in
the United States after graduation and become productive members of the local economy.
An underlying assumption of this finding is that faculty may be frustrated at what they
may view as lost resources for the institution and the nation: resources are spent on
educating and training graduates who then go back and work – to the benefit of their
home countries. Thus, the global movement of foreign graduates appears to be another
way in which faculty perceive globalization and internationalization affects their
responsibilities as academic professionals.
A final concern raised by four faculty from all three disciplines was that of
accommodating for cultural sensitivities and differences in the classroom. In the
Humanities, for example, the curricula that two of the faculty members in the sample
taught included lectures and discussions on political and religious topics at the
international level. These Humanities faculty admitted that tense situations had occurred
when specific topics were taught, such as religion or human rights issues, particularly
when a student or students felt that they had the “right” perspective. In dealing with these
potential challenges, one of the Humanities professors explained her belief that these
kinds of discussions can be a benefit to the educational experience. In her estimation, the
classroom was an ideal place for students and faculty to talk through important and
current issues, and her concern arose when people feel that they cannot speak freely. The
espoused value of this faculty member indicates her belief that the classroom is a place

103
where students and teachers are afforded the academic freedom to express their opinions
in a respectful dialogue. Furthermore, the basic underlying assumption in this example is
that, in order to provide this type of experience to students in a beneficial way, faculty
must be prepared to accommodate the growing student diversity in the classroom, and the
leadership of an institution should support these efforts.
All of the WRU faculty who were interviewed perceived international students as
one of the primary ways in which globalization and internationalization were affecting
higher education. In utilizing the cultural manifestations from Umbach’s (2007) faculty
culture model, the findings of this analysis indicate that the culture of this faculty is not
only accepting of international students, but also attempting to accommodate the
challenges that these students may present. Furthermore, the data and findings discussed
here provide a detailed account of the benefits and concerns that a large international
student body presents for these faculty. The following section examines the findings of
faculty perspectives of study abroad.
Study abroad: A supportive and progressive culture. Along with the large in-
flow of international students at this institution, there is also an out-flow of students who
study abroad during their time at WRU. In addition to international students, study
abroad was a popular topic amongst the faculty interviewed for this study. At least ten of
the faculty mentioned study abroad when asked to describe how they believed
globalization and internationalization where affecting higher education. Most of these
faculty were quite supportive about the experience for students, viewed study abroad as
an academic benefit that higher education could provide, and actively encouraged
students to participate in these opportunities. Similarly, these positive findings are

104
reflected in research from Siaya and Hayward (2003), who found that 61 percent of
faculty believed that all undergraduates should participate in study abroad. However,
despite displaying a culture of support for study abroad efforts, faculty were also
unconvinced in the realization of these efforts and recommended progressive action to
develop the program. This culture of support and progress amongst the faculty is
discussed in this section. Table 4 also highlights some of the statements that are
discussed in this section. This table also connects these faculty statements with the
cultural manifestations embedded in the quotes that suggest a culture of support and
progress in study abroad.
Due in part to globalization and internationalization, faculty see greater student
interest in study abroad. One faculty member in the Humanities recalled when, early in
her time at the institution, the department found it necessary to try to encourage as many
of its students as possible to study abroad in particular countries. This was done in the
hopes that those students would return to WRU with an interest in majoring in that area.
However, within the last ten years, this professor has not only witnessed a growing
number of students who are interested in the scholarship of her department, but also a
shift in the diversity of students’ academic interests, both in terms of international origins
and international perspectives. Consequently, departments no longer need to encourage
students to study abroad. Moreover, other faculty also detailed similar personal
experiences in creating and directing courses that included international travel for
students. Faculty who were interviewed at WRU appear to subscribe to the espoused
value that study abroad is a valuable part of the curriculum of this institution and is an
important behavioral process. In addition, the faculty perceive study abroad – and the

105
evolving nature of the program and its participants – as a positive development in the
wake of globalization and internationalization. These findings demonstrate the supportive
culture the faculty have maintained in regards to study abroad.
Table 4
Study Abroad: A Culture of Support and Progress
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
 “I have recommended many students for
study abroad, and talked to them about it.
I’m quite in favor of it. It’s certainly
something that is common to most large
universities. It’s a big attraction to the
school.”
 “I would say that the beginning was about
internationalization. We would … send
our students to international programs …
with a hope that they would then come
back with an international perspective and
want to major in [our area]. That was kind
of our focus for a long time. The
difference is that, now, since the university
at large has become more of a global
university… it’s not a question of our even
needing to convince a student.”
Espoused value:
study abroad is a
valuable part of the
curriculum

Supportive
“The Study Abroad program that I did, it was
all WRU students and we all went together
and they all hung out with each other. But if
you have one student go and live for a month
wherever and hang out with the students from
there, I think that that would do so much to
them.”
 Espoused belief:
study abroad
currently is not
meeting its
academic
potential
 Underlying
assumption: the
study abroad
program could be
stronger
Progressive

106
Table 4, continued
“If it’s a truly global institution, how
about this: in order to graduate, you
have to have at least one semester of
an international experience? We
understand that this is costly, but we’ll
subsidize it and we’ll raise funds to
make sure everybody has that.”

 Behavioral
process: fiscal
support
structures
 Underlying
assumption:
study abroad, in
its current form,
may be a
superficial
undertaking
Supportive
and
Progressive
However, a few professors were not as positive about this academic program,
primarily due to the espoused belief that study abroad, in its current form, was perhaps
not meeting the needs of students, or the global objectives of this institution. For
example, one Humanities faculty member related a disappointing trend she observed
while on a study abroad experience: WRU students on a study abroad experience only
spending time with other WRU students. This faculty member felt that the study abroad
experience would have been much more transformative if students were required to live
in another country for a longer period of time and interact with students from that area.
This Humanities professor asserted that students need to be more fully immersed in the
culture of that country in order to truly gain all of the espoused values of study abroad.
The underlying assumption of this professor’s statement is that, while study abroad may
be valuable, the program in its current form is not as strong as it could be. The cultural
manifestations mentioned above point to a forward-thinking culture amongst the faculty
in their reflections on the effectiveness of the study abroad efforts.
Similarly, another faculty member demonstrated this progressive cultural
disposition through her concerns with the study abroad programs and what they signified
to the culture of the institution. This Social Sciences faculty member felt that not enough

107
of the students at this institution were participating in the study abroad opportunities and
he referenced WRU’s claim that it was a global university to support his assessment.
Notably, this professor recommended a specific behavioral process – financial structures
that would provide support for every student to participate in study abroad – which he
felt could be further developed to demonstrate that this program was truly an entrenched
part of the institution’s global culture. Additionally, this faculty member asserted that the
university should incorporate the study abroad program into the core curriculum, another
behavioral process. The underlying assumption within the statement of this faculty
member indicates his belief that study abroad may be more of a superficial undertaking at
this institution. The perspective of this professor aligns with research findings which
indicate that study abroad opportunities in the United States have been too limited,
operating only in specific programs, and that most students in this country are not able to
participate as a result of their personal responsibilities or circumstances outside of the
classroom (Green & Shoenberg, 2005; Leask, 2008).
Arguably the most visible form of internationalization efforts within WRU,
faculty perceived international students and study abroad as manifestations of the
academic culture that significantly affected their experience with globalization and
internationalization. Faculty described a variety of positive influences international
students seemed to have on the institution. These benefits included strengthening the
academic culture of the institution in the classroom as well as the academic reputation of
the institution in the rankings and being able to draw upon the unique abilities and
diverse experiences of these students. However, faculty also perceived several
disconcerting aspects of a large international student body: contending with language

108
difficulties, the graduation brain-drain, and navigating cultural sensitivities and
differences. Embedded in the faculty perceptions, the cultural manifestations seemed to
indicate that faculty possessed a culture of enthusiastic acceptance and accommodation
towards these students. Furthermore, in their involvement with study abroad, faculty also
perceived the benefits of this program. Yet, these academics also felt that WRU, in its
endeavors to promote itself as a global institution, was not implementing or utilizing
study abroad to demonstrate this global priority. The findings indicate that faculty culture
was supportive but also sought progressive actions to develop the study abroad efforts. In
the next part of this discussion, the findings regarding faculty perceptions of research,
and their indications of faculty culture, are examined.
Research: A Culture of Cooperation
As one of the primary responsibilities of faculty, research appears to be a major
vehicle in which these academics perceive globalization and internationalization. Nearly
all of the faculty, 29 of 30, either mentioned academic research in general when asked
what globalization and internationalization meant to them, or stated that they were
involved in globalization and internationalization as a result of their research. These
faculty members provided numerous examples of the ways in which globalization and
internationalization affected their research. For some, it was in their interactions with
colleagues or through their area of research. For others, globalization and
internationalization touched many, if not most, of their particular research areas.
Amongst other faculty, these phenomena were most clear in the international diversity of
the students in their research labs. Furthermore, a number of these researchers noted the
increasing popularity of globalization as a key area of interest for organizations that fund

109
research, thus affecting the kind of research that was done and the ways in which the
scholarship was produced or published. Moreover, in the cases of some faculty, their
research was the only way that they felt they were involved with globalization or
internationalization. The faculty in this study described countless ways in which they
perceived globalization and internationalization affecting their research. Overall, the
faculty interviews illuminated a cooperative culture towards globalization and
internationalization in the research, whereby research is shared willingly, and with
greater ease, across borders. This section describes some examples of this culture.
Additionally, Table 5 provides examples of faculty statements regarding research that
indicate their positive perception of the globalization and internationalization of their
research as well as the technological influences that result from these processes.
Furthermore, the cultural manifestations, as indicated by these faculty statements are
provided and discussed in addition to the type of culture these manifestations may
suggest. The connections between these manifestations and the faculty’s cooperative
culture are also discussed further in this section.

110
Table 5
Research: A Culture of Cooperation
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
“I would say that the most
internationalized work that I do is actually
in my research and interaction with
disciplinary and cross-disciplinary
colleagues.”

Behavioral process:
globalization and
internationalization is
incorporated into the
faculty culture
Cooperation
Technological factors:
“In terms of research, it’s wonderful,
because even ten years ago it was so much
more difficult to communicate with people
across the world. So, there’s some
wonderful labs in Japan, for example, and
in Germany, they do some really critical
research that’s relevant to what I do. So,
it’s wonderful that, now, you can just email
them and get a response right away. They
can send you videos explaining how the
methods worked.”
 Behavioral
process:
international
collaboration
 Espoused value:
ease and speed of
technology-
assisted
communication
strengthens
research
capabilities
Cooperation

Notably, it appears that globalization and internationalization are already
incorporated into the behavioral processes of the faculty’s research culture. As discussed
earlier in this study, previous literature asserted that research has become more global,
available, and feasible as a result of recent advancements in technology (Altbach, 2007;
Douglass, 2005). Two frequent examples of the connections among globalization,
internationalization and the scholarship of WRU’s faculty were realized in the
technological developments of globalization and in international collaborations with
colleagues. In fact, for faculty in all three broad disciplines – Social Sciences Natural
Sciences and Humanities – technology, particularly the internet, amplified and
accelerated the nature of their research, and these faculty once again embrace these

111
developments as they appear to support the cooperative culture of academic research. For
example, one faculty member in the Natural Sciences saw this occurring in her own
experience: “The ease of video conferencing has to have made international
collaborations easier.” A second Natural Sciences professor echoed his colleague while
also articulating his observation that the technology altered the way his research is done:
“I think, in spirit, [my field] has been international for a very long time. But with
electronic communication, things have become much faster…. So, it is easy to prepare
work online, to share it by email or on the internet.” International collaboration is viewed
as an advantageous behavioral process, particularly in the Natural Sciences, and the
effortlessness and speed with which faculty can engage in these activities with colleagues
around the world is an espoused value that strengthens their research capabilities. Thus
faculty appear to embrace the cooperative culture surrounding globalized and
internationalized research.
Similarly, technology may be the driving force in the significant growth of
research collaborations between American faculty and international graduate students
(Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). For example, one faculty member interviewed in
the Humanities mentioned her experience receiving emails from undergraduate and
graduate students in India, Iran and Nigeria, requesting her assistance. These
international students were challenged by limited resources and had contacted her for
guidance in pursuing their research interests. In this way, technology not only benefits
scholars in their own research, but provides academic professionals with a channel
through which they may include students in other countries, at other institutions, into the
research community.

112
When asked to reflect upon the ways in which globalization and
internationalization affected them, the faculty who were interviewed also described the
ways in which the research they do flowed freely across borders and how international
scholarship was more accessible in addition to the exchange of information, people, and
other resources. However, the nature of international research varied, depending on the
discipline. For example, many of the faculty in the Natural Sciences asserted that they
had a great deal of international collaborators and that their own discipline has been
global for some time, similar to the assertion made by this Natural Sciences professor:
“In a discipline like this, there’s really no boundaries [sic]. It’s very normal because the
conferences we go to, the people we are in contact with… we don’t even think about the
boundaries between different countries.” Conversely, Humanities faculty did not have
much international collaboration, aside from particular events such as conferences and
symposiums. Some Humanities faculty also articulated that they very rarely collaborated
across borders, while others did not mention having research collaborators abroad.
Finally, in the Social Sciences, most of the faculty did have international research
collaborators, though the degree to which these connections occurred varied in relation to
the scholar’s particular research area. Indeed, the research collaboration of faculty was
found to vary by discipline in the literature. Melin (2000) found that faculty in the
Natural Sciences often collaborated with other researchers, while Humanities and Social
Sciences faculty more frequently worked alone. This scholar believed that these
differences were a reflection of the varied methodological and theoretical principles
within the scholarship of each discipline. Later in this chapter, the distinctive natures of

113
the relationship between globalization, internationalization and these disciplines are
explored in greater depth.
The faculty interviewed for this study perceived research to be an important way
in which their responsibilities as academic professionals was influenced by globalization
and internationalization. Faculty remarked on the collaborative nature of their research,
whereby findings could be shared, and were shared, with colleagues around the world.
Specifically, the statements made by the faculty indicate that these cooperative processes
are embedded and embraced in the research culture and advanced through technology.
However, the faculty in each discipline seemed to have different experiences with
globalization and internationalization within their own research, demonstrating the
unique effects of these phenomena on faculty within the different disciplinary divisions.
In the section that follows, the faculty’s frequent references to language in higher
education are discussed as another of the important ways in which faculty perceived that
academia was affected by globalization and internationalization.
Language: A Culture of Multilingualism
In addition to the previously discussed benefits and challenges of having a
considerable number of multilingual students – on a spectrum of proficiency levels – in
the classrooms, the faculty mentioned three other topics related to language in higher
education. First, faculty expressed the importance of proficiency in English in teaching
and research. Second, the value of speaking other languages in particular areas of
research within their disciplines was discussed. Third, faculty noted the need to increase
language requirements in the university curriculum. Subsequently, the findings indicate
that the culture of the faculty who were interviewed at WRU advocated the value of

114
multilingualism. Table 6 lists examples of quotes from faculty that indicate the
importance of multilingualism in the faculty culture. The cultural manifestations
embedded in these statements, as well as the culture type that may be indicated by these
statements and manifestations are also listed. Additionally, this section provides an in-
depth discussion of most of the statements in Table 6, along with an analysis of the
cultural manifestations and types that may be gleaned from the faculty members’
statements. In considering globalization, internationalization and the higher education
sector, 13 of the 30 faculty interviewed provided their thoughts on the varying
importance of proficient multilingualism.
In hiring faculty for their own departments, as well as in their own careers, a few
professors mentioned experiencing obstacles when language proficiencies were not at the
level required for a position in teaching at the college level. Furthermore, in faculty
hiring deliberations at this university, one Natural Sciences professor asserted that the
nationality of an applicant would never be an issue, yet the applicant’s ability to teach in
English is considered an important requirement. This faculty member recalled a former
scholar in his department, who had a very difficult time speaking English, such that
students and even fellow colleagues had concerns about their general inability to
understand him. Despite this unique case, however, this Natural Sciences professor
maintained that, in the last twenty years, the department has recognized this problem and
would not consider hiring someone who could not communicate sufficiently in English.
Although globalization and internationalization has broadened the pool of applicants
from mostly domestic candidates to foreign and domestic candidates, the relevance of
language ability seems to have grown in the academy. In this Natural Sciences

115
professor’s experience at WRU, in the behavioral process of hiring, an espoused value of
the faculty culture is hiring the most qualified candidate – regardless of nationality – who
are able to communicate effectively in English. These cultural manifestations indicate a
faculty body that advocates for fluency in English at the teaching level.
Faculty also see the importance of English not only in teaching, but in research as
well. Four faculty members, all from either the Natural Sciences or Social Sciences,
remarked on the increased use of English in scholarship around the world. One faculty in
the Natural Sciences noticed a conversion of published scholarship around the world to
the English language, “European journals in my discipline switched from local languages
to English, I’d say in the ‘80’s. Also, if you look at what language is spoken in
departments [like mine], throughout Europe, it’s mostly English.” Faculty revelations
such as this one, reflect findings in the scholarship that were previously discussed,
namely the emergence of English as the language of the scientific and academic
communities (Douglass, 2005; Marginson, 2006). Faculty see that the normalizing
influences of globalization have created relationships in academia in which the vehicle
for communication is English. The English language has become a behavioral practice in
these fields along with an underlying assumption that English is an essential skill in the
Natural Sciences discipline.

116
Table 6
Language: A Culture of Multilingualism (English and a Second Language)
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
Proficiency in English:
 “As far as I can remember, we had one
faculty member in this department …
he was having a real problem speaking
English. But that was in the very early
days. I would say, in the past twenty
years, that could not happen … In
terms of when we hire somebody.”
 “European journals in my discipline
switched from local languages to
English, I’d say in the ‘80’s. Also, if
you look at what language is spoken in
departments [like mine], throughout
Europe, it’s mostly English.”
 Behavioral
processes: hiring
faculty; research
and learning in the
Natural Sciences
 Underlying
assumption:
familiarity with
English is
important, if not
essential for
academia
Values
Multilingualism
Speaking other languages:
 “If English becomes the only language,
for example, I think it would be
unfortunate. I’d like to see people being
able to keep other languages alive, even
if not on a major basis, because they do
add culture and insights.”
 “[Globalization] challenges me to think
about other languages in research. I
have a student that’s in Beijing right
now, and she’s looking at the ways that
Maoist China configured race. [But]
everybody in China is like, “There’s
just one race,” and if you say, “I’m
studying race,” well, you’re going to
get in trouble…. So you have to figure
out how do you even negotiate that?
And it may be that they don’t have a
language for it. You have to really be
able to understand the culture, to be
able to even formulate the questions.”
Underlying
assumption:
familiarity with a
language may assist in
understanding the
dimensions of culture,
particularly when
relevant in the
research
Values
Multilingualism

117
Table 6, continued
Language requirements in the
curriculum:
“Suddenly, speaking English will not be a
benefit, because everybody will know it.
What will be a benefit is if you speak,
fluently, another language. So, in that
sense, all of us British and Americans who
don’t learn other languages, we’re going to
be left out. The world will speak our
language, but that will no longer give us
the benefit. So, you know, that’s going to
come home to academia too.
Espoused belief:
learning a second
languages besides
English will be a
necessity

Values
Multilingualism
Besides the importance of being able to teach and do research in English, faculty
also saw great value in speaking other languages, especially in their professional careers.
These faculty recognized a growing appreciation of fluency in multiple languages, in
their own disciplines. A faculty member in the Humanities explained the difficulties she
experienced early in her own career, “Native speaker issues were an issue for me. I’m
sure many of the jobs that I applied for, and didn’t get, was because I wasn’t a native
speaker.” More recently, however, this professor saw the behavioral process of hiring in
academia evolving under the influences of globalization and internationalization: she
went on to describe her current experience of hiring a postdoctoral fellow who was also a
non-native speaker within the discipline. In her perspective, the culture of the discipline,
department, and higher education had progressed in such a way that non-native speakers
were no longer as much of a shortcoming – and may even have had a favorable
advantage – in the hiring processes of some institutions. In her current position as an
employer looking to hire for her own department, this Humanities professor believed that
non-native speakers could add a perspective that might be immensely valuable to the
educational environment of this university due to the different perspectives non-native
speakers could share with students and scholars.

118
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, several faculty in the Social Sciences found
multilingualism an advantage for undergraduates, graduate students and faculty in
research. For instance, a faculty member in a Humanities discipline claimed that, though
she rarely looked at research outside of the United States due to her specific scholarly
interests, a recent experience advising a student on a research project demonstrated the
complexities inherent in doing research in a globalized society and, more specifically, the
importance of being familiar with the language surrounding the research subject:
[Humanities faculty] [Globalization] challenges me to think about other
languages in research. I have a student that’s in Beijing right now, and she’s
looking at the ways that Maoist China configured race. [But] everybody in China
is like, “There’s just one race,” and if you say, “I’m studying race,” well, you’re
going to get in trouble…. So you have to figure out how do you even negotiate
that? And it may be that they don’t have a language for it. You have to really be
able to understand the culture, to be able to even formulate the questions.
In this faculty member’s experience with studying culture in a transnational world,
language plays a key role, particularly in this situation, due in part to the multiple
languages in China and the cultural aspects of the project. In order to truly understand the
nature and complexity of a research project that extends internationally, it is helpful to be
familiar with the relevant language and culture. Thus, a basic underlying assumption in
this faculty’s statement is that understanding the cultural dimensions of a language can be
helpful, and even necessary, in overcoming obstacles in research.
Consequently, given the dual importance of fluency in English and other
languages in academia, at least four of the faculty who participated in this study

119
advocated the importance of college students’ acquiring some proficiency in a language
other than English. The interviews indicated an espoused belief amongst the faculty that
globalization and internationalization has transformed these academic goals from an
advantage to a necessity. In fact, one faculty member in the Natural Sciences felt that
global language trends indicated a devaluation of English in the near future. This
professor cited a study which found that everyone in the world who needed to learn
English would have learned it – through various educational platforms – in about ten
years, and proficiency in English would no longer be an advantage. Indeed, many faculty
did advocate the value of learning other languages, especially in higher education. One
Humanities professor was critical of the university’s curriculum, particularly in terms of
language acquisition, and felt that the institution should be doing more:
[Humanities faculty] I see it as a sort of a missed opportunity at the moment, this
idea that [globalization] is something that could transform American higher
education in very exciting ways. I think if you have students learn more
languages, and if you have students read newspapers from different places, or
watch newscasts from different places, I think that could do so much for them.
Another faculty member in the Social Sciences, who had at one time been Chair of his
department, was proud of the fact that he had increased the language requirement in that
department. In addition, he mentioned that the faculty in the department were very
supportive of the decision. The statements from these interviews align with research from
Siaya and Hayward (2003), which found that 81 percent of faculty agreed that all
undergraduates should be required to study a foreign language.

120
As demonstrated here, the importance of learning another language was an
espoused value amongst the faculty, which was not limited to a particular discipline or
disciplines. In fact, more than a third of the faculty interviewed for this study perceived
changes in the dominance of English, and the necessity of familiarity with other
languages, as influences of globalization and internationalization on higher education. As
a result of these developments, the faculty advocated for changes in the curricula or
behavioral processes of the institution. In the next discussion of this section, faculty calls
for other curricular changes as a result of the Western dominant perspectives in the
university, are introduced.
Western Influences: A Globally-Inclusive Culture
When asked about the effects of globalization on higher education, at least 10
faculty reflected on the multiple influences of Western culture on academia. The majority
of these faculty believed that the Western-focused curricula and practices within higher
education had a negative effect, particularly on the students. Thus, the findings indicate
that the faculty promoted a globally-inclusive approach to higher education. Table 7
provides a summary of some of the the faculty statements on Western-focused academia,
along with the related cultural manifestations and culture types, which are discussed in
this section.
One of the primary concerns faculty observed, specifically with regard to the
undergraduate student body, was the proliferation of Western dominant perspectives
from the American students. One faculty member in the Humanities described a lingering
American-isolationist sentiment she noticed in class discussions of U.S. history. She
believed that this view may have been developed in the home and in the early educational

121
cultures of students. In her experience, getting students to think of the history of the
United States from a global perspective was a challenge. Another faculty in the
Humanities discipline, who stated that she was of international origin during the
interview, found that, in her experience, American students lacked an internationally-
informed perspective:
[Humanities faculty] I find American students pretty sheltered, or very unworldly,
in a way that is disproportionate to their economic standing and their cultural
capital in the world, as compared to my experience growing up elsewhere, and
my sense of young people growing up in other places.
When asked how they perceived globalization and internationalization affecting their
profession, the faculty articulated that, due to youth, previous experience, or even
inexperience, a trend they witnessed amongst domestic students was a U.S.-centric
perspective. These faculty members subscribe to an espoused value that students should
learn to appreciate and understand the perspectives of individuals outside of the United
States, or even outside of a Western culture. The underlying assumption that may be
parsed from the statements is that these academic professionals hoped and worked to
combat these types of parochial outlooks in their classrooms. These espoused values and
underlying assumptions may be linked with two values that, according to Austin (1990),
are inherent in the academic profession: a dedication to intellectual honesty and fairness,
and a commitment to their role in the production of knowledge and the transmission of
culture. In a globalizing society, these faculty believed that they have a responsibility to
teach subjects – particularly of an international nature – with integrity and equality, while
inculcating their students with the ability to generate knowledge and participate in culture

122
with equal acumen. In this way, these faculty members appear to display a globally-
inclusive culture.
Table 7
Western Influences: A Globally-Inclusive Culture
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture
Type
Proliferation of Western dominant
perspectives from American students:
“I find American students pretty sheltered, or
very unworldly, in a way that is
disproportionate to their economic standing
and their cultural capital in the world, as
compared to my experience growing up
elsewhere, and my sense of young people
growing up in other places.”
 Espoused value:
students should
appreciate
perspectives from
outside of a
Western culture
 Underlying
assumption:
faculty are
seeking to teach
students to be
more culturally
open-minded
Globally-
inclusive
Institutional approach:
“The reality is, most of the U.S., we don’t
know the contributions of the rest of the world,
any more than in a very theoretical way. So,
that makes it very difficult to figure out what
globalization really means, because, in fact,
universities are of a place. Not just physically,
but emotionally and intellectually. So, we
think [WRU] is wonderful, but if you try to
put this in the middle of Kuala Lumpur, people
are just going to say, “How does this get a job
in Kuala Lumpur?” Universities, if they want
to become global, will have to figure out how
to make the cultural change. And we’re so
used to being the important player, we know
everything. U.S. institutions in general, we’ve
been at the top of the heap for so long, that to
be told there’s stuff we don’t know, is not very
attractive.”
Underlying
assumption: in order
for the institution to
become truly global,
many of the current
cultural
manifestations need
to evolve or be
eliminated
Globally-
inclusive

Correspondingly, faculty from multiple disciplines felt that higher education, and
their own institution, needed to do more in terms of preparing its graduates for a global

123
future, specifically in making internationalization more of a priority in the policies and
practices of the institution. Among the suggestions for improving these efforts, the
faculty who participated in this study felt that the leadership of the institution needed to
make study abroad more of a central aspect of the college curriculum (e.g. a graduation
requirement); the individual schools needed to be more financially supportive of students,
especially first generation students, in study abroad participation; the schools needed to
create a global general education requirement in the curriculum, one that would provide
students with a current international perspective; the university should require stronger
foreign language skills for graduation and participation in programs at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels; disciplines and departments should make the tenure
and hiring process less U.S.-focused by, for example, giving more weight to international
scholars and scholarship in the tenure process and considering international funding in
the hiring process.
These globally-inclusive sentiments were echoed to some extent in the statements
of two faculty administrators: one a Vice Dean for the College, the other a former
Provost of the institution. These two professors felt that the institution, and other similar
institutions in the United States that were attempting to globalize, were approaching these
efforts in the wrong way. The former Provost believed that the recent attempts at
globalization by universities around the country were not successful, due in part to a lack
of international cultural understanding in American higher education leadership:
[Former Provost] The reality is, most of the U.S., we don’t know the
contributions of the rest of the world, any more than in a very theoretical way. So,
that makes it very difficult to figure out what globalization really means, because,

124
in fact, universities are of a place. Not just physically, but emotionally and
intellectually. So, we think [WRU] is wonderful, but if you try to put this in the
middle of Kuala Lumpur, people are just going to say, “How does this get a job in
Kuala Lumpur?” Universities, if they want to become global, will have to figure
out how to make the cultural change. And we’re so used to being the important
player, we know everything. U.S. institutions in general, we’ve been at the top of
the heap for so long, that to be told there’s stuff we don’t know, is not very
attractive.
This former Provost asserted that the U.S.-centric cultural focus of higher education
institutions in the United States is preventing universities from becoming truly global. If
universities are unable to recognize and incorporate the most basic and esteemed values
of an international culture into its internationalization efforts, then these efforts will be in
vain. Essentially, the faculty who participated in this study believed that, in order for the
institution to become truly global, many of the cultural manifestations (artifacts,
behavioral patterns and processes, espoused values and beliefs, and underlying
assumptions) within this university will either have to evolve or be eliminated. These
changes are necessary in order for the university’s offerings to address the needs of
globally-prepared graduates and appeal to an international audience.
For the faculty interviewed in this study, Western-dominant curricula and
perspectives within the education system in the United States not only impeded graduates
of WRU from attaining personal and professional fulfillment in a globalized world, but
also hampered the university from achieving its own goals. In thinking about the ways in
which globalization and internationalization affect higher education, these faculty

125
perceived that education in the United States, including postsecondary education and this
university, is not keeping pace with the changes necessary to prepare students for these
twin evolutionary phenomena. Moreover, these faculty perceive that the current state of
curricula in higher education may not align with their – currently evolving – globally-
inclusive culture. In the next section, statements from these professors highlight the ways
in which the surrounding environment of an institution can support the university’s
globalization and internationalization efforts.
Location: A Culture of Global Receptiveness and Representativeness
In the previous discussion, the former Provost advised that the leadership of
institutions must learn to be less place-focused in order to become more global. However,
this belief appears to run counter to the assertion from many of the faculty that the large,
urban, and cosmopolitan nature of the location of WRU plays a significant role in the
globalization and internationalization efforts of the institution. This study acknowledges
that most research universities in the United States and, in fact, the world, cannot claim a
similar connection to the findings that are presented in this section. However, other
colleges and universities may be able to find this information of value in comparable
considerations of the importance of place to an institution’s global mission. Thus, this
section discusses two frequent topics that were brought up by faculty in regards to the
location of the university: the significance of the city to the institution in globalization
and internationalization efforts and the faculty’s appreciation of, and dissatisfaction with,
the university’s focus on the Pacific Rim. Additionally, this section describes the findings
which indicate that the faculty possessed a culture that supported global receptiveness
and a push for equal representation of international studies in the curricula. Similar to

126
previous sections, Table 8 highlights the cultural manifestations conveyed within some of
the statements made by the faculty, which suggest the culture of global receptiveness and
representativeness that these faculty have in regards to WRU’s location. Most of the
statements used in the table are also discussed in greater depth below.
During the interviews, more than a third (11) of the faculty mentioned the
importance or relevance of the large urban location in which the institution resides to the
globalization and internationalization of the university. Several of these faculty remarked
that that the metropolis in which the university is situated was the most diverse city – in
terms of race, ethnicity and culture – that they had lived in or visited. The following
Natural Sciences faculty member confessed that he had lived in eight different countries
over his lifetime, yet felt that the area in which WRU was located greatly reflected the
diversity he had come to embrace: “This city is a little bit of a mirror of this
multinational, multiethnic background that I have seen in my own years of wandering.”
A few of the faculty further demonstrated their globally-receptive culture by describing
this diversity as an espoused value for themselves, personally. Furthermore, the
cosmopolitan nature of this city appeared to be one of the most tangible ways in which
faculty perceived their experience at WRU was affected by globalization and
internationalization.

127
Table 8
University Location: A Culture of Global Receptiveness and Representativeness
Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
The significance of location in globalization
and internationalization:
 “I grew up in a military family, so we
moved all over the place. I was born in
Panama. My family lived in various parts
of the world. So, personally, I’m very,
already, pretty globalized. I kind of value
that. One of the reasons I like this city is
because it’s, by far, in my experience, the
most cosmopolitan city in the world.”
 “I think the significance of, not just this
university, but its location in this city,
and also its proximity to Central
America, to Asia, as well as, its influence
on the rest of the United States, in terms
of cultural and material production; I
think it’s, to me, part of a great appeal of
this city and part of what makes it and
the university really great.”
 Espoused value:
the
internationally
diverse nature of
WRU’s location
is viewed as a
positive value
 Underlying
assumption:
WRU should
utilize the global
surroundings to
its own
advantage
Globally
Receptive
Institutional approach:
 “Well, the focus of the strategic plan is
on the Pacific Rim. But when we talk
about the Pacific Rim, we tend to forget
Latin America. We tend to forget
Russia.”
 “I would say that there are ways in which
the university could do a better job of
representing some areas of the world. So,
for example, it’s always been perplexing
to me that there’s not a strong Latin
American studies program here. I think
for a university that’s in a city with a
majority Latino population, where there’s
so much connection and interaction with
Latin America, it’s been perplexing to
me that there’s not a more vibrant Latin
American option for students.”
 Behavioral
patterns and
processes: focus
on particular
regions
 Underlying
assumption:
research or
teaching on
other world
regions or
countries may go
unnoticed by the
administration
Striving for
Equal
Representation

128
Additionally, faculty felt that the international and multicultural nature of the city
put the institution in a unique position to benefit from this diversity. One Humanities
faculty member was very enthusiastic about the benefits of the surrounding area to the
institution:
[Humanities faculty] I think the significance of, not just this university, but its
location in this city, and also its proximity to Central America, to Asia, as well as,
its influence on the rest of the United States, in terms of cultural and material
production; I think it’s, to me, part of a great appeal of this city and part of what
makes it and the university really great.
A number of professors, such as the one quoted above, were quite positive about the
location of the university and the diversity in its environment, which they felt was
reflected in their own lives. The underlying assumption embedded in these statements is
that the university should utilize this environmental advantage to its own benefit, and the
benefit of the students. In fact, several faculty members did perceive that the university
was taking advantage of, or was influenced by, the diverse perspectives inherent in its
location. For example, the following Humanities faculty member, who had attended and
worked in universities across the nation, found that the unique culture of this particular
region – unlike in the institutions she had attended previously – did appear to inform
WRU’s receptive culture.
[Humanities faculty] I think this university is so globalized, by virtue of its
location in this city. So, for instance, general education courses at my doctoral
institution were fixed on the philosophical tradition of the West, versus the
literary tradition of the West. Whereas, here, you can choose whatever culture

129
you want. So, there’s much more variety of cultures [here], and much more
cultural awareness, partly because of the population, but also because of the way
the [this area] developed its own local culture.
The underlying assumption within the subtext of this statement indicates that a
curriculum that incorporates scholarship from other regions of the world is preferable to a
Western-focused curriculum. This assumption reflects the previous discussion of faculty
discontent with Western-dominant perspectives in education. The professor quoted above
believed that the surrounding environment influenced WRU to incorporate different
cultures into the curricula. Overall, these professors were quite positive about the location
of the university and the diversity in its environment, which was reflected in their own
life experiences, in the curriculum of the institution as well as in their globally-receptive
culture.
Another related and popular topic amongst the faculty was the institution’s efforts
to form strategic relationships with individuals and organizations in and around Asia and
the Pacific. Some of the faculty who mentioned these efforts were quite positive in this
regard. For example, the former Provost in the sample detailed how, during his time in
the administration, the leadership of WRU was trying to determine where the institution
could secure its place in global higher education. Eventually, the administration found a
direction: “One of our competitive advantages was that we were on the Pacific Rim. We
also, historically, had a huge number of students from the Pacific Rim. So, we had an
unbelievable alumni base there.” Thus, with its location and already strong and well-
established market in and around Asia and the Pacific, the university solidified its interest
in the area through organizational partnerships, marketing campaigns, recruitment, and

130
the development of strategic plans. In reflecting on this globally-receptive
internationalization effort, a number of the faculty, particularly those whose own research
interests aligned with this global region, praised the university’s focus on the Pacific
Rim. In their attempts to define globalization and internationalization, particularly as it
affected their professional lives, faculty at this institution were keenly aware, and
supportive, of the university’s attempts to cultivate relationships internationally.
There were faculty, however, who expressed a relatively more negative
perspective of what they viewed as the university’s neglect of other regions of the world,
particularly in respect to the considerable body of WRU’s scholars and students whose
strengths and interests were focused outside of Asia and the Pacific. This espoused belief
was articulated by a number of Humanities faculty, including one who, in regards to the
leadership of the institution, asserted, “I think when they say ‘Pacific Rim’, they don’t
think Chile and Mexico are on the Pacific Rim. I think that their focus on the Pacific Rim
is across the Pacific.” The faculty acknowledged that while the university’s interest in the
Pacific Rim was logical, given its location, history and resources, this regional focus was
problematic in that it neglected other areas around the globe and even areas within the
Pacific Rim. In addition, faculty were not only concerned with the strategic alliances and
marketing campaigns that had been geared only towards Asia, but also the effect that this
focus was having, or not having, on the curriculum. The concerns of these faculty
demonstrated their cultural aspirations towards equal representation amongst the various
disciplines in consideration of globalization and internationalization. For instance,
another faculty member from the Humanities discipline insisted the following:

131
[Humanities faculty] I would say that there are ways in which the university could
do a better job of representing some areas of the world. So, for example, it’s
always been perplexing to me that there’s not a strong Latin American studies
program here. I think for a university that’s in a city with a majority Latino
population, where there’s so much connection and interaction with Latin
America, it’s been perplexing to me that there’s not a more vibrant Latin
American option for students.
The faculty at WRU observed the organizational structures that promote relationships
within the Pacific Rim, an artifact and behavioral process of the culture of this university.
These cultural manifestations may lead to other behavioral patterns and processes such as
the expansion of the East Asian Studies department or a scarcity of Latin American
topics in the curriculum. This focus on Asia and the Pacific is an espoused value of the
institution, which can lead to underlying assumptions amongst the faculty that research or
curricula that focus on other world regions or countries may not be looked upon
favorably or may go unnoticed by the administration. These developments at WRU
appeared to be in opposition to the culture of representativeness that the faculty strived
for. Additionally, it did not appear that faculty were aware if the leadership of the
institution was attempting to address this concern.
The location of a research university can provide a context upon which
institutional leadership can shape the structures of the academy, for example, by
characterizing the values and goals of the institution. In this way, a university’s physical
location can be a powerful manifestation, or artifact, of the culture of an institution. The
findings of this particular study indicate that, for the faculty at WRU, the surrounding

132
environment of the university had indeed become symbolic of the globalization and
internationalization processes occurring in higher education and their institution.
However, the favoring of one geographical region over other areas, as a result of the
location of the university, appeared to have a divisive effect on the faculty body: between
academics whose area of research was in the Pacific Rim – particularly in certain Asian
countries – and those academics whose focus was elsewhere. The perspectives of these
faculty, therefore, demonstrated a culture that was not only globally-receptive, but also
sought the reasonable representation of international countries and regions within the
university curricula and extra curricula.
Summary of Research Question One
The first research question of this study sought to identify the ways in which
faculty at a research university defined the terms globalization and internationalization
and how faculty – in general – perceived these two processes were manifested in higher
education, WRU, and in their own disciplines and departments. In defining globalization
and internationalization, the researcher found that these faculty had very different and
wide ranging perceptions and attitudes of the terms. While some faculty defined the
processes as different, others felt they described the same thing, and a few of those who
defined them differently used globalization and internationalization interchangeably
during the interviews. Faculty were also split on their attitudes of globalization and
internationalization as well as on their perception of their colleagues’ attitudes; the
majority of these professors felt either mixed (both positive and negative) or positively
about these twin phenomena, both on a personal level and in considering their fellow
faculty perspectives. These findings may be of critical importance to administrative

133
leadership at WRU, as they indicate that faculty are not in agreement in respect to the
meaning and significance of globalization and internationalization, particularly in higher
education. Furthermore, this incongruity may lead to confusion and discontent amongst
the faculty while impeding the university’s ability to carry out its internationalization
efforts.
Additionally, although faculty perspectives of globalization and
internationalization were intrinsically varied, this discussion provided an analysis of the
themes and topics that arose most frequently during the interviews along with the
cultures of faculty that were demonstrated by the interviews. The findings from these
discussions will assist this institution in recognizing the areas that the faculty body may
find most affected by globalization and internationalization, and the hidden strengths and
weaknesses of the university’s policies and programs in the faculty experience. The next
section of this chapter considers the second research question of the study and provide an
analysis of the salient topics of the interviews within each of the three broad disciplines –
Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities – in order to determine if faculty
disciplines play a role in shaping faculty perspectives of globalization and
internationalization.
Part Two: Results for Research Question Two
Research Question #2 asked: Do faculty members’ perceptions of globalization
and internationalization in higher education vary depending on the disciplinary
subculture, and, if so, in what ways are the perspectives different? This section discusses
findings that are relevant to the second research question of this study and will be
disaggregated by the three broad disciplines discussed earlier: Natural Sciences, Social

134
Sciences and Humanities. Previous research has found that academic cultures have
undergone a recent shift from institutionally-focused communities to research-focused
disciplinary organizations that operate on an international scale (Douglass, 2005). If
disciplinary cultures do influence faculty perspectives of globalization and
internationalization, this finding may be of some concern to the leadership of research
universities who seek to implement related efforts within their institutions. Therefore,
this study sought to highlight the cultural themes embedded within each discipline, as
they relate to globalization and internationalization, in order to determine if these
disciplinary networks might be influential to faculty perspectives of these two processes.
In each of the three sections that follow, the complex nature of the discipline
coupled with the multifaceted dynamics of globalization and internationalization
provided the researcher with three distinct, though related, descriptions of faculty
perspectives. With the help of Umbach’s (2007) theoretical framework, the researcher
was able to structure the findings according to the three overlapping subcultures:
professional, institutional and disciplinary. Thus, within each discussion of the results by
discipline, are two sections that describe the findings as they relate to the academic
subculture and the institutional subculture. Using this structure, the data analysis
established that faculty perspectives of globalization and internationalization, as they
relate to higher education, did vary amongst the disciplines. The diverse perspectives of
these three disciplinary cultures are considered in detail in the following sections.
Section One: Natural Sciences, an Enthusiastic and Encouraging Culture
As described above, faculty in the Natural Sciences were overwhelmingly very
positive in their assessments of globalization and internationalization. When asked if

135
globalization and internationalization were positive or negative phenomena, 8 of the 11
faculty in the Natural Sciences believed that they were positive, and 3 of the 11 felt that
they were mixed: both positive and negative. Similarly, when asked if they believed their
departmental or disciplinary colleagues were mostly positive or negative about
globalization and internationalization, all of the faculty interviewed, aside from one
faculty member – who believed that her colleagues might have a mixed view – answered
positively.
This largely positive attitude that characterizes the Natural Sciences faculty
toward globalization and internationalization in higher education is examined in greater
detail in two parts. The first part highlights statements made by the faculty interviewed in
the Natural Sciences which demonstrate their enthusiastic views of globalization and
internationalization, primarily stemming from the belief that the nature and culture of the
discipline has always been global, inviting borderless flows of collaboration. The second
part will describe the ways in which the Natural Sciences faculty, although admittedly
unaware of many of WRU’s internationalization efforts, favored what they viewed as the
largely unregulated approach to internationalization within the university, while
encouraging more of the same. Table 9 and 10 are used to highlight the distinct cultures
exhibited through the faculty statements and the cultural manifestations embedded with
these statements. Table 9 illustrates the multiple ways in which the Natural Sciences
faculty appear to exhibit an enthusiastic culture as academic professionals, whereas Table
10 demonstrates the encouraging culture these faculty seem to exercise in the institutional
culture.

136
Table 9
Natural Sciences, Academic Professional Subculture: An Enthusiastic Culture

Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture
Type
Academic Professional
Research:
“Our discipline is dominated by international
collaborators. I suppose, in a way, we speak
the same language. There are no real
international borders.”
 Espoused value:
international
collaboration
Enthusiastic
International collaborations and relations:
 “I think they’re positive experiences, from
my perspective. Hopefully, as people get
to know each other better and have
dialogues, the better parts of different
societies can benefit one another, from the
different knowledge that they have of
different things.”
 “We have very strong collaborations with
Japan, China, New Zealand and Europe.
By applying whatever methods we’re
trying to develop to a global scale, we can
learn much more quickly about how [our
research] works.”
 Espoused beliefs:
globalization and
internationalizatio
n positively
impacts society
through deeper
connections
between cultures;
international
collaborations
benefits the
research
Enthusiastic
Historical relationship with globalization and
internationalization:
 “[I am affected by globalization and
internationalization] within the research
community, which I consider has been
pioneering globalization for hundreds of
years.”
 “Ever since I’ve been working in this field,
and this is now thirty years, we come
together and talk to each other from all
these different countries, languages,
mentalities.”
 Espoused value:
peer review is a
positive and long-
standing
occurrence in this
field
 Underlying
assumption:
globalization and
internationalizatio
n are not new
processes
Enthusiastic
Inclusive nature of globalization and
internationalization:
“I think science has always been global, it has
been less limited by the cultural concerns. You
know, some of my interests in science came
from speakers that would come when I was an
undergrad and talk about the importance of the
work on the Amazon, or this or that other
place. So, I was always interested in science,
but also the fact that science didn’t have all of
these perceived boundaries.”
 Espoused value:
Natural Sciences
are
unencumbered by
local values and
beliefs, in a
positive way

Enthusiastic

137
Table 10
Natural Sciences, Institutional Subculture: An Encouraging Culture

Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
Institutional
Favorable views of the institution’s unrestricted
policies:
 “When we hire new faculty, we do it in the
global market. We don’t do it just in the
domestic market. That’s because our Dean
and our Provost never told us, ‘You have to
hire somebody domestic.’ That’s the reason
why we end up with so many faculty
members with an international background:
because there’s never a limitation that says
you cannot do it. So, it’s the qualification
of the applicant, that’s what counts.”
 “I suppose I am supportive of the
university’s taking on, in its Ph.D.
programs, the best qualified applicants,
regardless of national background….I
would strongly support the continuation of
what appears to be quite a strong
international intake.”
 Behavioral
pattern: allowing
equal
consideration of
domestic and
foreign applicants
 Espoused belief:
the ability to
consider
international
applicants in the
hiring and
admissions
processes allows
for a stronger
faculty and
student body
Encouraging
Faculty criticisms for more, and less, control of
globalization and internationalization:
 “It’s not obvious to me that there is a
strategy for it. That it’s more ‘let every
flower bloom.’ Which is ok, but you don’t
get synergies out of that.”
 “It turns out to be quite difficult to hire
faculty from abroad. This is something that
I am really, truly, angry about [when
thinking about] some of the decisions at
high levels at this university. So, it’s very
easy to hire a foreigner who already has a
job in the U.S. But supposing we wanted to
hire someone who was in Britain. The way
that we judge these people is on their
publications and their ability to attract
funding. Now, if you’re in Britain, you’ve
attracted British funding, which you
wouldn’t necessarily be able to bring with
you to America. So there’s often no record
of attracting the sort of funding that, as they
say, at the Dean’s level, or even the
Provost’s level, they understand, and this is
held against them. That was very strange to
me.”
 Espoused value:
practices that
further
globalization and
internationalizati
on at WRU are a
benefit to the
university
 Underlying
assumption: the
university
leadership must
adjust and
develop forward-
thinking policies
and practices to
make the most of
globalization and
internationalizati
on
Encouraging

138
Academic Subculture: Enthusiastic of Globalization and
Internationalization. Based on the interviews with the faculty, the disciplinary
subculture in the Natural Sciences appeared to promote a very enthusiastic culture of
globalization and internationalization in higher education. Research, as discussed earlier
in this study, is one of the central components of academia. Accordingly, most of the
Natural Sciences professors described a positive relationship between these two
processes and their research. For example, one faculty member, in relating why his
colleagues would be positive towards globalization and internationalization, articulated
that the culture of the Natural Sciences research community encourages collaboration and
the sharing of information, even across borders:
[Natural Sciences faculty] I could not think of any colleague who would be
negative. Somehow, probably, that research community shapes us. We are also a
product of this internationalization of our discipline. It would be very narrow-
minded to say, “I do not want to learn anything that is beyond our border.”
International collaborations have been found to greatly benefit researchers through
greater access to a network of scientific resources, higher citation rates, as well as
standing and esteem in the field (Glanzel & De Lange, 2002; Hazelkorn, 2007; Katz &
Martin, 1997; Melin, 2000). These encouraging benefits were definitely experienced by
faculty who were interviewed in the Natural Sciences. These faculty members described
their collaborations with scholars from other countries, and the value that they saw in
these types of interactions. For example, one faculty mentioned meeting colleagues from
Asia and feeling that she had gained a new perspective in approaching a problem in her
field. Another faculty member described his participation on an international committee

139
to investigate a natural disaster and make recommendations to the government of a
European nation. Faculty in the Natural Sciences felt that the personal, professional and
academic collaborations they had with an international body of scholars were positive
ones and may have been a key reason why the majority of them were positive about
globalization and internationalization efforts, particularly in their discipline. The
literature has shown that these types of interactions are prevalent throughout the
disciplines in the form of conferences, information exchanges and the sharing of
equipment or research data (Katz & Martin, 1997; Wagner, 2005). However, faculty in
the Natural Sciences disciplines, unlike many of the faculty in the other disciplines,
seemed to be culturally-normed to this type of internationally collaborative environment.
This finding aligns with other research that suggests that the disciplinary culture of the
Natural Sciences is cumulative and concerned with universal truths (Becher & Trowler,
2001), which would encourage international research partnerships in this discipline.
Additionally, when considering the impact of globalization and internationalization on
their profession, faculty within the Natural Sciences frequently asserted that the research
process of the discipline provided them with a platform that encouraged communication
with international colleagues. According to these faculty members, a behavioral process
of this discipline’s culture is the shared transnational research efforts. Moreover, this
culture of sharing and collaboration, as well as the international characteristics of the
discipline that allow for this cross-border interaction, appears to be an espoused value of
this discipline.
In addition to being incorporated into the research culture, one positive result of
globalization and internationalization – as suggested by some Natural Sciences faculty –

140
is that these processes lead to more profound, advantageous, and frequent relationships
amongst people from different cultures and societies. For example, one faculty member,
when asked about how he perceived globalization and internationalization, stated, “I
think they’re positive experiences, from my perspective. Hopefully, as people get to
know each other better and have dialogues, the better parts of different societies can
benefit one another, from the different knowledge that they have of different things.” The
assertion made by this professor indicates his espoused belief that globalization and
internationalization have made a positive impact on society through deeper connections
and communications between cultures. A second Natural Sciences faculty member
perceived that these exchanges were an advantage to the field: “We have very strong
collaborations with Japan, China, New Zealand and Europe. By applying whatever
methods we’re trying to develop to a global scale, we can learn much more quickly about
how [our research] works.” Many of the faculty interviewed mentioned the espoused
belief that this type of internationalization effort – international collaborations in research
– had greatly benefited the scholarship as well as cultural and international relations.
Faculty in the Natural Sciences believed that the effects of globalization and
internationalization, particularly advancements in technology, were a benefit to the
discipline in general and had been incorporated into their academic professional
behavioral processes. Overall, the research culture of faculty in the Natural Sciences
promoted the effects of globalization and internationalization as positive developments in
their field.
The majority of the Natural Sciences scholars who were interviewed also believed
that their field had always been globalized or internationalized. The global nature of this

141
discipline was perceived to be a result of the long-standing and widespread practice of
information sharing and exchange amongst scholars. One faculty member provided
multiple examples of why he felt his particular discipline was extraordinarily globalized,
first mentioning his own experience in a specialized field. He explained that, since there
were only a few hundred people in the world that do research in his area, all of them have
been able to come together at a conference every year. This faculty member proceeded to
assert, “Ever since I’ve been working in this field, and this is now thirty years, we come
together and talk to each other from all these different countries, languages, mentalities.”
He perceived that his discipline had been globalized since he began his career. The
influence of globalization in this professor’s experience can be seen as specific cultural
artifacts such as meetings between international colleagues, scholarly papers being
published and shared across borders, and – now with technology – the speed at which
research can be shared throughout the world. Moreover, as an espoused value, this
culture of disclosure – also recognized as the peer review process in academia – is
viewed as a positive phenomenon, and one that has been occurring in this field for a long
time. Thus, the basic underlying assumption, from this faculty member as well as others,
was that globalization and internationalization were not new processes in the Natural
Sciences culture.
Speaking to the positive effects of globalization and internationalization on the
discipline, as well as the long-standing relationship between them, another Natural
Sciences faculty remarked that these opportunities for international collaboration and
travel were beneficial in her experience, in that they served to spark her interest in the
field:

142
[Natural Science faculty] I think science has always been global; it has
been less limited by the cultural concerns. You know, some of my
interests in science came from speakers that would come when I was an
undergrad and talk about the importance of the work on the Amazon, or
this or that other place. So, I was always interested in science, but also the
fact that science didn’t have all of these perceived boundaries.
This faculty member acknowledged that one of the reasons why the Natural Sciences
field appealed to her was due to its apparently global nature and lack of cultural
boundaries. This statement touched on another espoused value within the discipline: that
the Natural Sciences are perceived as unencumbered by local values and beliefs that may
hamper research or internationalization efforts in other fields. This value may further
point to an underlying assumption that implicates cultural differences as an obstruction to
globalization and internationalization in other fields. Furthermore, these findings align
with research which proposed that the Natural Sciences disciplines may be viewed as
more global than other disciplines due to the fact that the location in which the research is
conducted is generally not significant to the study (Smeby and Trondal, 2003). Other
research indicates that the nature of knowledge in the Natural Sciences is value-free
(Becher & Trowler, 2001). Moreover, as one faculty member stated, in the Natural
Sciences, in any research finding, generally the least important consideration is the
nationality of the researcher.
As academic professionals, faculty in the Natural Sciences perceived that their
culture encouraged the transnational exchange of knowledge and resources, and that the
globally-relevant nature of the field provided a vehicle that encouraged international

143
relations. Furthermore, faculty in this discipline articulated their belief that these
processes were not a recent development in the Natural Sciences. Finally, it is important
to note that faculty in this discipline, in considering globalization and
internationalization, frequently mentioned positive benefits occurring from these twin
phenomena and cited relatively few negative beliefs. All of these factors indicate that the
Natural Sciences faculty displayed an enthusiastic culture towards globalization and
internationalization. In the section that follows, the perspectives of the Natural Sciences
faculty to the institutional subculture that related to globalization and internationalization
is discussed.
Institutional Subculture: Encouraging Globalization and
Internationalization. Within the institution itself, the Natural Sciences faculty’s
perceptions towards globalization and internationalization could be primarily
characterized as encouraging. As discussed in the previous section, these faculty were
quite positive in their perspectives of globalization and internationalization in higher
education and frequently utilized examples such as the institutional behavioral processes
of hiring international faculty and enrolling international students as well as artifacts such
as study abroad to explain this optimistic view. Furthermore, faculty in the Natural
Sciences discipline felt that the university’s uncontrolled stance to internationalization
was favorable, though there were some faculty members in this discipline who felt
otherwise. Once again, the findings from the interviews, along with the manifestations of
culture indicative in the transcripts of the interviews, were to define the Natural Sciences’
encouraging culture with regards to WRU’s structures.

144
Faculty in the Natural Sciences often described internationalization efforts within
the university in a positive light, primarily because of their belief that the institution did
not restrict such efforts. For example, one faculty member described the benefits of an
unregulated policy in hiring faculty who were foreign citizens or internationally
educated:
[Natural Sciences faculty] When we hire new faculty, we do it in the global
market. We don’t do it just in the domestic market. That’s because our Dean and
our Provost never told us, “You have to hire somebody domestic.” That’s the
reason why we end up with so many faculty members with an international
background: because there’s never a limitation that says you cannot do it. So, it’s
the qualification of the applicant, that’s what counts.
This faculty member espoused his belief that the ability to consider international
applicants provided the department with a larger and stronger group to select from and
that it was one reason the quality of the current faculty was as strong as he believed it
was. According to this professor, his Natural Sciences department did not consider the
citizenship of an applicant in the hiring process. Similarly, a previous study by Green et
al. (2008) found that, in considerations of hiring faculty, 86 percent of doctorate-granting
institutions stated that they rarely or never gave preference to candidates with an
international background, experience or interest in fields that are not explicitly focused
on international studies. Thus, this earlier research finding and the faculty member’s
statement suggests that faculty candidates – whether foreign or domestic – are given
equal consideration and hired as a result of their qualifications, not their citizenship
status. This cultural characteristic of not considering the nationality of a scholar has

145
become a beneficial behavioral pattern and process within this department. Furthermore,
this equal consideration appeared to extend to student applicants to the university
programs as well, a behavioral pattern that was also supported by Natural Sciences
faculty such as this one:
[Natural Sciences faculty] I suppose I am supportive of the university’s taking on,
in its Ph.D. programs, the best qualified applicants, regardless of national
background….I would strongly support the continuation of what appears to be
quite a strong international intake.
Many faculty divulged that they were unaware of the exact policies and programs the
university had implemented to encourage, or at least to not restrict, internationalization
efforts. Despite this admission, however, the professors who were interviewed –
particularly in the Natural Sciences – were quite positive about what they observed to be
the university’s internationalization efforts.
Additionally, as described earlier, many faculty who were interviewed from the
Natural Sciences discipline were primarily optimistic in their belief that the university
was not regulating the internationalization efforts on the faculty or student levels. Yet,
some faculty had mixed perspectives of this behavioral process. In fact, there were a few
professors who were critical about certain aspects of WRU’s policies and practices and
even felt the administration was overregulating the faculty hiring process. One such
opinion came from a faculty member in the Natural Sciences who also happened to be a
former Provost of the institution. During his interview, this professor was not as positive
about the unfettered international growth of the university. When asked about WRU’s
current internationalization efforts the former Provost stated, “It’s not obvious to me that

146
there is a strategy for it. That it’s more ‘let every flower bloom.’ Which is ok, but you
don’t get synergies out of that.” Though he did admit that he was, at the time of this
interview, not involved in, and not very aware of, the actions or plans of the current
administration, this professor was also unsure that unstructured internationalization
efforts was the best approach for the institution. This concern is supported by Childress
(2009), who found that the development of a written commitment, such as an
internationalization plan, is essential to the success of an institution’s internationalization
efforts. Moreover, another Natural Sciences faculty member stressed that the university
should be even less restrictive, despite opinions from other faculty in the discipline who
indicated that the internationalization efforts on this campus were largely unregulated.
This professor believed that the university should reconsider and retool certain policies,
specifically in the area of hiring international faculty who are not new to the profession:
[Natural Sciences faculty] It turns out to be quite difficult to hire faculty from
abroad. This is something that I am really, truly, angry about [when thinking
about] some of the decisions at high levels at this university. So, it’s very easy to
hire a foreigner who already has a job in the U.S. But supposing we wanted to
hire someone who was in Britain. The way that we judge these people is on their
publications and their ability to attract funding. Now, if you’re in Britain, you’ve
attracted British funding, which you wouldn’t necessarily be able to bring with
you to America. So there’s often no record of attracting the sort of funding that,
as they say, at the Dean’s level, or even the Provost’s level, they understand, and
this is held against them. That was very strange to me.

147
This faculty member describes a behavioral process in the hiring of faculty in which, in
her opinion, the policies of the institution were not keeping pace with the unique
dynamics of international scholarship. She believed that the university may find it
beneficial to be more flexible, particularly in considerations of funding when hiring
established international faculty. In this professor’s opinion, domestic funding is an
espoused value of the leadership of WRU, which overlooks the international dimension
and future potential of a foreign faculty candidate, and is a disservice to the global efforts
of the institution. Furthermore, in this instance, the disciplinary culture of the faculty and
the administrative culture of the university leadership seemed to conflict. In the opinion
of this Natural Science professor, the department had come very close to hiring a foreign
scholar who “had an amazing record.” However, although the faculty may be focused on
artifacts such as education, publications, research area, and awards, in hiring faculty, the
administration may be more concerned with the amount of domestic funding a new
faculty member could bring to the institution. Therefore, in the area of hiring faculty,
there also appeared to be a disconnect between the Natural Sciences faculty and the
university leadership. Overall, however, faculty in this discipline tended to subscribe to
the espoused value that encourages WRU’s efforts to embrace globalization and
internationalization in its policies and practices. Additionally, the findings point to a
further underlying assumption amongst the faculty: that the university leadership must
adjust to and develop forward-thinking policies and practices, in order to capitalize on
globalization and internationalization.

148
Natural Sciences Summary
The findings from the interviews with the Natural Sciences faculty support
previous research and demonstrate the ways in which the culture of this faculty may be
revealed in their perspectives of globalization and internationalization. The faculty in this
discipline generally spoke enthusiastically and positively about globalization and
internationalization, particularly in considering the ways in which these processes affect
higher education, WRU, their departments and fields. These academic professionals
perceived that their discipline was highly collaborative across borders, particularly in in
the Natural Sciences, for centuries, and were made possible by the global applicability
and value-free nature of the disciplinary culture. In addition, the academics in this
discipline were highly favorable of the unregulated nature of the internationalization
efforts at this institution. However, some faculty did have concerns that the lack of
cohesiveness in WRU’s efforts may not be supporting internationalization efforts as
productively or successfully as it could be, and that some of the practices and policies of
the institution were obstacles to the university’s internationalization. Moreover, the
findings from interviews with the Natural Sciences faculty indicate that faculty in this
discipline exhibited an enthusiastic and encouraging culture that embraced globalization
and internationalization. In the next section, the themes and topics unique to the
perspectives of the Social Sciences faculty will be considered, along with the types of
cultures they may represent.
Section Two: Social Sciences, an Adapting, Accepting, and Critical Culture
The perspectives of the Social Sciences faculty who were interviewed for this
study were primarily positive. When asked if globalization and internationalization were

149
positive or negative phenomena, overall, the majority – or five of nine Social Sciences
faculty – felt that these terms were positive. As for the remainder, three professors
considered these phenomena to be mixed – both positive and negative – and one
professor felt that the processes were necessary, neither positive nor negative. However,
when asked if they believed their colleagues were mostly positive or negative about these
two phenomena, seven of the nine faculty answered positively, with the two remaining
faculty supposing their colleagues to be both positive and negative. These figures reflect
the results in the Natural Sciences, where the majority of faculty from that discipline
believed that globalization and internationalization – in their perspective, as well as in
their colleagues’ perspectives – were positive.
While considering this generally positive perspective, the analysis presented in
this section also describes two primary themes that emerged in the interviews with
faculty in the Social Sciences. The first part of this discussion reflects on the changes that
appear to be taking place within this discipline related to globalization and
internationalization and how these changes are affecting their culture as academic
professionals. Second, due to these changes, faculty felt that the internationalization
efforts at WRU were not evolving quickly enough, putting these organizations – and the
faculty themselves – at a disadvantage. Throughout this discussion, the perceptions of the
faculty in the Social Sciences are used to explore the adapting and accepting, but
institutionally-critical, culture they have developed with globalization and
internationalization in higher education. Similarly to previous sections, Tables 11 and 12
demonstrate the ways in which the faculty articulated their perceptions of globalization
and internationalization, the manifestations of culture indicated by their statements, and

150
the types of culture that were exhibited by the faculty in the Social Sciences. Most of the
statements and cultural findings in the tables are exhaustively detailed in this section.
Academic Subculture: A Culture of Adapting and Accepting. In their daily lives as
scholars, these Social Sciences faculty saw a positive evolution in their research that
supported a more globalized context, such as while working with more international
collaborators. For example, similar to the faculty in the Natural Sciences, the academics
in the Social Sciences mentioned working with scholars at foreign institutions. One
faculty stated, “In terms of my day-to-day, I have colleagues from other countries.
Globalization has made it easier. Our profession is global.” Similarly, another colleague
described how he was an active participant in these types of cross-border partnerships:
“In my research, I have brought together networks of scholars form around the world. I
have several projects that are based on collaborative research among people in different
countries.” Furthermore, in terms of the societal sectors affected by globalization, the
first faculty member also mentioned developments in the political environment that had
evolved to allow him to work with scholars from countries such as South Africa, Russia.
Moreover, both faculty members also noted the influences of technology as either
mechanisms that have promoted these collaborations – such as Skype or email – or topics
that have prompted them – such as urbanization. In behavioral processes, such as
research, these faculty members perceive that the processes of globalization and
internationalization have benefited their work. The changes manifested in processes of
globalization – for instance, developments in the political environment and in technology
– have provided these faculty with research opportunities from around the world.
Furthermore, the statements of the Social Sciences faculty quoted above align with an

151
espoused belief that was earlier identified with faculty in the Natural Sciences: that
international collaboration is beneficial to the research done in these disciplines and that
these cross-border interactions have been fixed in the disciplines as behavioral processes.
However, these findings also run counter to studies that have found that faculty in the
United States report having little contact with their peers at institutions abroad (Haas,
1996; Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Although the findings of the current study cannot be
generalized to other Social Sciences or Natural Sciences faculty, this discrepancy in the
research may be a result of the highly internationalized nature of the particular institution
in this study.

152
Table 11
Social Sciences, Academic Subculture: A Culture of Adapting Acceptance

Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture
Type
Academic Professional
Positive evolution of research collaborators:
 “In terms of my day-to-day, I have
colleagues from other countries.
Globalization has made it easier. Our
profession is global.”
 “[Globalization and internationalization
has] really opened up the world of
science, in ways that could never have
happened without these efforts. I think
the internet is a fantastic tool, probably
necessary too, in order to really begin to
allow people to communicate with
people across the world….”
 Behavioral process:
research, cross-
border interactions
 Espoused belief:
international
collaboration is
beneficial to the
research
Acceptance
Positive evolution of colleagues:
 “The faculty members are much more
international than they were when I
came here.”
 “The culture of this department is not,
compared to the other department I was
in, it’s not an American culture. It’s a
very globalized culture. … that’s kind of
why I actually have liked being at WRU
and this department.”
 Behavioral pattern:
the
internationalization
of the faculty
 Espoused belief:
the
internationalization
of the faculty is a
positive
development in the
department
Adapting
Acceptance
Positive evolution of students:
“If I kind of just clump globalization and
internationalization together, I would say
that, certainly there are more international
students, and I think that it is very, very true
at this university. But everywhere you see
more students from overseas studying here
and not just for one year, but actually for
their whole university career. I think it does
mean that, in teaching, you take into
account other countries and peoples’
sensitivities and you ensure that other
students talk about globalization and
internationalization from a less U.S.-centric
point of view, that you can’t just assume
some sort of American bias in
understanding the world.”
Espoused belief:
faculty must be
cognizant and
respectful of the
differing perspectives
of an international
classroom
Adapting
Acceptance

153
Table 12
Social Sciences, Institutional Subculture: An Institutionally-Critical Culture

Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
Institutional
Curriculum:
“Higher education is doing a really good job, in
my opinion, of preparing kids for 1950, but not
for 2050, or 2100. I think the university is very
good at what they do, which is to get the
university brand out around the world, to recruit
students, marketing, and to get alumni to
support the university. But, in terms of the
substance, the content of what they do, when
you get away from the fluff, or the idea of
promoting the university, most of their
globalization efforts are aimed at the business
world.”
Espoused belief:
WRU not doing
enough to prepare
graduates

Institutionally-
critical
Student recruitment:
“We don’t have that many people from Africa.
…So it’s fine that our research and resources
are in those areas [Asia and the Pacific], but, it
would help if more students came from a
broader swath of the world. … And that can’t
be remedied just by natural market forces. The
university needs to go out and actually have
scholarships and things to bring people.”

Underlying
assumption: current
WRU recruitment
efforts not taking
full advantage of the
opportunities
afforded by
globalization and
internationalization
Institutionally-
critical
Visiting faculty resources:
“People like to come here, but there’s a space
problem, and this is an issue for visiting faculty.
When we go and work with some colleagues,
almost anywhere in the world, they’ll find an
office for us….Whereas we can’t do that; we
can’t offer office space. We’re just too
crowded. So, I’d say that’s a bit of a problem.”
Underlying
assumption: an
institution that seeks
to be global should
try to minimize
obstacles that may
impede
internationalization
efforts
Institutionally-
critical
Tenure review process:
“The tenure review process is also very much in
line with the dominant American model. For
example, tenure review letters are solicited only
from American professors, based in the U.S. …
and it’s understood that anything that deviates
from that, like asking an international scholar
who’s really good in your field, and is just as
well-known in France as in the U.S., is an
inferior letter…. So, that’s an indirect way that
WRU ends up not internationalizing. .”
Underlying
assumption: faculty
and research outside
of the U.S. are
perceived as inferior
in the tenure review
process
Institutionally-
critical

154
The Social Sciences faculty also perceived globalization and internationalization
as positively affecting the colleagues with whom they collaborate within their own
programs. For example, two faculty members observed globalization and
internationalization in the increasingly international makeup of the colleagues in their
department. One of these two faculty members noted that, when he first joined the
department, there were only two non-Americans of fifteen faculty. Now, however, he
was one of three Americans in a department with twenty faculty. This change in the
nationalities of faculty in the department is an artifact of the culture of this discipline that
has evolved over time, but also appears to be somewhat unique to this institution. For
example, another faculty member – from the same department – articulated that the
culture of the department was different from other departments he had been a part of in
other universities: “So the culture of this department is not, compared to the other
department I was in, it’s not an American culture.” This faculty member described the
culture of his previous department, what he defined as an American culture amongst
academic professionals. On the other hand, he felt that his current department displayed
behavioral patterns that seemed to indicate the quickly evolving international
demographics of his colleagues. Therefore, faculty in this discipline also noticed a
behavioral pattern similar to the one occurring in the Natural Sciences discipline – the
internationalization of the faculty in this American institution – and although the
evolutions can be disorienting, these Social Sciences faculty are accepting and positive
towards these changes. These faculty shared their belief (espoused belief) that this
development was beneficial to their research and to the administration of their

155
department. Thus, despite these changes, faculty in the Social Sciences appear to be
embracing this global trend.
Faculty in this discipline also described the changes that they have seen in the
student body, especially in their departments, and commented on how this significant
development has affected them:
[Social Sciences faculty] If I kind of just clump globalization and
internationalization together, I would say that, certainly there are more
international students, and I think that it is very, very true at this university. But
everywhere you see more students from overseas studying here and not just for
one year, but actually for their whole university career. I think it does mean that,
in teaching, you take into account other countries and peoples’ sensitivities and
you ensure that other students talk about globalization and internationalization
from a less U.S.-centric point of view, that you can’t just assume some sort of
American bias in understanding the world.
This faculty member, along with others in the Social Sciences, described seeing many
more international students in the classroom. She, and several other faculty in this
discipline, also emphasized that faculty have had to be increasingly more mindful of the
growing diversity of students in their classrooms. Other faculty in the Social Sciences
noted that international students seemed to appreciate a neutral pedagogical approach, as
opposed to the typical U.S.-centric cultural perspectives that are often taken for granted
in the college classroom. For instance, another faculty in this discipline stated, “One
thing I found is that international students seem to really appreciate the perspective of
trying to see what humans would be like, independent of the many contributions of

156
culture.” In shifting his pedagogical approach from a national to a global view, this
professor recognized a positive learning outcome. As a result of globalization,
internationalization, and the influx of international students, approaches to teaching have
to be reconsidered, and perhaps even reworked, in consideration of the evolving diversity
within the classroom. Furthermore, these faculty members’ remarks implied an espoused
belief of these academic professionals: that they must be cognizant and respectful of the
differing perspectives in an international classroom.
For these faculty in the Social Sciences disciplinary subculture, globalization and
internationalization were perceived as having primarily positive effects, and these
professors were mostly accepting of the evolutions that they saw occurring, particularly
in areas such as research collaborators, departmental colleagues and in the student body.
Furthermore, it appears that faculty in the Social Sciences are currently transitioning into
a more globalized and internationalized period in many facets of their professional
responsibilities as academics. Based on the analysis of the interviews, this study found
that the Social Sciences faculty displayed an adapting and accepting culture towards
globalization and internationalization. However, although they are generally optimistic
about these developments, these faculty were also worried that the institution’s programs
and policies were not keeping pace with the necessary changes. These faculty concerns,
ultimately stemming from globalization and internationalization, are detailed in the
section that follows.
Institutional Subculture: An Institutionally-Critical Culture. Although the
attitudes of faculty in the Social Sciences were generally positive of globalization and
internationalization, many of the professors interviewed for this study felt that WRU

157
could do more with the current internationalization efforts in order to keep pace with the
resulting evolutions in education. The four institutional areas that faculty felt would
benefit from globally-minded adjustments were the curriculum, student recruitment,
visiting faculty resources, and the research culture. These findings indicate that faculty
possessed a culture that was critical of the institution and that these academics were not
confident that the institution was doing enough to promote, utilize or adjust to the
processes of globalization and internationalization.
Through the curriculum, one Social Sciences faculty member felt that the
university needed to respond more proficiently to the forces of globalization and be more
thorough in its approach to preparing students to live in a global society:
[Social Sciences faculty] Higher education is doing a really good job, in my
opinion, of preparing kids for 1950, but not for 2050, or 2100. I think the
university is very good at what they do, which is to get the university brand out
around the world, to recruit students, marketing, and to get alumni to support the
university. But, in terms of the substance, the content of what they do, when you
get away from the fluff, or the idea of promoting the university, most of their
globalization efforts are aimed at the business world. So, if you look at the global
conferences that the university has in Asia, all of the speakers are from the
Business world, or the Engineering world, it’s all professional. There’s no
Humanities discussion. There’s no Social Sciences.
This faculty member went on to assert that the individual schools, within WRU, needed
to take the lead in developing and implementing more internationalization efforts that
were directly relevant to their own disciplines. He proposed that these schools should

158
create programs that would prepare their graduates to be successful, global professionals
in their specific fields. An espoused belief rooted within this professor’s perspective is
that the university is not doing enough to prepare its graduates and that the schools
themselves must develop and institute their own programs to address this need. However,
this proposal may be problematic for the institutional leadership if, and when, they seek
to cultivate an integrated internationalization strategy.
In terms of student recruitment, two Social Sciences faculty members felt that
WRU must be more cognizant of, and do more to take advantage of, the opportunities
afforded by globalization and internationalization, particularly within the student body.
For example, one Social Sciences faculty member felt that the institution should do more
to recruit students from a wider area of the globe. Although this professor did recognize
that the university’s strategic focus was on the Pacific Rim, and that WRU currently had
the largest international student population of any American university, he believed that
it would greatly benefit the university to have students in the classroom who could speak
to an even wider range of perspectives and experiences. Furthermore, he felt that the
university would need to be much more deliberate in reaching out to students from other
areas around the world. Similarly, another Social Sciences scholar also observed the
prevalence of international students from specific countries, which had become a concern
of his, particularly in light of the dwindling numbers of domestic students in his classes.
This Social Sciences faculty member also believed that the leadership at WRU had
attempted to address this issue by encouraging the distribution of fellowships to more
U.S. citizens within the schools. However, since his department did not receive many
applications from domestic students, this recommendation did little to assuage the

159
situation for this particular program. Despite a general acknowledgement, and acceptance
of, the internationalization efforts in the university, these two faculty members believed
that the leadership was not adequately addressing the unique issues that had materialized,
and the behavioral patterns and processes at this institution were not taking full
advantage of the opportunities afforded by globalization and internalization.
The Social Sciences faculty were also critical of other institution-level issues,
which they believed undermined the university’s internationalization efforts in respect to
visiting faculty. For example, two faculty members from different departments
mentioned the university’s lack of accommodations for visiting faculty:
[Social Sciences faculty] People like to come here, but there’s a space problem,
and this is an issue for visiting faculty. When we go and work with some
colleagues, almost anywhere in the world, they’ll find an office for us….Whereas
we can’t do that; we can’t offer office space. We’re just too crowded. So, I’d say
that’s a bit of a problem. It’s understandable, but our ability to kind of
reciprocate…we’re not well positioned.
The statement by this faculty member mentioned having received interest from other
international scholars in coming to this university as a visiting faculty. However, as
described by this faculty member, critical cultural artifacts that are necessary to promote
the visiting faculty behavioral process are missing from the internal structure of the
university. Furthermore, this professor’s statement suggested a general behavioral pattern
amongst scholars whereby faculty who have visited colleagues abroad will reciprocate
and accommodate when these colleagues visit WRU. This is done by offering office
space and lodgings for the visiting member. However, both academics bemoaned the fact

160
that this research university does not have such facilities for visiting faculty, making it
extremely difficult for these professors to internationalize their own research and
connections. A basic underlying assumption of this particular issue is that a university
that wants to be global will do what it can to minimize obstacles that may impede these
efforts.
With regard to the tenure review process, another Social Sciences faculty member
was critical in her belief that the culture in the university, and in higher education in the
United States in general, was not global enough. Despite her belief the most of the
university’ s programs and opportunities supported the internationalization of the
institution, this Social Sciences professor did believe that the tenure review process at
WRU was too U.S.-centric and discriminatory to scholars and scholarship outside of the
U.S. When asked to describe these circumstances, the faculty member stated the
following:
[Social Sciences faculty] The tenure review process is also very much in line with
the dominant American model. For example, tenure review letters are solicited
only from American professors, based in the U.S. … and it’s understood that
anything that deviates from that, like asking an international scholar who’s really
good in your field, and is just as well-known in France as in the U.S., is an
inferior letter…. So, that’s an indirect way that WRU ends up not
internationalizing.
In this professor’s opinion, this tenure review practice devalued scholars in other
countries, even those who may be outstanding or internationally-recognized scholars in
the field. As a result, she believed the university was not doing enough to internationalize

161
this particular behavioral process. Furthermore, although she reiterated that most of the
behavioral processes at WRU, in her opinion, encouraged internationalization, this Social
Sciences faculty member believed that this discrepancy in the tenure review process was
“worth mentioning because I think it does play into the overall culture of the university.”
This devaluation of international perspectives in the research and tenure process belies a
negative underlying assumption within the Social Science culture, this university, and the
U.S. higher education culture as a whole: faculty and research outside of this country are
perceived as inferior, in some way, to American faculty and research.
Social Sciences Summary
Overall, faculty in the Social Sciences, like their Natural Sciences counterparts,
were accepting and adapting to the globalization and internationalization efforts that they
saw taking place at their university. Within the professional realm of their responsibilities
as academics, these faculty discussed the changes they saw occurring in specific
capacities such as in research collaborations, as well as the growing numbers of
international colleagues and international students within the department. This section
also described the faculty’s institutionally-critical culture, with regards to globalization
and internationalization. In this respect, Social Sciences faculty members did find fault
with WRU’s approach to several institutional processes related to globalization and
internationalization. These processes included substantively preparing students for a
global future, recruiting a more diverse student body, creating better policies to address
developments within the student population of their department, the lack of
accommodations for visiting faculty, and the U.S.-centric perspectives of the tenure
review system. In analyzing the statements made by the Social Sciences faculty, this

162
study found that these academics displayed an adapting, accepting, yet institutionally-
critical, culture, in the face of globalization and internationalization. Despite these
criticisms, however, the attitudes of faculty from the Social Sciences, and especially the
Natural Sciences, were noticeably more positive than the perspectives of faculty in the
Humanities. This difference is discussed in the following section.
Section Three: Humanities, an Uncertain and Institutionally-Critical Culture
Compared with faculty in the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, faculty in the
Humanities had relatively uncertain and critical perspectives of globalization,
internationalization and their effects on higher education. When asked if globalization
and internationalization were positive or negative phenomena, overall, 9 of 10 faculty
stated that they were both positive and negative – one faculty member believed the two
processes were inevitable – whereas the majority of faculty from both the Natural
Sciences and Social Sciences believed that globalization and internationalization were
mostly positive phenomena. Moreover, when asked if they thought their colleagues had
mostly positive or negative feelings about globalization and internationalization, the
answers provided were also relatively varied. For example, one faculty member said only
internationalization would be viewed as positive, two felt that globalization would be
seen as both positive and negative, one felt that colleagues would be indifferent to both
terms, two faculty believed both processes would be perceived as positive, one said that
both would be perceived as negative, one faculty felt his colleagues would be both
positive and negative, and two thought their colleagues would say neither positive nor
negative. Thus, in order to provide a better understanding of this complicated
relationship, the findings from the faculty interviews were explored through two

163
overarching themes that emerged in the interviews. The first part of this discussion
considers the shifting disciplinary boundaries of the Humanities and the ways in which
they have altered the academic responsibilities of these faculty and created a culture of
uncertainty within this discipline. The second discussion focuses on the critical attitudes
of faculty in regards to the university’s internationalization efforts. As in earlier sections,
Tables 13 and 14 summarize some of the analysis provided in this section. Table 13 lists
faculty statements regarding globalization and internationalization as these processes
relate to the academic professional culture of these faculty. Table 14 lists quotes from the
Humanities faculty interviews relating to institutional culture. Both tables also provide
the cultural manifestations entrenched in these statements along with the culture types
they appear to indicate. The primary purpose of this section is to detail the breadth and
depth of these critical perspectives and to describe the ways in which the culture of the
Humanities discipline may be illuminated by these perspectives.

164
Table 13
Humanities, Academic Professional Subculture: A Culture of Uncertainty

Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture
Type
Academic Professional
Challenging dominant or theoretical
perspectives:
 “This department is what I would call
pretty mainstream; some people might use
the word conservative. Since I’ve been
employed here, there’s been this
commitment to the teaching of Europe. It’s
very European-centric, which for me is
surprising…. So, I would say that in terms
of my department, I have not been very
impressed with the engagement with
issues of globalization or
internationalization. There’s a few of us
who I think are trying to incorporate these
perspectives more broadly in our classes,
but as a department, I would say that it’s a
heavily Eurocentric department, and that,
the concerns for global perspectives are
not really fully embraced to the level that I
would want.”
 “Well, in my department, the question of
how do different cultures relate, for
example… globalization completely
transforms the way cultures relate and the
stakes of relations and the modalities of
relations, time and space, all of these
things. So, it has basically called for a
complete reconfiguration of my discipline.
That means departments are changing
now. They’re trying to respond to it.”
Underlying
assumption: faculty
are not adopting –
or are having to adapt
to – global trends such
as in diversity and
technology; these
changes are causing
theoretical and
structural
developments that
faculty are struggling
to adjust to
Uncertainty
Cultural movements:
“These days, the cross-cultural courses are
actually quite accommodated by the
department, even though the senior faculty
members are not quite used to teaching those
kinds of courses. Even in the hiring
orientation, I would say that the program now
is trying to look ahead, trying to promote this
cross-regional, inter-regional research.”
Underlying
assumption: faculty
are having to adapt to
global trends such as
evolutions in culture
and the study of
culture, resulting in
theoretical and
structural
developments that
faculty are struggling
to adjust to
Uncertainty

165
Table 14
Humanities, Institutional Subculture: An Institutionally-Critical Culture

Faculty Quote
Manifestation of
Culture
Culture Type
Institutional
Defining globalization at WRU:
 “I think it’s great we have lots of
international students. I think it’s
great that there’s lots of
opportunities for our students to
study in different places. But I don’t
necessarily know what that means in
terms of what the university means
by it, and when it intersects with a
marketing campaign, then it gets
confusing.”
 “I know that the university really has
tried to do a lot in terms of
cooperative projects, but also in the
business world and technology and
so forth. So, I think that the
university has a certain kind of
awareness of both globalization and
internationalization and how it can
benefit the university. But I also
think that more could be done,
institutionally-speaking, to try to
translate real meaning of that
diversity, a real benefit of that,
through the student body. You know,
it’s one thing to bring people from
all over the world together, and all
different cultures, and walks of life,
but if you don’t really help people
figure out what to make of this, or
why is this even good, I think that
some of the benefit might be
swallowed up or lost.”
 Espoused belief:
the institution is
not clear on how
it defines
globalization and
internationalizati
on
 Underlying
assumption: a
market-driven
institution may
not be an ideal
approach in
academia; WRU
must show
clearer
leadership and
direction in this
area
Institutionally-
Critical

Academic Subculture: A Culture of Uncertainty. Globalization and
internationalization have resulted in profound shifts in the disciplinary and academic
cultures of the Humanities faculty. Through the interviews, the researcher identified three

166
contexts in which faculty in the Humanities are primarily experiencing globalization and
internationalization: disciplinary-level shifts, cultural movements, and cultural-academic
outsourcing. As a result of these evolutionary processes, the perceived boundaries of this
discipline are being redefined and these faculty are attempting to situate themselves in a
stronger position to address these new contexts.
Of the ten faculty interviewed from the Humanities discipline, five of these
professors from three different departments noted that globalization and
internationalization were challenging dominant or theoretical perspectives in their fields
or presenting new challenges in the curricula. Subsequently, these developments have led
to a culture of uncertainty about the future direction of the discipline. Two of the faculty
from the same department mentioned that globalization and internationalization were
calling into question, on a personal and departmental level, the primary focus on Western
scholarship that has dominated their field:
[Humanities faculty] This department is what I would call pretty mainstream;
some people might use the word conservative. Since I’ve been employed here,
there’s been this commitment to the teaching of Europe. It’s very European-
centric, which for me is surprising, given the university’s location and given the
current trends of scholarship in the national disciplinary organization, and also
worldwide. So, I would say that in terms of my department, I have not been very
impressed with the engagement with issues of globalization or
internationalization. There’s a few of us who I think are trying to incorporate
these perspectives more broadly in our classes, but as a department, I would say

167
that it’s a heavily Eurocentric department, and that, the concerns for global
perspectives are not really fully embraced to the level that I would want.
The faculty member above described an evolving situation within the department where
they and their colleagues were in the midst of a shift in the scholarship from a focus on
Western-centric topics to other regions and more global topics. An underlying
assumption implicit in this professor’s statement is that she feels some of her colleagues
chose not to adopt these trends, causing tension and disagreement. Another faculty
member also observed that this development had created some conflict in the department.
This inclination towards European or U.S.-centered curriculum, behavioral patterns and
processes, seemed to be diminishing in the field, most likely resulting in an alteration of
the espoused values and even the underlying assumptions within the culture of this
department. Moreover, the professor quoted above noted that the very idea of
globalization as a modern phenomenon was currently being debated within the discipline
and that many scholars in her field had argued that the process, which has been recently
termed globalization, is not a new one. These two faculty members articulated that there
were numerous, and profound, evolutions occurring in the discipline and department as a
result of globalization and internationalization.
In another Humanities department at WRU, two faculty members described the
changes that occurred in their discipline due to globalization and the subsequent
programmatic adjustments that were made. For example, one of these professors
described how globalization created a paradigm shift in his area of study, which has, in
turn, driven structural changes in institutional departments. Furthermore, this faculty

168
member acknowledged that globalization and internationalization affected his own
approach to research, blurring the limits of the discipline and scholarship:
[Humanities faculty] It gets quite daunting to figure out where to define your
parameters sometimes, in terms of what you need to know. So, if you just sort of
follow your research, often you find yourself in different places than you
necessarily wanted to go, and you get nervous about what the expectations will
be. So, what do you have to know and what you don’t have to know? Where do
you stop? What’s your responsibility as an academic or even, say, as a consumer?
What you want to know, what you should know, what you can know? It
complicates the responsibilities of consumers and producers of knowledge.
The professor above was a relatively new and young member of his department and was
attempting to navigate the virtually unlimited expansion of resources and knowledge
available to him, changes occurring in the behavioral patterns and processes of his
discipline as a result of globalization and internationalization. Thus, faculty in this
department, like the Humanities faculty discussed in the previous section, perceived a
fundamental shift occurring in their discipline that may lead, or already has, to changes in
the curriculum, the programs, and the research, as well as the development of a culture of
uncertainty.
Moreover, globalization and internationalization also affected faculty in the
Humanities through a recent focus on the movement of culture. Five of the ten
Humanities faculty interviewed described this kind of development in the research of
their discipline as well as in the hiring of faculty. A faculty member in two Humanities
departments provided multiple examples of this phenomenon:

169
[Humanities faculty] I’ve noticed a trend toward focusing on, I guess what I call,
the cultural effects of globalization, sort of the movement of ideas and culture
quickly across the globe. A lot of people working on the effect of social
networking, on subcultures and people, who might look at the revolutions that
have happened in the Middle East through this frame of globalization…that it’s
been something that has been possible because of the quick movement of
technology and also the way people connect with each other through these time
and space-compressing technologies, like Facebook, like Twitter. So, I think I see
the debate in this area being much more about how globalization is actually
practiced or lived in people’s lives.
This professor had begun to notice that scholarship in this field was no longer fixed in
particular countries or regions of the world, but had expanded to explore the ways in
which factors of globalization, such as technology, have linked and dispersed cultures.
The evolution of scholarship, as discussed by this professor, appears to resemble similar
perceptions from faculty in the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences. For example,
similar to the research taking place in other disciplines, phenomena were no longer being
studied in only one country or region, or amongst one group of people. Instead, there was
growing research on the way that certain phenomena operate in different areas, regions,
or societies. This development also challenges the notion that cultural processes limit
research, as perceived and discussed earlier by one faculty member in the Natural
Sciences. Alternatively, faculty in the Humanities studied these processes as avenues
through which their fields may be investigated, or considered the cultural processes
themselves. Instead of studying culture and cultural productions within a country, faculty

170
saw their scholarship turn increasingly toward investigating the ways in which the culture
of one country can be transmitted to, and influence, other countries, as well as the
reciprocal nature of this movement and influence. Once again, the experiences of these
faculty demonstrate a shift in behavioral patterns and processes, as they relate to their
research and even in teaching these subjects. These shifts may indicate a culture of
uncertainty surrounding the evolving expectations of teaching and research in the
discipline.
This evolution in the study of cultures not only affects faculty in their own
scholarship, but, as discussed earlier, also causes the departments to approach the hiring
of faculty differently. While participating in the development of a new program, one
faculty member noted the ways in which globalization had come to play an implicit but
major role in hiring new professors for the university and in faculty meetings generally:
[Humanities faculty] Well, just the other day, I was at a meeting and we were
talking about increasing our course offerings in the Middle East, and on Islam,
and the need to hire new faculty who could teach in these areas. One of the things
that we wanted to try to do is hire somebody who would be able to teach about
Islam in the Middle East, but also Islam in Europe and in the Americas. It didn’t
come up explicitly, the term globalization, but I think it was implicit in a lot of the
conversations that we were having about the type of person we would like to hire,
that it couldn’t just be somebody who knew about Islam in one area. We wanted
somebody who would be able to understand how religious currents flow across
borders. Yeah, I think, often, the term may not come up explicitly in conversation
but [it is] on the agenda of a meeting, without explicitly being there.

171
In response to the rise in scholarship toward a global or international orientation, faculty
are looking to hire colleagues who similarly have a more global perspective of the
phenomena they are researching, which, in turn, may best meet the needs of the
department and its students. This reflects another aspect of faculty behavioral patterns
and processes that arise out of globalization and internationalization in the university.
Additionally, this Humanities faculty pointed out an underlying assumption embedded
within the culture of this department that suggests the importance of globalization in the
curriculum and research. This faculty noted that globalization is not an obvious topic, or
espoused value, in their program meetings. However, she does suspect that addressing
the globalized nature of society guides the actions of this program. Furthermore, as this
faculty member asserted, “People are very committed to the best aspects of globalization
and they want to see those aspects reflected in the courses we offer students and in the
faculty that we have the possibility of hiring in the future.” This finding may
demonstrate a shift in faculty teaching, as it runs in opposition to a study by Siaya and
Hayward (2003) that found that professors in research universities tend to not incorporate
international perspectives in their fields. Thus, preparing students for a global future is
an espoused value for faculty, which, as an underlying assumption, has made
globalization a necessity for faculty to teach and students to learn.
In the interviews with the Humanities faculty, specifically, the researcher also
noticed a particular phenomenon emerging in the wake of globalization and
internationalization in higher education. When asked about the ways in which these two
processes affected their professional lives, three faculty members in the Humanities
mentioned a phenomenon which is described here as cultural-academic outsourcing. In

172
the two other disciplines, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences, it is common for students
to enroll in domestic or foreign universities, wherever they feel they will get the best
education, particularly in their chosen field. For example, in the culture of these two
disciplines, there appears to be a basic underlying assumption amongst the faculty that a
German student who comes to learn Physics, or a Chinese student who wants to study
Economics, is doing so at an institution within the United States because he or she feels
that they will be able to get the best education at that specific institution. However, in the
Humanities, particularly in the fields of Area Studies, faculty observed students from a
particular country or culture, coming to WRU to learn more about their own country or
culture in specific contexts. For example, as one such faculty member explained, “We
have students who come here to study with us, particularly in French, who are French.
They come here because they want to study in America, and they want to study at this
university.” These students, this professor went on to describe, were interested in
studying Francophone cultures around the globe, such as Africa and Canada, not just in
Western Europe. When asked why, in her opinion, French citizens opted to study the
French or Francophone cultures in the United States, the faculty member believed that
this phenomenon was occurring because the university system in Europe, at the time, was
in decline:
[Humanities faculty] There are too many students who are staying on too long in
the universities. There isn’t the incentive to go through the program quickly and
efficiently, because the jobs are not there for the students. And there’s a kind of
malaise, they’re just not feeling motivated to get their degrees. Also, the system,
in some part, is antiquated, a very hierarchical system. So, the chances that a

173
student can, not only get a degree efficiently, but also then have nurtured a
relationship with a faculty member and maybe even get a university position is
very rare.
This faculty member asserted that these students find more job opportunities in the
United States than in their home countries in addition to a cultivation and acceptance of
more global scholarship which may, more directly, align with their interests. In this
faculty member’s experience, students from other countries come to the United States,
and stay even after graduation, due to the high quality of education and scholarship, as
well as for the potential career opportunities. This appears to be a unique phenomenon
occurring in the Humanities culture, as opposed to the other two disciplines discussed in
this study. This phenomenon is particularly distinctive in that it is a more recent trend –
according to these faculty – but also because of the idiosyncratic dynamic of international
students coming to the United States to study particular areas of their own home culture.
International students are looking around the globe, and not just within their own state
systems, for institutions that best meet their educational needs, scholarly interests and
professional possibilities. The observation of another Humanities faculty member from a
different department echoes this perspective:
[Humanities faculty] Not nearly as many people come to this university to study
English Literature. Although, I have had some graduate students who have come
for that very purpose and I thought that was wonderful. As a matter of fact, it’s
very curious, because one of them came here to study Indian literature in English
because [these texts] weren’t being taught in his universities. The [institutions in
India] were still teaching T.S. Elliot and other American and British authors, in

174
the traditional British sense. They hadn’t caught up yet, with the realization and
the practice that they were writing English literature too, and that these were
people of importance. So, as I said it’s a curious thing, he comes here to study the
literature of his own country, that he’s left, and he’s still here and teaching in an
American university.
This faculty member believed that the university culture in India had not yet caught up
with the interests of this Indian student, which compelled the student to look for an
institution abroad that better suited his academic interests. In this way, these students are
outsourcing their education to the United States and to WRU in particular, instead of
relying on what may be perceived as the limited opportunities within their own countries.
This trend may be similar to other established global movements in education,
particularly in the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, whereby students chose to
attend academic programs based primarily on the quality of the education at the
university and irrespective of the geographical location of the institution. However, what
is unique about cultural-academic outsourcing, and what is occurring in the Humanities
discipline at WRU, is that students are choosing to attend a foreign higher education
institution to study aspects of their own culture, as opposed to attending a local program.
Of the three disciplines considered in this study, the faculty members interviewed
from the Humanities appeared to be the most affected by globalization and
internationalization in the fundamental aspects of their discipline as academic
professionals. These aspects include changes in the dominant perspectives, the
curriculum, and departmental structures; expansion of research areas; and addressing the
emerging phenomena of international students who have decided to outsource their

175
cultural education. These profound and extensive shifts in the responsibilities of the
Humanities faculty have resulted in the cultivation of a culture of uncertainty amongst
this body of academics towards globalization and internationalization. This uncertainty
arises out of the ambiguous nature of their fields in the face of the sweeping evolutions
experienced in this discipline, on the theoretical, collegial, curricular and student levels.
These faculty’s perspectives on the effects occurring at the institutional level are explored
further in the next section.
Institutional Subculture: An Institutionally-Critical Culture. Similar to the
faculty in the Social Sciences, academics in the Humanities seemed to display a culture
that was critical of the institution’s approach to globalization and internationalization.
However, unlike in the Social Sciences – who were critical of the institutional structures
– the Humanities faculty were primarily concerned with the manner in which the term
globalization was being defined by WRU. This was particularly significant due to the
espoused importance of globalization to the institution. In fact, during an interview with a
faculty member in the Humanities, after being asked if he felt his colleagues are mostly
positive or negative about globalization and internationalization, he responded that,
although the general attitude has gone through many variations over time, faculty are
normed – beginning from their time in graduate school – to think critically about the
processes that many individuals and organizations in society take for granted.
Accordingly, a number of faculty in this discipline were quite critical about the term
globalization in general, as well as what the term meant to the university, and how this
process was being realized in the institution’s internationalization efforts.

176
The faculty interviewed in all three disciplines had a wide variety of definitions
for, and attitudes toward, the terms globalization and internationalization. However,
while most of the faculty in the Humanities were both positive and negative about the
effects of globalization, a few of the faculty interviewed in the discipline had especially
negative feelings. In one case, a faculty member described what the words global or
globalization meant to him, his department and discipline:
[Humanities faculty] For me, globalization has been used by social scientists
more than humanists. So, globalization is more about markets, international
markets. I definitely think it’s negative when it’s used, solely, in economic terms;
in terms of linking nations through trade and commerce. But our mission, at the
university, is to find not everything is market driven. I know that [my colleagues]
share, very much, my negative vision of the term globalization. In fact, when we
decided the name of the new program, the Dean wanted us to use “global”, and
we said, “No. That’s not who we are.” Because it doesn’t translate with the kind
of thinking and the kind of intellectual approach that we embrace. I think it’s an
uphill battle. It’s almost a battle that we can’t even win today because of the
weight of what has been disseminated in the press, in the common parlance. So,
yeah, we can re-semanticize the term globalization for our own purpose, but I
think it will take a lot of work and I’m not so sure it’s worth it.
Several times in the interview, this faculty member referred to what he believed were the
differences in the perception of globalization between the Humanities and Social
Sciences. The term “globalization” signifies specific sectors of society such as the
economy and markets. This professor maintained that an economic, market-driven

177
perspective of globalization did not appeal to him and his colleagues and what they were
trying to do in their classrooms, programs and research at WRU. In his field, global or
globalization was used pejoratively and the terms were problematic because it oriented
the approach of the discipline to a more capitalist and market-driven one, which was
ideologically resisted in his field. This finding is significant in that this professor clearly
defined cultural differences between the Humanities discipline and the Social Sciences
discipline. He asserted that, although globalization may be a process (artifact) that is
studied in the Social Sciences, as well as an espoused value of this other discipline, this
term is perhaps not defined in the same manner in the Humanities discipline.
Furthermore, the statement from this faculty member alludes to the notion that although
globalization may be an espoused value of the university, it is absolutely not a value for
this discipline. Correspondingly, a second member of this department was interviewed,
and this uncomfortable relationship with globalization, particularly in an economic sense
within the university, was also discussed
[Humanities faculty] I think it depends on what [the term “globalization”] means,
but I think it’s great we have lots of international students. I think it’s great that
there’s lots of opportunities for our students to study in different places. But I
don’t necessarily know what that means in terms of what the university means by
it, and when it intersects with a marketing campaign, then it gets confusing.
Both faculty members referred to the economic factors inherent in globalization and how
that runs counter to an espoused value of their department: that the academy should
respond from a more humanist perspective to the pressures of politics and the economy.

178
Furthermore, these faculty speak to a basic underlying assumption that a market-driven
institution may be insupportable for certain academics.
Faculty in other Humanities departments, however, were not as negative about
globalization. Yet, these faculty did have concerns with the university’s definition of
globalization – as in what the term meant to WRU – and the related internationalization
efforts which they felt the university was, or was not, undertaking. For instance, one
Humanities faculty member insisted that she was aware of the business and technological
partnerships that the university had undertaken, and that the administration appeared to
be knowledgeable about the ways in which it could benefit from the processes of
globalization and internationalization. However, she also felt that the leadership at WRU
could do more to take advantage of, and incorporate, the cultural diversity inherent in
these behavioral practices, particularly in the student body. The sentiments of this faculty
member were echoed by another professor who believed that, despite their attempts to
internationalize the campus, the university had failed to integrate the full benefit of these
processes into the curriculum, such as through more extensive language and global
awareness requirements. Both of these faculty members were in agreement that, although
the university is aware of – and addressing – globalization, they were unsure if the
students are gaining the full value of these efforts, or that the leadership has clearly
defined and devised the academic advantages of these efforts to students, or had even
critically considered these efforts at all. According to one of these professors, the primary
method of internationalization for the university resembles a business model: the
university sells an American education to wealthy students and their parents and creates
ties with alumni. Furthermore, to another faculty member in the Humanities, the two

179
obvious signs of the university’s internationalization efforts – the university’s large
number of foreign students and focus on the Pacific Rim – do not make it immediately
clear that the institution is global. This professor felt that these efforts could not truly be
global if the faculty still taught in the same way they always had, if the Pacific Rim was
the institution’s only international focus, or if there was no cultural or knowledge
exchange and the university was simply training graduates to go back and mirror the
values, beliefs and techniques that had been learned in the American education system.
Therefore, these Humanities faculty questioned the espoused values and the basic
underlying assumptions of the university in regards to the significance of globalization.
Humanities Summary
The data analysis described in the previous section defined the cultures of faculty
in the Humanities discipline in regards to globalization and internationalization. The
perspectives of these faculty indicated that they shared a culture that was not only filled
with uncertainties, but was also a culture that focused on defining globalization and
internationalization and WRU’s neglect in this regard. Moreover, these perspectives
illustrated the broad and deep shifts occurring in the professional lives of these professors
including changes in the way these faculty think about their research, do their research,
and teach their subjects. As noted earlier, research and teaching are two of the most basic
responsibilities of faculty. Furthermore, globalization and internationalization were
believed to be manifested in other behavioral processes of the faculty, such as hiring
fellow faculty and teaching students in their classrooms. These fundamental shifts in the
responsibilities of the Humanities faculty reflected the especially critical attitudes of
some of the academics in this discipline. However, faculty who were not as critical about

180
these processes still had strong concerns about the institution’s approach to develop
globally and internationally.
Summary of Research Question Two
This section reported results from the data analysis that considered the differences
in perspectives among the faculty in the Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and
Humanities in consideration of globalization and the related internationalization efforts
currently taking place at WRU and in the higher education sector. The perspectives of the
30 faculty who were interviewed for this study were also explored through the three
primary cultures of faculty, as described in Umbach’s (2007) theoretical framework:
disciplinary, academic professional and institutional. Furthermore, this analysis utilized
the cultural manifestations, as detailed in the framework, to decipher the deeper cultural
implications entrenched in the faculty interviews. Despite having many of the same
concerns with globalization and internationalization efforts in higher education, dividing
the faculty by discipline highlighted the differences, and in some cases extreme
differences, between the perceptions of faculty. Table 15 lists the types of cultures the
disciplines displayed. The faculty in the Natural Sciences exhibited an enthusiastic and
encouraging culture, felt their discipline had been global for a very long time, and
appreciated that the administration had – in their perception – very few or almost no
policies to regulate internationalization efforts. Faculty in the Social Sciences were
adapting and accepting about these phenomena despite criticisms of the institutional
structures that promoted globalization and internationalization. Social Sciences faculty
believed that their fields were internationalizing and that this was a benefit to their
discipline and to the university, although they felt that institutional policy would need to

181
do better in keeping pace with the changes of globalization. In the Humanities, faculty
were witnessing fundamental changes within their field, as a result of these two
processes. This discipline was also the most negative of globalization and critical of the
institution’s failure to clearly define the importance of globalization. Consequently, the
analysis indicated that the faculty in the Humanities demonstrated a culture of uncertainty
and institutional criticism towards globalization and internationalization.
Table 15
Disciplinary Cultures of Globalization and Internationalization
Academic Professional Culture Institutional Culture
Natural
Sciences
Enthusiastic Encouraging
Social
Sciences
Adapting, Accepting Critical
Humanities Uncertainty Critical
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to answer, in-depth, the research questions of this
study. The data analysis and discussions illuminated the definitions, perspectives, and
cultures of faculty in the College with respect to globalization and internationalization.
Furthermore, the differences in the perspectives and cultures of the faculty – regarding
globalization and internationalization in higher education – in the Humanities, Social
Sciences and Natural Sciences were also explicated. The next chapter concludes this
study by detailing in-brief the impetus of this study, summarizing the findings,
introducing a number of limitations that arose in the investigation, and listing the
implications for practice and future research.

182
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
This concluding chapter will begin with a short review of the impetus for this
study and present again the research questions. Next, a summary of the findings will be
discussed, organized in order of the research questions, followed by an analysis of the
limitations of this investigation. Subsequently, this chapter will present the implications
for practice for individuals and organizations who are interested in implementing
internationalization efforts in their higher education institutions. Finally, the
recommendations for future research are offered.
Impetus for the Study
Higher education in the United States and around the world is undergoing rapid
and dramatic changes as a result of globalization and internationalization. Although
globalization touches all facets of present-day society, this process describes the
uncontrolled changes occurring particularly in the economic, political, technological and
cultural areas. These changes affect post-secondary institutions, specifically, as a result of
multiple emerging trends such as greater demands from the government for more
accountability, the cultivation of a world-class knowledge economy and highly educated
workforce, and global massification, all in the face of a reduction in state funding.
In order to address the uncontrollable changes generated by globalization, higher
education institutions, and their stakeholders, engage in a process called
internationalization. In this process, colleges and universities create, adopt and engage in
oftentimes complex and numerous internationalization efforts and strategies. One key

183
goal of these efforts is to prepare graduates for productive and prosperous professional
and personal lives in an increasingly global world.
Globalization, along with internationalization, can have a significant impact on all
groups and individuals involved with a college or university, especially the faculty who
have direct responsibility for the academic policies and programs in a college or
university. Therefore, it is essential that the leadership of an institution consider the
perspectives of the faculty in order for these internationalization efforts to be effective
and successful. However, gaining the institution-wide support of faculty in
internationalization efforts can be difficult due to the autonomous nature of this academic
body as well as the lack of literature that considers faculty perspectives, particularly in
regards to globalization and internationalization in higher education.
Additionally, the influence of faculty cultures in shaping faculty perspectives of
globalization and the related internationalization efforts should not be overlooked.
Research indicated that the disciplinary culture of faculty may have the most influential
impact on an academic’s professional life, as this culture provides the foundation that
informs faculty in all facets of their multiple responsibilities. However, similar to the
literature on faculty perspectives of globalization and internationalization, research into
the impact of the disciplinary culture on faculty perspectives of these two processes are
also missing from the literature.
The purpose of this study was to add to the scholarship that considers the
influences of disciplinary culture on faculty perspectives in relation to globalization and
internationalization in higher education. In doing so, this study set out to answer the
following research questions:

184
 How do faculty at a research university perceive globalization and
internationalization?
 Do faculty members’ perceptions of globalization and
internationalization in higher education vary depending on their
disciplinary subculture, and, if so, in what ways are the perspectives
different?
Through one-on-one interviews with 30 faculty members from the Humanities, Social
Sciences and Natural Sciences disciplines, the researcher was able to piece together
detailed answers to these research questions. The overarching findings are discussed in
the next section. Although all faculty interviewed had unique perspectives of
globalization and internationalization, there were multiple broad themes and specific
topics that were raised by faculty. These themes and topics depict how faculty
understand, are affected by, and feel about globalization and internationalization.
Furthermore, analysis of the perspectives of faculty indicated distinct cultures within the
faculty with regards to globalization and internationalization.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Research Question #1 asked: How do faculty at a research university perceive
globalization and internationalization? The first research question sought to determine
how the faculty, in general, defined globalization and internationalization. This section
discusses the complex nature of the faculty’s understanding of these two processes, first
as these faculty defined globalization and internationalization. Second, this section
reviews the primary topics that were raised by faculty in their consideration of

185
globalization and internationalization. The third part considers the cultures that became
evident from the faculty interviews.
In defining the terms globalization and internationalization, faculty from all three
disciplines provided various definitions for the terms. No two definitions were the same
and faculty frequently interchanged the terms globalization and internationalization
throughout the interviews. Faculty were also frequently confused and unsure of the terms,
globalization and internationalization, as they were defining and discussing them.
Furthermore, although all of the faculty mentioned at least one of the elements of
globalization (politics, economy, technology and social) when defining both terms,
overall the definitions that the faculty offered were not consistent. However, this
uncertainty with both terms may be expected, as globalization and internationalization
are not particular areas of study for many of the faculty.
Additionally, faculty often held positive and negative personal attitudes towards
globalization and internationalization that were dependent on the context in which they
discussed the two terms. For example, faculty were frequently negative when discussing
these terms from an economic perspective, such as in consideration of business practices
and the market. However, when considering globalization and internationalization from a
social or academic perspective, faculty were often quite positive about effects, such as
interactions between students of different national backgrounds or in their own research
experience. Furthermore, in consideration of the attitudes of their fellow colleagues,
faculty often mentioned a more positive outlook which sometimes differed from their
own mixed or negative personal attitude. The researcher hypothesized that since faculty
are oftentimes most familiar with their colleagues on an academic or social level, perhaps

186
they most immediately considered other faculty perspectives in regards to academic and
social contexts.
When asked to discuss globalization and internationalization as these affect
higher education, the institution, or their own departments and disciplines, a majority of
the faculty brought up these processes as they are manifested at the student level. Most
faculty mentioned benefits and concerns regarding international students and study
abroad. For international students, these benefits included the academic strengths of
international students and their effect on institutional rankings in addition to their
valuable abilities and perspectives. However, international students are also a cause of
concern for some faculty. These concerns consisted of significant language difficulties,
the possibility of a brain-drain effect as a result of students’ returning to their respective
countries after graduation, and the difficulties involved in tackling culturally-sensitive
topics in the curriculum.
In addition to international students, most of the professors who were interviewed
also perceived study abroad as a significant internationalization effort for the university.
Of the faculty who mentioned study abroad, most of them were positive about the
experience in the curriculum and a few faculty felt that the opportunity should be made
available to a larger proportion of the student body, and even made a requirement for
graduation. However, faculty also had concerns that the study abroad programs were not
fulfilling their potential in terms of population and process: not enough students were
able or willing to study abroad – which might be problematic for a global institution –
and the study abroad program as it currently exists might not be enough to produce
globally-aware students.

187
In their own research experiences, almost every faculty member interviewed (29
of 30) felt that they were greatly affected by globalization and internationalization. Most
of these faculty mentioned the ways in which technology – such as the internet, email,
video conferencing – has sped up the publication and the dissemination of scholarship,
has made research in other countries easier or more accessible, and has linked networks
of scholars from around the world. Despite the differences in the nature of research
amongst the disciplines, faculty from the Humanities, Social Sciences and Natural
Sciences all felt that globalization and internationalization has greatly affected the
scholarship that they produced.
With respect to language, many of the faculty who were interviewed saw three
emergent trends related to globalization and internationalization: the growing importance
of the English language in scholarship and society, the value of fluency in other
languages in research, and the need for the university to better address the multilingual
ability of its students. These faculty have seen the importance of fluency in multiple
languages in their own work, and see that these skills would be of great value for
graduates in their respective professional lives. However, faculty also believe that the
current language proficiency requirements for graduation from WRU are inadequate.
Faculty were also concerned with the dominance of the Western-centric
perspectives both amongst their colleagues as well as within the student body. In
mentioning other academic professionals, faculty saw that American or European
dominant perspectives influenced their research, curricula and even the tenure processes
within their disciplines and their university. Furthermore, faculty were disappointed by
the Western-centric perspective that was promulgated throughout the undergraduate

188
student body. In order to combat these effects, faculty from multiple disciplines felt that
WRU, and higher education generally, needed to put greater consideration and effort into
the processes of the institutions. Moreover, these professors felt that the university
needed to make internationalization more of a priority in the policies and practices of the
institution.
Finally, more than a third of the faculty who participated in this study mentioned
the importance of the particular location of this university, and how the city may have
influenced the globalization and internationalization of the institution. Particularly,
faculty believed that the multicultural urban location of WRU, added to the academic
experience of both the students and the faculty themselves. Additionally, faculty were
mixed in their consideration of the university’s particular focus on Asia and the Pacific.
Some faculty appreciated WRU’s programs and policies that focused on this region.
However, other faculty felt that this focus was too narrow and undermined the global
goals of the university.
In utilizing Umbach’s (2007) faculty culture models, the study sought to
determine the various cultures of faculty that may be evident in the faculty interviews.
This model was useful in that it provided a toolkit of cultural manifestations with which
the researcher was able to pull out indicators that might identify the faculty culture
concerning globalization and internationalization in academia. This study found that,
when faculty consider the terms globalization and internationalization in their
professional lives, there are a number of themes – mentioned by a majority of the faculty
sample – and topics – mentioned by at least a third of the sample – that are foremost in
their collective perception. Furthermore, in parsing out the cultural manifestations from

189
the faculty interviews, this study found that along with each theme or topic, these
professors and academics seemed to reveal particular cultures in regards to the
globalization and internationalization-related processes. For faculty, the subject of
international students indicated a culture of enthusiastic acceptance and accommodation.
Similarly positive cultures were exhibited in regards to study abroad (supportive and
progressive cultures) and research (a cooperative culture). As for the topic of language,
the faculty culture appeared to value multilingualism, particularly, being able to
communicate in English and another language adequately. Finally, faculty culture also
appeared to support global-inclusiveness – as opposed to dominant Western influences –
in the curriculum in addition to embracing the global nature of the city in which WRU is
located. Overall, the faculty who were interviewed seemed to welcome globalization and
internationalization in their work as academics while encouraging the university to adopt
thoughtful policies and practices to evolve with these worldwide processes.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
Research Question #2 asked: Do faculty members’ perceptions of globalization
and internationalization in higher education vary depending on their disciplinary
subculture, and, if so, in what ways are the perspectives different? Previous research
demonstrated that faculty cultures have undergone a shift from communities of campus-
focused academics to disciplinary networks that span the globe (Douglass, 2005).
Therefore, this study also sought to investigate the influence of particular disciplinary
cultures on faculty perspectives of globalization and internationalization. The following
is a discussion of the findings regarding faculty perspectives and the cultures they
exhibited in the Natural Sciences, Social Science and Humanities. These findings

190
demonstrate the unique and diverse perspectives and cultures that faculty in these three
broad disciplines possess.
Faculty who were interviewed in the Natural Sciences discipline primarily held
very positive views of globalization and internationalization. This attitude was
demonstrated in two ways during the interviews. First, as academic professionals,
faculty in the Natural Sciences asserted that the very culture of the discipline invited
borderless flows of collaboration, primarily for research. Most of the faculty who were
interviewed in the Natural Sciences believed that their discipline had either always, or for
a long time, been global and international. Their research, in particular, was done on a
global scale. Additionally, these faculty members were often quite enthusiastic about the
professional and academic collaborations that they had with international scholars.
Second, at the institutional level, the Natural Sciences faculty were encouraging of what
they viewed as the unstructured and unregulated position of the university in regards to
internationalization efforts and encouraged more of the same within the institution.
Furthermore, a number of faculty believed that the institution should have even fewer
restrictions on the particular efforts, such as in the recruitment of international students
and faculty. Overall, faculty in the Natural Sciences appeared to possess an enthusiastic
and encouraging culture. This culture was demonstrated in the optimistic attitudes they
possessed of the globalization they saw occurring within their fields. Furthermore, these
faculty clearly supported WRU’s unrestrained internationalization efforts, while urging
even less restrictions that would impede the progress of these energies.
Most of the faculty in the Social Sciences, like their Natural Sciences colleagues,
were similarly positive and optimistic of globalization and internationalization. The

191
findings of the interviews with the Social Sciences faculty indicated two themes. First, as
academic professionals, the faculty believed that their discipline was currently adapting
to, and undergoing, many changes as a result of the evolutionary effects of globalization
and internationalization. Unlike their Natural Sciences colleagues, most of the Social
Sciences faculty did not perceive that globalization and internationalization had always
been inherent in the nature of their discipline. However, these two processes encouraged
research that occurred in a more globalized context and more collaboration with
international students and scholars. Scholarship was no longer contained to one country
or one region, but considered the effects of particular phenomena occurring across the
world. These evolving perspectives of research necessitated partnerships with individuals
and organizations in other countries. Additionally, massification created a more
internationally diverse student body, which necessitated new approaches to teaching and
the curriculum within the Social Sciences. Despite these changes, the faculty in the
Social Sciences exhibited an adapting and accepting culture towards globalization and
internationalization.
A second cultural theme within the Social Sciences concerned the faculty’s
critical reception of WRU’s practices and policies that responded to globalization and
internationalization. A majority of the faculty in this discipline were concerned or
frustrated with the university’s slow reaction to address the changes necessary to embrace
these processes. Faculty believed that delays in certain administrative processes impair
the institution’s ability to take advantage of the positive outcomes of globalization and
internationalization. The faculty who were interviewed pointed to four areas of the
university hindered by slow administrative action: the curriculum, student recruitment,

192
visiting faculty resources, and the research culture. Within the curriculum, faculty felt
that the university needed to support internationalization efforts – such as study abroad –
more fully, such as by making these types of activities a more central part of the
curriculum, and offering financial support, if necessary, for students to participate. In
student recruitment, faculty asserted that WRU needed to be more aware and proactive of
the effects of international students in the classroom, particularly in cases where
international students outnumber domestic students. Furthermore, the faculty believed
that the university was at a distinct disadvantage in supporting visiting scholars to the
campus due to a lack of accommodations both on and off campus. Finally, faculty
believed that some of the processes, particularly the tenure review process, in the
university, did not do enough to support internationalization. Ultimately, the cultural
manifestations embedded in the interviews indicated that they possessed a culture that
was critical of the institutional structures involved in promoting globalization and
internationalization.
Unlike the primarily positive attitudes in the Natural Sciences and Social
Sciences, faculty in the Humanities exhibited a culture burdened with uncertainty and
disapproval of the institution’s neglect in defining the importance of globalization and
internationalization at WRU. Thus, although faculty in the Social Sciences and
Humanities were both critical in their institutional culture, these two disciplines differed
in the areas to which they directed their criticisms: faculty in the Humanities focused on
the institutional definitions, particularly of globalization, whereas faculty in the Social
Sciences were primarily concerned with the related institutional structures. In their roles
as academic professionals, the faculty in the Humanities were concerned about what they

193
perceived as a kind of shift in the boundaries of their discipline, and how this change
affected their academic responsibilities. These shifts included challenges to dominant or
theoretical perspectives in their fields, the expansion of scholarship to consider the
movement of culture across borders and world regions, and a recent trend described in
this study as cultural-academic outsourcing. Although these developments were not
perceived as entirely negative by the Humanities faculty, some of these academic
professionals were struggling to adapt their research and teaching to accommodate this
new type of international student.
Additionally, in terms of the institutional culture, faculty in the Humanities were
troubled by what they perceived as market-driven or inadequately-defined
internationalization efforts that seemed disconnected from the academic objectives of the
university. For example, although many of the Humanities faculty had mixed
perspectives of the term globalization, a few of these professors were quite critical about
the term and were concerned about the effects of globalization on higher education in
general, and their university in particular. Overall, the findings indicated that faculty in
the Humanities had developed an uncertain and critical culture in regards to globalization
and internationalization.
Limitations of the Study
During the course of the data collection and analysis process, the researcher
encountered or identified several limitations that were not discussed earlier in this study.
These limitations include the sampling methods utilized in this study: faculty self-
selection and the particular research university chosen for this investigation. These

194
limitations, and the ways in which they may have affected the data and findings, are
discussed below.
The researcher acknowledges that the sampling methods used – snowball
sampling and purposeful random sampling – may be viewed as a limitation to this study,
as the results are not representative of the population. However, the methods used
provided the study with a multitude of information-rich cases and a body of interviews
from faculty with a wide range of attitudes towards globalization and internationalization
in higher education. Nevertheless, the researcher does acknowledge that the lack of
generalizability of the findings is a limitation in this investigation.
A second limitation of the study, inherent in the sampling method, was the
researcher’s inability to interview many of the faculty who were recommended through
the snowball sampling method. Initially, faculty who were recommended were emailed,
phoned or visited in their offices – or some combination of all three – in order to gain
their consent for the interviews. This process yielded too few faculty members who
consented to being interviewed. Additionally, faculty who were initially contacted
through emails or phone calls appeared to the researcher to be hesitant or unwilling to be
interviewed about a topic that was not related to their specific research area. For
example, a faculty member in the Social Sciences, who was recommended by a
colleague, expressed to the researcher that he felt it would not be useful to the study for
him to be interviewed. This faculty member went on to explain that the subject of the
study was not his area of specialization and recommended that the researcher speak to
his colleagues who were more familiar with the topic. With this potential faculty concern
in mind, and in order to increase the number of faculty consenting to interviews, the

195
researcher decided to change the sampling method to purposeful random sampling.
Through this method, faculty were initially contacted only by in-person visits in their
office (i.e. no emails or phone calls), which yielded a greater number of faculty who
agreed to be interviewed.
The selection of the particular university used in the study appeared to be a
limitation as well. The large, urban city in which the university is located is highly
globalized with a very diverse ethnic, national and cultural population. This diversity is
manifested in the university, as well as by the deliberate actions the WRU leadership has
taken to address the global nature of its surroundings, or internationalization efforts. The
researcher believes that most institutions in the United States, and even in the world, will
not have the same global connections that this private university has as a result of its
location. Therefore, some of the findings of this study may not be applicable to other
institutions of higher education.
Despite these limitations, however, this study provides insight into the
relationship that appears to exist between the disciplines of faculty and the perception of
faculty to globalization and internationalization. Due to the nature of disciplines and the
broader understanding of globalization and internationalization in higher education,
these findings may be applicable to faculty in other colleges and universities in the
United States. Thus, the next two sections will each provide a discussion of the
implications for practices and directions for future research.
Implications for Practice
As higher education institutions around the world undertake internationalization
efforts on their campuses to address the globalization of society, the faculty at these

196
institutions face ever more pressing demands to incorporate and attend to these efforts in
their research and teaching. Research universities, in particular, may feel the pressure of
globalization to an even greater extent than many other types of post-secondary
institutions as these universities are often most directly influenced by manifestations of
globalization such as worldwide massification, institutional rankings, and cuts in
government funding. The university in this study may also be seen as one of the most
global institutions in the United States, as they enroll the most international students of
any institution in the country, along with a very large global outreach in terms of alumni,
programs and partnerships. However, this study found that most of the faculty who were
interviewed from WRU were very often uncertain and vague in defining and discussing
the terms globalization and internationalization. As one faculty member during his
interview remarked, “So, one of the things that I’ll always wonder, you could probably
tell me better than I could tell you, is what does [WRU] mean when it says it’s a global
university? What does that mean exactly?” The leadership of this particular university,
and all higher education institutions, should be sure that its stakeholders share a common
definition of what globalization and internationalization, and their derivations, means to
the institution. The words global and globalization have been shown to have a somewhat
contentious meaning to some faculty, which should be recognized and addressed by the
institution. Furthermore, this study found that the word internationalization may not be
as familiar to many faculty, as the word globalization has become a popular topic in the
research of many disciplines. Previous research has shown that defining these terms
would be a step towards a successful and cohesive strategic effort for the university
(Childress, 2009). Without clarifying these terms, the faculty at WRU may find it

197
difficult to fully support the internationalization efforts encouraged by the university
leadership.
The growing international student body is one of the most recognizable
internationalization trends in higher education institutions in the United States. However,
if faculty are expected to successfully educate this diverse body of students, it is
incumbent upon the leadership at this institution to provide training and support for their
faculty. The findings of this study provide a jumping-off point from which these
institutions may begin to navigate the deep and extensive changes that may be required
to address the challenges and contributions of a large international student body.
In conjunction with a growing diversity within the student body, it is necessary
that the administration of an institution provide the support and guidance that faculty may
need in order to teach, train and advise these students. Institutions that fail to do this may
run the risk of hindering or, in some cases, damaging the academic experience for
students and faculty. As discussed earlier in this study, faculty, particularly in the United
States, face great challenges in educating international students. In 2011, faculty in U.S.
institutions were asked to teach nearly 723,277 international students in their classrooms
(IIE, 2011). In order to effectively educate these students, faculty must be adept at
recognizing different forms of knowledge expression and learning outcomes, having a
better understanding of international student behavior, adjusting pedagogical approaches
and course objectives to student needs, and effectively communicating with students
from different languages and cultures (Andrade, 2006; Fox, 1994; Leask, 2007).The
faculty, especially at this institution, require assistance and training in order to be able to
teach international students. These findings echo several scholars who have noted the

198
rising need for higher education institutions to provide more support and guidance to
faculty, in order to increase the success rates of educating greater numbers of
international students (Andrade, 2007; Carroll & Appleton, 2007).
The faculty interviewed for this study also noticed the rising importance of
communication in English as well as another language, in their research, teaching and in
society at large. For institutions who seek to prepare students for successful and
productive lives in a globalized world, mastery of English and a second language may be
a primary goal in the student body, or a requirement for graduation. Colleges and
universities will have to be more proactive in addressing the English language needs of
its second-language students in addition to the second language needs in its English-
speaking students.
Furthermore, in terms of the internationalization efforts of a university, the
faculty interviewed in this study feel that they play a large and contributory role in this
respect. The following Social Sciences faculty member asserted this point:
[Social Sciences faculty] We’re independent actors and more of the
process than you might think from reading the website is driven by all of
this activity. If you did a kind of aggregate map of the university’s efforts
toward globalization, the mass of these efforts among individual faculty is
probably greater than the extent of what the official [office] does.
Faculty members perceive that their combined efforts go a long way in supporting the
global objectives of the institution. Thus, the leadership of the particular research
university considered in this study, and other higher education institutions that are
looking to internationalize their campuses, might consider harnessing the combined

199
powers of the disciplines to address issues related to globalization and
internationalization. In the data analysis process, the researcher noted that faculty
frequently seemed to be having conversations between and amongst the disciplines. For
example, a faculty in the Natural Sciences might ask a question about the way things are
done in the Humanities and an interview with a Humanities professor would provide the
answer. Moreover, the faculty themselves, as indicated in the interviews, appear to be in
support of this recommendation; one faculty member in the Social Sciences, for example,
who had created interdisciplinary international programs for the College, suggested that
the university create a space for faculty to come together from all disciplines to discuss
matters such as globalization and internationalization in the university. Likewise, the
findings of this study seem to indicate that faculty are familiar with departments and
schools outside of their own disciplinary silos within the university. Indeed, many of the
faculty referenced other departments and schools – such as some of the professional
schools – as examples or points of comparison in their interviews. Among the disciplines,
faculty had many experiences in common. The findings from this study appear to support
the development of a collaborative internationalization effort between various disciplines,
department, colleges and schools of faculty.
Implications for Future Research
The focus of this study was 30 faculty members in a single college at one research
university. It would be of value for further research to consider interviewing other
faculty, from other disciplines, from different schools, research universities, at other
types of institutions. Each faculty member interviewed for this study defined
globalization and internationalization, and answered the questions in a unique way that

200
was relevant to his/her own personal experiences. Furthermore, this study did not
interview faculty in the professional schools, which would also add a different dimension
to the disciplinary culture that was considered here. Finally, this study focused on a large,
private research university, although all institutions also address globalization through
internationalization efforts. Further studies should consider other types of institutions
such as public institutions, liberal arts colleges and community colleges.
During the interview process, one concern that arose for the researcher was the
faculty’s confusion with the terms globalization and internationalization. In the interview,
faculty were initially asked what globalization and internationalization meant to them.
However, even after having defined these terms from a personal perspective, some
faculty found that they had a difficult time answering the subsequent questions. For
example, when asked if the colleagues in her department or discipline were mostly
positive or negative about globalization and internationalization, one faculty member
responded, “I think that not defining the terms makes it mean almost anything to anyone,
so I’m not sure what I’m answering.” Future research that utilizes interview protocols or
questionnaires and surveys, should consider whether or not the terms will be predefined
for subjects. However, this study sought to determine how faculty defined globalization
and internationalization. The uncertainty and confusion displayed in some of these
faculty interviews is indicative of the difficulties inherent in related institution-wide
efforts.
Similar to the ambiguous definitions of these terms, the researcher noted that
faculty appeared to be somewhat more familiar with globalization than with the term
internationalization. In fact, when asked to define globalization and internationalization,

201
six of the faculty – four in the Social Sciences and two in the Humanities – admitted that
they had taught a class on globalization. Furthermore, a number of professors mentioned
that, while globalization had become a popular topic in recent scholarship within their
discipline, internationalization was not as frequently discussed. The following answer
from a Social Sciences faculty member, illustrates this point: “I can’t say that I’ve ever
thought about the term internationalization before.” This finding is notable due to the
fact that previous studies of faculty perceptions have focused only on
internationalization, and did not look at perceptions of globalization. Along with the rise
in research on globalization, and the fall of internationalization, in multiple disciplines,
faculty perceptions of globalization should also be considered in greater depth.
In the data analysis process of this study, the researcher also noted that some of
the primary findings were considerably different from the results of previous similar
studies. In the current study, it was found that faculty in the Humanities appeared to have
the most critical and negative perceptions of globalization and internationalization, while
faculty in the Natural Sciences were found to have the most positive perceptions.
However, the Schwietz (2006) study, mentioned in the literature review of this study,
found that faculty in the Humanities often had much more positive attitudes and beliefs
towards internationalization, whereas faculty in the Life Sciences, and Physical and
Mathematical Sciences – similar to the Natural Sciences – had the least positive attitudes
towards internationalization. Similarly, in the Fields (2010) study, faculty were surveyed
to determine their attitudes and beliefs regarding internationalization in their professional
responsibilities. Like the Schwietz (2006) study, faculty in the Humanities had the
strongest attitudes and beliefs that favored internationalization, whereas faculty within

202
the Life Sciences, and Physical and Mathematical Sciences tended to have less strong
attitudes and beliefs that favored internationalization. Similarly, Fields (2010) found a
significant correlation between faculty disciplines and their perceptions of on-campus
internationalization efforts. Once again, faculty in the Humanities were most likely to
have positive perceptions of on-campus internationalization, while the Life Sciences, and
Physical and Mathematical Sciences faculty were the least likely to have positive
perceptions. These contrasting findings between the current study and previous studies
may be a result of the differing perceptions of the terms globalization and
internationalization amongst the faculty disciplines. Furthermore, these findings could
indicate a lack of understanding and consensus amongst the faculty regarding what
globalization and internationalization mean for higher education and their own
institutions. Future studies should further investigate these findings and their
implications.
Finally, faculty in this study noticed that, though the practices and policies of
WRU were evolving to address globalization and internationalization, the institution and
the disciplines were not addressing and evolving fast enough. One such concern was the
preponderance of Western-centric perspectives that were still prevalent in the
university’s, as well as the discipline’s, policies and practices. These included the
Western-centric focus in the tenure review processes. Future research should consider
these faculty concerns, in an attempt to understand the dynamics behind the incorporation
of a more international perspective in the policies and practices of higher education.

203
Conclusion
This study sought to define faculty perspectives of globalization and
internationalization, and to determine if, and in what ways, faculty perspectives of these
two processes differed by discipline. This study found that, though faculty did define
globalization and internationalization with some similarities, there was no cohesive
understanding of these two terms amongst the faculty. This may be particularly
problematic for institutions seeking to incorporate internationalization throughout the
academic experience. Moreover, utilizing Umbach’s (2007) model of faculty culture, this
study found that faculty, in general, had developed a culture in regards to globalization
and internationalization. Additionally, this study did find distinct differences between the
three broad disciplines in faculty perceptions of, as well as cultures regarding,
globalization and internationalization. The research presented here demonstrates the need
for institutional leadership to clearly define globalization and internationalization and to
communicate these terms and related goals to the faculty. Furthermore, this study
demonstrates the considerable differences that exist between faculty of different
disciplines in their understanding of these phenomena. The results of this study may
assist institutions in understanding the various impacts of globalization and
internationalization amongst the disciplines.

204
REFERENCES
Abes, E.S., Jackson, G. & Jones, S.R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use
of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 1-
11.
Aigner, J.S., Nelson, P. & Stimpfl, J.R. (1992). Internationalizing the University: Making
It Work. Springfield: CBIS Federal.
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing
institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education.
71(4), 411-431.
Altbach, P.G. (2001). The American academic model in comparative perspective. In
Altbach, P.G., Gumport, P. & Johnston, D.B. (Eds.), In Defense of American
Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Altbach, P.G. (2001). Higher education and the WTO: Globalization run amok.
International Higher Education. 23, 2-4.
Altbach, P.G. (2004). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. Academe. 90(1),
20-23.
Altbach, P.G. (2005). Academic challenges: The American professoriate in comparative
perspective. In Welch, A. (Ed.). The Professoriate: Portrait of a Profession.
Dordrecht: Springer. 147-165.
Altbach, P.G. (2006). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In
Forest, J.J.F. & Altbach, P.G. (Eds.). International Handbook of Higher
Education. 1. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Altbach, P.G. (2007). Peripheries and centers: Research universities in developing
countries. Higher Education Management Policy. 19(2), 111-134.
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.
Altbach, P.G. & Lewis, L.S. (1996). The academic profession in international
perspective. In Altbach, P.G. (Ed.). The International Academic Profession:
Portraits of Fourteen Countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education:
Tracking an Academic Revolution. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009
World Conference on Higher Education. Paris, France: UNESCO.

205
American Council on Education. (1995). Educating Americans For A World In Flux: Ten
Ground Rules For Internationalizing Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education.
Amey, M.J. (1999). Faculty culture and college life: Reshaping incentives toward student
outcomes. New Directions for Higher Education, 105, 59-69.
Andrade, M.S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities:
Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(131), 131-
154.
Antonio, A.L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions to
scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 582-602.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press.
Armstrong, Lloyd. (2007). Competing in the Global Higher Education Marketplace:
Outsourcing, Twinning and Franchising. New Directions for Higher Education,
140, 131-138.
Austin, A.E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional
Research. 68, 61-74.
Barnes, L.L.B., Bull, K.S., Campbell, N.J. & Perry, K.M. (2001). Effects of academic
discipline and teaching goals in predicting grading beliefs among undergraduate
teaching faculty. Research in Higher Education, 42(4), 455-467.
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher
Education, 6(2), 109-122.
Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In Clark, B.R. (Ed.), The
Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry
and the Cultures of Discipline (2
nd
edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Beerkens, E. (2004). Global opportunities and institutional embeddedness: Higher
education consortia in Europe and Southeast Asia. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit
Twente (The Netherlands), Netherlands. Retrieved March 12, 2011, from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT C821595).
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.

206
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure
and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 204-
213.
Bolton, C.D., & Kammeyer, K.C.W. (1972). Campus cultures, role orientations, and
social types. In Feldman, K.A. (Ed.), College and Student: Selected Readings in
the Social Psychology of Higher Education. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Burnett, S., & Huisman, J. (2010). Universities' responses to globalisation: The influence
of organizational culture. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(2),
117-142.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n.d.). Classification
Description. Retrieved from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). Distribution of
institutions and enrollments by classification category. [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/summary/basic.php.
Carnoy, M. & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalization mean for educational change?
A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review. 46(1), 1-9.
Carroll, J. & Appleton, J. (2007). Support and guidance for learning from an international
perspective. Internationalising Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Chambers, E. (2000). Applied ethnography. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.)
Handbook of Qualitative Research, (2
nd
ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chan, W.Y. (2004). International cooperation in higher education: Theory and practice.
Journal of studies in international education, 8(1), 32-55.
Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university.
The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125-147.
Childress, L.K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309.
Chua, A. (2004). World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic
Hatred and Global Instability. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Clark, B.R. (1962). Faculty culture. In Lunsford, T.F. (ed.), The Study of Campus
Cultures. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Clark, B.R. (1972). The Organization Saga in Higher Education. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 17(2), 178-184.

207
Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-
National Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (1985). Listening to the professoriate. Change, 17(5), 36-43.
Clark, B.R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton, NJ:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Committee for Economic Development. (2006). Education for Global Leadership: The
Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S.
Economic and National Security. Washington, DC: Author.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, (3
rd
ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Dale, R. & Robertson, S.L. (2002). The varying effects of regional organizations as
subjects of globalization of education. Comparative Education Review, 46(1),
10-36.
Davis, T. (2003). Atlas of Student Mobility. New York: Institute of International
Education.
DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J.H., Kelly, K.R., Santos, J.L. & Korn, W.S. (2009).
The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2007-2008 HERI Faculty
Survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and
entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important?
Comparative Education, 37(1), 7-20.
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.
Denman, B. (2000). Globalisation and its impact on international university cooperation.
Paper presented at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
– Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education Conference,
Paris.
Dill, D. & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-
national analysis of university rankings. Higher Education. 49, 495-533.
Douglass, J.A. (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their
influence on higher education markets. Higher Education Policy. 18, 445-473.
Ehrenberg, R.G. & Zhang, L. (2004). The changing nature of faculty employment.
Cornell Higher Education Research Institute Working Paper No. 44, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.

208
Enders, J. (2004). High education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: Recent
developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education. 47, 361-
382.
Ellingboe, B.J. (1998). Division strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results,
resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a U.S. university. In
Mestenhauser, J.A. & Ellingboe, B.J. (Eds.), Reforming the Higher Education
Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on
Higher Education and Oryx Press.
Finegan, J. & Theriault, C. (1997). The relationship between personal values and the
perception of the corporation’s code of ethics. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 27(8), 708-724.
Forest, J.J. (2002). I Prefer to Teach: An International Comparison of Faculty Preference
for Teaching Over Research. New York: Routledge-Falmer.
Fox. H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Frost, S.H. & Jean, P.M. (2000). Making more of faculty culture: An experiment in
building intellectual community. Tertiary Education and Management, 6, 227-
243.
Glanzel, W. & De Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality
measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54, 75-89.
Green, M.F. (2005). Measuring Internationalization at Research Universities.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Green, M.F., Luu, D. & Burris, B. (2008). Mapping Internationalization on U.S.
Campuses: 2008 Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Green, M.F. & Shoenberg, R. (2006). Where Faculty Live: Internationalizing the
Disciplines. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Guellec, D. & Cervantes, M. (2002). International mobility of highly skilled workers:
From statistical analysis to policy formulation. International Mobility of the
Highly Skilled. Paris: OECD.
Gumport, P.G. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional
imperatives. Higher Education. 39(1), 67-91.
Haas, J.E. (1996). The American academic profession. In Altbach, P.G. (Ed.), The
International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries. San
Francisco, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

209
Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher
education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy. 19(2), 87-
110.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformation.
Stanford: Stanford U Press.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global
marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing.
International Journal of Public Sector Management. 19(4), 316-338.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohyav, D.D. & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316.
Holland, J.L. (1966). The Psychology of Vocational Choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Holland, J.L. (1973). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities
and Work Environments. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J.L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J.L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities
and Work Environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Horn, A.S., Hendel, D.D. & 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.
Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action.
Washington, D.C.: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
Huisman, J. & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled
water? Higher Education. 48, 529-551.
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the
classroom environment and student development. In Orfield, G. and Kurlaender,
M. (Eds.) Diversity Challenges: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Institute of International Education. (2007). Open Doors 2007. New York: Author.
Institute of International Education. (2011). International Student Enrollment Trends,
1949/50- 2010/11. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
Retrieved from http://www.iie.org.opendoors.

210
Ishikawa, M. (2009). University Rankings, Global Models, and Emerging Hegemony:
Critical Analysis from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(2), 159-173.
Johnsrud, L.K. & Sadao, K.C. (1998). The common experience of “Otherness:” Ethnic
and racial minority faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 315-342.
Johnstone, D.B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education:
comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23, 403-410.
Katz, S. & Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1),
1-18.
Keller, G. (2001). Governance: The remarkable ambiguity. In Altbach, P.G., Gumport, P.
& Johnston, D.B. (Eds.), In Defense of American Higher Education. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kezar, A.J. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between
higher education and society. The Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 429-459.
Knight, J. (1993). Internationalization: Management strategies and issues. International
Education Magazine. 9, 6.
Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. Canadian Bureau for
International Education. 7, 1-16.
Knight, J. (1999). Issues and trends in internationalization: A comparative perspective. In
Bond, S. & Lemasson, J.P. (Eds.), A New World of Knowledge: Canadian
Universities and Globalization. Ottawa, CA: International Development Research
Centre.
Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher
Education. 33, 2-3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales,
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.
Knight, J. (2004). Quality assurance and recognition of qualifications in post-secondary
education in Canada. In Centere for Education Research and Innovation and
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (Eds.), Quality and
Recognition in Higher Education: The Cross-Border Challenge. Paris, France:
OCED.
Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges.
International Handbook of Higher Education. 18(1), 207-227.

211
Kritz, M.M. (June, 2006). Globalisation and internationalisation of tertiary education.
International Symposium on International Migration and Development. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell U.
Kyvik, S. & Larsen, I.M. (1997). The exchange of knowledge. A small country in the
international research community. Science Communication, 18(3), 238-264.
Kose, M. A., Prasad, E.S. & Terrones, M.E. (2003). How does globalization affect the
synchronization of business cycles? The American Economic Review. 93(2), 57-
62.
Kuh, G.D. & Whitt, E.J. (1988). The Invisible Tapestry. Culture in American Colleges
and Universities. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Laudel, G. (2005). Migration currents among the scientific elite. Minerva, 43, 377-395.
LeCompte, M.D. & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Designing and Conducting Ethnographic
Research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Leask, B. (2007). International teachers and learning. Internationalising Higher
Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leask, B. (2008). Internationalisation, globalisation, and curriculum innovation.
Researching International Pedagogies, volume (?), 9-25.
Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between
home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(2), 205-221.
Lee, J.J., Cheslock, J., Maldonado-Maldonado, A. & Rhoades G. (2005). Professors as
knowledge workers in the new, global economy. In Smart, J.C. (Ed.), Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. XX. Great Britain: Springer.
Levin, J.S. (1999). Mission and structures: Bringing clarity to perceptions about
globalization and higher education in Canada. Higher Education, 37, 377-399.
Lindquist, J. (1978). Strategies for Change. Washington, DC: Council for Independent
Colleges.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education.
Higher Education, 52, 1-39.
Marginson, S. & Ordorika, I. (2007). El central volumen de la fuerza (The hegemonic
global pattern in the reorganization of elite higher education and research). In
Calhour, C.J. & Rhoten, D. (Eds.), The Transformation of “Public” Research
Universities: Shaping an International and Interdisciplinary Research Agenda for
the Social Sciences. New York: Social Science Research Council Press.

212
Marginson, S. & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of
higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education. 43, 281-309.
Marginson, S. & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the
individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31-40.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education
(revised and expanded edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, (2
nd
ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition: The
emerging global model. Higher Education Policy. 21(5-27).
Mok, K.H. (2000). Impact of Globalization: A study of quality assurance systems of
higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparative Education Review.
44(2), 148 174.
Mok, K. H. (2003). Similar trends, diverse agendas: higher education reforms in East Asia.
Globalization, Societies & Education, 1(1), 201-221.
Murphy, M. (2007). Experiences in the internationalization of education: Strategies to
Promote Equality of Opportunity at Monterrey Tech. Higher Education. 53(2), 167-
208.
Naidoo, R. (2003). Repositioning higher education as a global commodity: opportunities
and challenges for future sociology of education work. British Journal of
Sociology of Education. 24(2), 249-259.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (2004, October). A
Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in Internationalizing the University.
Washington, DC: NASULGC.
Odin, J. (2004). New technologies and the reconstitution of the university. In Odin, J. &
Manicas, P. (Eds.), Globalization and Higher Education. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i.
Olson, C.L., Green, M.F. & Hill, B.A. (2005). Building a Strategic Framework for
Comprehensive Internationalization. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2
nd
edition).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

213
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, M.W., & Spencer, M.G. (1990). Assessing climates and cultures. In Tierney,
W.G. (ed.), Understanding Academic Climate and Culture and Climate, 68, San
Francisco, CA.
Rice, R.E. (1986). The academic profession in transition: Toward a new social fiction.
Teaching Sociology, 14, 12-23.
Rice, R.E. (1996). Making a place for the new American scholar. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual
framework Policy Futures in Education. 1(2), 248-269.
Sadlak, J. (1998). Globalization and concurrent challenges for higher education. In Scott,
P. (Ed.), The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE, Open
University Press.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, (2
nd
ed.), San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwietz, M.S. (2006). Internationalization of the Academic Profession: An Exploratory
Study of Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs and Involvement at Public Universities in
Pennsylvania. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21st century.
Journal of Studies in International Education. 4(3), 5-10.
Siaya, L. & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the
Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Smeby, J. & Trondal, J. (2003). Globalisation or Europeanisation? International contact
among university staff. Working paper. Kristiansand, Norway: Agder University
College.
Smith, C. W. (2004). Globalization, higher education, and markets. In Odin, J. &
Manicas, P. (Eds.), Globalization and Higher Education. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i.
Smith, D.G. (1989). The Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Alienation in the
Academy. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.

214
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the
internationalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 11(3/4), 359-372.
Stromquist, N.P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts
in university environments. Higher Education. 53, 81-105.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education.
Higher Education, 48, 5-26.
Tierney, W.G. (1999). Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High Performance
Colleges and Universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tierney, W. & Rhoads, R. (1993). Enhancing Promotion, Tenure, and Beyond: Faculty
Socialization as a Cultural Process. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
6,Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Toma, J.D. (1997) Alternative inquiry paradigms, faculty cultures, and the definition of
academic lives. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 679-705.
Trow, M. (2001). From mass higher education to universal access: The American
advantage. In Altbach, P.G., Gumport, P. & Johnston, D.B. (Eds.), In Defense of
American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Umbach, P.D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In Perry, R.P. & Smart, J.C.
(Eds.), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An
Evidence-Based Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Umbach, P.D. and Wawrzynski, M.R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college
faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2),
153-184.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Global
Education Digest 2009: Comparing Education Statistics Across the World.
Quebec, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Urry, J. (1998). Contemporary transformation of time and space. In P. Scott (Ed.), The
Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press and
Society for Research into Higher Education.
van der Wende, M.C. (2004). Introduction. In Huisman, J. & van der Wende, M. C.
(Eds.), On Cooperation and Competition: National and European Policies for the
Internationalisation of Higher Education. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens.

215
van der Wende, M. (2008). Rankings and classifications in higher education: A European
perspective. In Smart, J.C. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research, 23, 49-71.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in academic research? Trends and futures
scenarios. Draft paper. Paris: OECD.
Wagner, C.S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science.
Scientometrics, 62(1), 3-26.
Wagner, P. (2004). Higher education in an era of globalization: What is at stake? In
Odin, J. & Manicas, P. (Eds.), Globalization and Higher Education. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawai’i.
Ward, D. (2007). Academic Values, Institutional Management and Public Policies.
Higher Education Management and Policy. 19(2), 9-20.
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organization as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Wildavsky, Ben. (2010). The Great Brain Race: How Universities Are Reshaping the
World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Xu, Y.J. (2008). Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted. Research in
Higher Education, 49, 40-61.
Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis.
International Review of Education. 49(3-4), 269-291.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

216
APPENDIX
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL WITH FACULTY
Research Question #1: How do faculty at a research university perceive globalization and
internationalization?
1. What do globalization and internationalization mean to you, and specifically how
are they affecting higher education, WRU, or your specific discipline and
department?
2. What is your involvement, or are you involved, in globalization or
internationalization at WRU?
3. How did you become involved with the internationalization efforts at WRU?
4. What are your feelings about WRU’s internationalization efforts?
5. Overall, would you say globalization and internationalization are positive or
negative phenomena? Why? What about your experience in particular?

Research Question #2: How do faculty members’ subcultures – particularly the
disciplinary subcultures – affect their perceptions of globalization and
internationalization, and the related efforts currently taking place at their research
university?
1. In what way would you say globalization or internationalization affects:
A. You as an academic professional specifically? Provide examples.
B. WRU’s policies and programs, and you as member of the faculty? Provide
examples.
C. Your department and your colleagues? Provide examples.
D. Your discipline, the disciplinary community, and research? Provide examples.
2. Would you say globalization and internationalization affect you most as a
member of the faculty, as a member of a research university, or as a member of
your discipline and department?
3. In your discipline or department, do you feel your colleagues are mostly positive
or negative about globalization? Internationalization? Can you provide an
example – such as an event or occurrence – of why you feel this way?

Additional Questions
1. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience with
globalization and internationalization as a faculty?
2. Do you know of any other faculty member(s) who you would recommend to be
interviewed for this study? Someone who might have a particular or interesting
perspective of globalization and internationalization?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The processes of globalization have an impact on society in numerous ways. As a result, higher education institutions around the world attempt to adjust to these changes through internationalization efforts. Amongst the key stakeholders who play an important role in assuring that these efforts are successful is the faculty because it is this body of academics and scholars who are primarily responsible for the research and teaching aspects of the university. However, very little is known about faculty perceptions of internationalization and virtually no studies have investigated faculty perceptions of globalization. Furthermore, the cultures of faculty, specifically one of the most influential cultures – the disciplinary culture – could potentially have a significant impact on their perceptions. This study set out to investigate how faculty perceived globalization and internationalization, the faculty cultures that might be indicated by these perceptions, and whether or not these perceptions and cultures varied between the faculty disciplines. In this study, thirty full-time faculty at a research university were interviewed. All participants were selected based on their faculty position in one of three broad disciplinary groups: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. In implementing a qualitative methods approach, this study utilized an open-ended interviewing method. In the data analysis, Umbach’s (2007) model of faculty culture was employed as the theoretical framework. This study found that faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization do vary substantially amongst the disciplines, and, although faculty do define these processes in a variety of contexts, faculty tend to understand globalization and internationalization through particular practices and policies within the higher education landscape. Due to the considerable differences in faculty perceptions and cultures, the researcher recommends that institutions of higher education take into account the cultural differences that may have an impact on faculty perceptions of globalization and internationalization, and that the contexts revealed by the faculty in this study – as ways in which they perceive these processes – can be utilized by institutions who seek to implement cohesive and successful internationalization efforts that address globalization.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Cross-cultural training of expatriate faculty teaching in international branch campuses

PDF

Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The work identity of full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty at a four year research university

PDF

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

PDF

Internationalization of higher education: a case study of three Korean private universities

PDF

Third culture kids and college support: a case study

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

Achieving faculty diversity at University of California medical schools while maintaining compliance with proposition 209

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Hirano, Alison Izawa (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/21/2012

Defense Date 07/18/2012

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

Tag culture,disciplinary culture,faculty,Globalization,internationalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,perception,research university

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robison, Mark Power (committee chair), Diamond, Michael A. (committee member), Dowd, Alicia (committee member)

Creator Email ahirano@usc.edu,alisonizawa@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-99042

Unique identifier UC11289193

Identifier usctheses-c3-99042 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HiranoAlis-1209.pdf

Dmrecord 99042

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hirano, Alison Izawa

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