Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution
(USC Thesis Other)
The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION IN
ENHANCING GLOBAL PRESENCE OF AN INSTITUTION
by
Fiona Ka Wa Ao
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 Fiona Ka Wa Ao
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables iv
Abstract v
Chapter One: Overview of The Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 8
Overview of the Framework 9
Definitions 12
Organization of the Study 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review 13
Defining Globalization and Internationalization 13
Globalization in Higher Education 15
Economic Rationales 16
Labor Market 18
Accountability System 18
Globalization Strategies 19
International Research Collaboration 21
Defining international research collaboration 22
The patterns of collaboration 23
Motives for collaboration 25
Framework 28
The Push Forces 29
The Pull Forces 30
The Mediating Forces 31
Conclusion 34
iii
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology 36
Problem and Purposes Overview 36
Research Questions 37
Research Design 37
Population and Sample. 39
Instrumentation 40
Interview protocol for administration 40
Interview protocol for SCGH faculty 42
Interview protocol for non-SCGH faculty 44
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 47
Credibility and Validity 48
Limitations 49
Delimitations 49
Chapter Four: Findings 51
Overview of the School of Community and Global Health (SCGH) 52
The Research Questions 53
Pull Forces 55
Academic advances 55
Economic gain 56
Prestige gain 57
Sub-Question A 77
Push forces 77
Sub-Question B 85
Pull forces 85
Sub-Question C 94
Mediating forces 94
Conclusion 105
Chapter 5: Discussion 108
Synthesizing the Results 108
Addressing the Overarching Question 110
Academic advances 110
Economic gain 111
Prestige gain 112
Sub-Question A: Size and Internationalization 113
Sub-Question B: Reputation Enhancement for the Institution 114
Sub-Question C: Creating Global Connection in the Institution 115
Implications 116
Usefulness of Framework 119
Limitations 120
Delimitations 121
Future Research 121
References 126
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: External funding 2008-2011, CGU Office of Research and
Sponsored Programs, Sponsored Program Awards
65
Table 2: External funding 2008-2011 by departments, CGU Office of
Research and Sponsored Programs
66
v
Abstract
In recent decades, higher education institutions have steadily increased their
international involvement in response to globalization. High-level research is generally a
key component in efforts to increase international visibility (Armstrong, 2007).
International research collaborations are perceived to be an important way to enhance
global presence. However, little is known about what role such research collaboration
plays in enhancing global presence. The goal of this study was to examine international
research collaboration at Claremont Graduate University (CGU) and determine the extent
to which this collaboration contributes to creating greater global presence in the
institution. Utilizing a case study of CGU’s School of Community and Global Health
(SCGH), this study sought to understand how international research collaboration
contributes to the globalization of an institution as a whole. ) The methodology included
interviews with administrators, SCGH faculty and non-SCGH faculty. Data were
analyzed through the lens Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework of internationalization.
The findings indicated that administrators and faculty perceived international research
collaboration to serve as a catalyst in enhancing the global presence of CGU through
facilitating academic advances, economic gain and prestige gain.
1
Chapter One:
Overview of The Study
In recent decades, higher education has been increasing its international
involvement in response to the economic, political, and societal forces of globalization.
US colleges and universities pursue international initiatives and partnerships based on
various motives. Some aim to make profits, and others seek to enhance research and
knowledge capacity and to increase cultural understanding (Altbach, 2007). According to
Armstrong (2007), the greatest challenge that individual institutions face in creating a
strategy for globalization is understanding why they want to globalize. Institutions must
have a clear understanding of their mission and how it relates to their global initiatives.
Partnerships with governments or prestigious foreign institutions are instrumental. High-
level research is generally a key component of the partnership or branch campus that is
focused on increased international visibility (Armstrong, 2007).
This study examined how international research collaboration functions as an
internationalization strategy by conducting interviews with leaders and faculty at
Claremont Graduate University (CGU). CGU established its School of Community and
Global Health (SCGH) in 2008. SCGH brought in a research team that involved in
various international research projects. This case study is appropriate since CGU did not
have this scale of international research collaboration before SCGH was founded. The
perspectives of leaders and faculty from both SCGH and other schools provide
understanding of the effects of this research collaboration. This study addressed how
international research collaboration enhances global presence for an institution and
factors that may determine if this approach would work within other institutional types.
2
Background of the Problem
In the business world, globalization often refers to the process through which
optimal production and distribution is enabled by information technology and decreasing
national trade boundaries. This phenomenon allows parts of the product cycle to be
carried out in different locations using the best providers globally and fundamentally
changed much of industry around the world (Palmisano, 2006). For example, new
markets were opened, ownership of domestic corporations was dispersed globally, and
how most businesses are structured changed radically. In response to the economic,
political, and societal forces of globalization, internationalization activities in higher
education have been on the rise. US colleges and universities pursuing international
initiatives and partnerships have various motives. Some aim to make profits, and others
seek to enhance research and knowledge capacity and to increase cultural understanding
(Altbach, 2007). Armstrong (2007) suggested that some institutions engage in
international activities to increase skills that students at the home institution need in order
to cope with increasing globalization. The most typical international activities include
sending students abroad for foreign study, recruiting international students to the home
campus, and encouraging international faculty exchanges. In addition, global twinning
arrangements can be effective in significantly increasing the number of international
students coming to the home campus. There are also branch campuses or programs that
recreate the home program overseas. Generating new income is another reason for many
globalization efforts, including recruitment of international students to home campuses,
and the newer approach of partnership relationships with institutions in other countries
like franchising and the establishing of overseas branch campuses and programs. These
3
partnerships, branch campuses and programs recruit international students who cannot or
will not come to the home campus to study (Armstrong, 2007).
Economic rationales also include the desire to prepare students for domestic and
international careers, generate income for the institution, and contribute to economic
development and competitiveness (e.g., Goodwin & Nacht, 1988; Green, 2003). Political
rationales, particularly post-September 11, emphasize the need to equip students with an
awareness of world cultures and skills necessary to address national security and foreign
policy concerns (Government Accountability Office, 2007). Academic rationales aim to
strengthen liberal education by providing opportunities for students to gain a
knowledgeable and a diversified worldview, to comprehend international dimensions of
their major fields of study, and to develop global, critical thinking skills (e.g., Lim, 2003;
Reichard, 1983). Finally, sociocultural rationales highlight the need to develop students’
intercultural communication skills, which are necessary to address the increasing cultural
and ethnic diversity within and between countries (Deardorff, 2006; National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 2004). Economic, political, academic, and
sociocultural reasons motivate higher education leaders to internationalize their
institutions. An understanding of these rationales is important for this study because it
lays the foundation for the reasons that institutions may develop internationalization
plans (Childress, 2009). Surprisingly, Childress (2009) studied the internationalization
plans of 194 Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA)-member
institutions and found that approximately 30% of the institutions did not have a written
internationalization plan. This does not stop institutions from adopting various types of
activities such as increasing international students’ enrollment as their
4
internationalization strategies. This unsystematic approach puts institutions at greater
risks and may not necessarily help them achieve desirable outcomes (Childress, 2009).
Increased international visibility is also a driver for many transnational activities.
One such area is university research. At the more familiar end of the spectrum, many
researchers seek to optimize problem solving by outsourcing some component of a
problem to a colleague with complementary expertise. At the other end of the spectrum
are large-scale research efforts in disciplines such as high-energy physics that may
involve thousands of researchers working in many relatively small groups on precisely
defined modules that will ultimately be brought together, typically at one site, to perform
an exceedingly complex experiment. At this end of the spectrum, governments are often
involved, faculty are absent from campus for long periods, and graduate students and
post doctorates may almost never be on their home campus. This latter kind of research
globalization has already made some rather dramatic changes in certain important aspects
of the research university (Armstrong, 2007).
According to Geiger (2004), academic research has expanded far more than
enrollment or faculty in this era. Among public universities, financial health was
associated with expansion of core research, but, at private universities, affluence was not
necessarily used to expand research. At the turn of the century, universities made
advancing their research mission a larger priority. The key factor that bolstered
academics was linked to economic development. University research played a role in
enhancing research in industry (Geiger, 2004). Besides large research universities that are
advancing their academic research through international collaboration, small research
universities have also recently engaged in international research collaboration. For
5
example, Claremont Graduate University established the School of Community and
Global Health in 2008.
Founded in 1925, Claremont Graduate University is one of America’s few
graduate-only research-extensive universities. Its nine graduate schools provide Ph.D.
and master’s degrees to about 2200 students in 23 subjects. Like other graduate
institutions, Claremont Graduate University educates scholars, experts, and leaders and
creates new knowledge through research. However, as a small liberal arts college, CGU
is free from many of the constraints faced by large research universities and can take
distinctive approaches in research. Their graduate-only education takes place through
small classes and seminars and close scholarly relationships between students and
faculty. Their research aspires to advance knowledge and also to do something more: to
convene leaders and scholars to tackle the most important problems facing our region and
our world. They define their research agenda, carry out research, and consider its
implications with diverse partners from government, business, and civil society (About
CGU, 2011).
Although CGU is a highly research-focused university, its research projects were
mostly domestic until the establishment of the School of Community and Global Health
(SCGH) in 2008. This new school seeks to create a new vision of how society
conceptualizes and promotes health that extends far beyond the scope of traditional
programs and paradigms. Through transdisciplinary collaboration, pursuit of this vision
occurs across Claremont Graduate University’s School of Community Health and eight
other schools. The ultimate goal is to create a fertile environment to convene the top
minds and diverse leaders from the sciences, public health, government, business, civil
6
society, and the community to engage in creative problem-solving dialogues leading to
new innovations in health, well-being, and quality of life for individuals, families, and
communities here and abroad (About SCGH, 2011). Researchers in SCGH brought with
them ongoing research projects, grant funding and existing global connections with
overseas universities, public and private sectors.
One of the largest international research projects of SCGH includes the China
Seven City Studies (CSCS). It is a longitudinal investigation of substance use and
lifestyles in seven of China’s most populated urban areas: Harbin and Shenyang in the
northwest, Wuhan in central China, Chengdu and Kunming in the southwest, and
Hangzhou and Qingdao in the coast regions. CSCS research identifies and assesses
specific influences on tobacco use, alcohol use and other related health behaviors. A
secondary purpose of the CSCS is to provide training in research methodology,
application, and infrastructure development to Chinese public health professionals
interested in tobacco and alcohol control research. Other international research studies
include Pacific Rim Global Health Framework, Parenting to Prevent Problem Behaviors
in Filipinos, Study of Tobacco Use Among Young Adult South Asians (SSAYA), and
Weaving an Islander Network for Cancer Awareness Research and Training (SCGH
Research, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
International research collaboration is perceived as one of the ways to enhance
global presence. As a result, funding and resources are increasingly invested in
establishing international research collaboration. However, little was known about what
role such research collaboration plays in enhancing global presence, the mechanism
7
behind how research collaboration enhances global presence, and about what
circumstances and conditions cause research collaboration to work. Without a
comprehensive understanding of research collaboration as a global initiative and part of
the internationalization plan, it is difficult for institutions to carry out their
internationalization plans.
Scholarship focused on international research collaboration is very limited and
dated. Most existing literature addresses the forms of international research collaboration,
the patterns of research collaboration, and the benefits of collaboration to the researchers
but rarely the benefits of collaboration to the institution. Without fully understanding the
role of international research collaboration, leaders in higher education may not be able
to make informed decisions when allocating resources for internationalization activities.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this study was to examine international research collaboration at CGU
and determine the extent to which this collaboration contributes to creating greater global
presence in the institution. The study sought to understand how international research
collaboration contributes to globalization enhancement of an institution as a whole. This
study identified important factors that institutions should consider before implementing
such collaboration. The School of Community and Global Health at Claremont Graduate
University (CGU) served as a case study. The fact that CGU is a small research
university makes it an ideal site for present study since there is no other international
research collaboration on this scale at CGU currently nor was there before SCGH was
established. Thus, the effects on the institution can be attributed to this specific
8
internationalization strategy. Qualitative interviews with leaders and faculty at CGU were
utilized as the primary data collection method for this study.
Research Questions
The Overarching Research Question
1. Based on the perceptions of institutional leaders, what role does
international research collaboration play in enhancing the global presence
of a university?
Sub-question:
A. How does the size of CGU as an institution affect its
internationalization strategies?
B. To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international research
to enhance reputation for their institution?
C. To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international research
to create global connection in the institution?
Significance of the Study
According to Armstrong (2007), the greatest challenge that individual institutions
face in creating a strategy for globalization is in understanding why they want to
globalize. This study sought to help university administrators understand the mechanism
of how international research collaboration enhances global presence for an institution. It
also outlined the benefits of such collaboration to the institution as a whole. Thus,
institutions considering establishing international research collaboration can refer to this
case study as a model and gain insight as to how such collaboration works and to
understand what circumstances and the type of benefits that an institution will be gaining.
9
Data revealed information on processes, perceived benefits, and rationales of utilizing
international research collaboration as an internationalization strategy. This information
is valuable for researchers and administrators considering employing such strategies.
Findings from the present study can serve as a model or roadmap to guide them in
developing appropriate internationalization plans for their respective institutions.
Results of the present study may provide valuable implications for both
researchers and administrators. For higher education researchers, understanding the role
that international research collaboration plays based on the perceptions of institutional
leaders fills an important gap in the current literature since most research focuses on the
benefits of international research collaboration to the research scientists and rarely
examines the effects to the institution as a whole. The qualitative interviews provide rich
context and insights on what kind of organizational changes and benefits international
research collaboration bring to the institution. In addition, administrators may benefit
from the important lessons learned from a case that has implemented such research
collaboration as one internationalization strategy. Administrators may not only gain
insights from the actual experience but may also get a better assessment of the feasibility,
benefits and risks associated with participating in international research collaboration.
Overview of the Framework
Etemad (2004) proposed an integrative framework that analyzes how small to
medium-size enterprises (SMEs) apply unique internationalization strategies to stay
competitive in the global market through three theoretical constructs, which are the Push
forces, the Pull forces and the Mediating forces. The Push forces refer to a set of internal
forces that exert pressure on the firm from the inside to internationalize and push the
10
firm’s strategy along the internationalization process. The entrepreneurial nature of the
Push forces emphasizes acknowledging opportunities, especially when the firm has
innovative products, services, and processes. Practically speaking, the push factors
function to accelerate SMEs’ internationalization process to take advantage of
international opportunities. Components of the push forces include founder/manager
characteristics, economics of operations, characteristics of competition and strategy,
economics of R&D, innovation and technological change, characteristics of high-
technology products and markets, strategic logic of international operations (Etemad,
2004).
The Pull forces consist of a set of external forces that enhance the firm’s
competitiveness or provide attractive incentives for it to internationalize. These forces
attract the firm by providing incentives or by signifying the benefits of larger and richer
international markets. Components of the pull forces include liberalization of
international markets, advances in information and communication and transportation
technologies (ICTTs), attraction and resources of partners, and attraction of serving
current buyers’ and suppliers’ international needs (Etemad, 2004). Lastly, the Mediating
forces refer to the firm’s internal dynamics which may either accelerate or decelerate the
internationalization process. Components of the mediating forces include the industry
characteristics and drivers SME’s need for financial resources, the dynamics of learning
organizations, leveraging capabilities, products, and resources, and internationalized
needs of customers and suppliers (Etemad, 2004).
This framework can be adapted for internationalization in higher education since
there are clear parallels between Claremont Graduate University (CGU) and a small-
11
medium size firm in terms of the internationalization process. As a small graduate-only
research university, CGU faces challenges similar to small firms, such as a small
domestic market (i.e., the Push force). Two components of the push force that are
applicable to CGU are founder/manager characteristics and strategic logic of
international operations. The international/global vision of the senior administrators at
CGU determines the scope, objectives and strategies of internationalization for the
institution. Like many small to medium-size enterprises (SMEs), the institution’s size is
one of CGU’s limitations. The institution’s constrained resources may force CGU to
form collaborations and partnerships in order to leverage partners’ resources and
network.
In addition, the resources of partners serve as a significant incentive for
establishing international research collaboration (i.e., the Pull forces). The components of
liberation of international markets and resources of partners fit in this category. The
China Seven Cities Study (CSCS) facilitates presence in an international market and
allows for specialization and division of labor as CGU researchers provide research
expertise and capacity building while the Center for Disease Control in China conducts
intervention and data collection. The strong relationship established with partners in
China puts the research team in a more competitive position when pursuing international
grant funding. Finally, the Mediating force, which consists of factors that may accelerate
or decelerate the process of internationalization, determines the outcome of
internationalization activities. SCGH faculty provide trainings to partners in China as part
of the collaboration and at the same time, researchers learn from local population experts
about health issues in China. CGU also has formal structures in place for faculty to share
12
expertise in their own fields and international experience. Another applicable component
is leveraging capabilities, products, and resources. SCGH faculty capitalize on their
research expertise and publication track record, both of which are lacking and very much
needed in China. In these ways, Etemad’s (2004) three major constructs are also
applicable for CGU.
Definitions
A. Globalization: the economic, social, and political forces that facilitate and
enhance world trade and collaboration.
B. Internationalization: the way institutions respond to the phenomenon of
globalization.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One includes the
introduction, background and statement of the problem, purpose of study, significance of
study, key definitions and unique research collaboration at Claremont Graduate
University. Chapter Two provides a review of research related to the impact of
globalization and internationalization on higher education and international research
collaboration. Chapter Three consists of the methodology used for data collection and
analysis. Chapter Four describes the results of the data collected and analyzed. Chapter
Five presents conclusions and recommendations.
13
Chapter Two:
Literature Review
This chapter discusses the impact of globalization on education and the utilization
of international research collaboration as a means to globalize a higher education
institution. First, the definitions of globalization and internationalization are discussed to
provide a common definition as a starting point. These terms are then examined in the
context of their applications to higher education. Then, various aspects of international
research collaboration are examined in detail—including the nature of international
collaboration, patterns of international collaboration and motives of establishing
international collaboration. Together, these serve to underscore the strengths and
weaknesses of the current conceptualizations of globalization in higher education and
suggest directions for future research and the present study.
Defining Globalization and Internationalization
Globalization has been the research interest for many scholars in the 21
st
century
since the boundaries of countries are increasingly blurry and technological innovations
make world trade and information exchange easier than ever. However, there is not a
single definition that researchers can agree on. Defining globalization and
internationalization is crucial for the understanding of the impact they have on higher
education. In this section, various perspectives on the definitions globalization and
internationalization are presented. Then, a working definition of the terms as they pertain
to this present study is discussed.
According to Scott (2000), globalization is the integration of economic, social,
and political forces in order to advance efficiency, collaboration and multinational
14
cooperation. The forces of globalization refashion economic structures and lifestyles and,
challenge the authority of the nation-state, penetrating deeply into the private world of
informal associations, communities, and families as well as into personal identities.
Wagner (2005) argued that globalization can be defined economically, culturally and
politically. These involve the development of a worldwide market, the spreading of
heterogeneous aspects of culture and the development of a worldwide homogeneous
culture, and highlighting and negatively affecting the sovereign nation state through
multinational initiatives (Wagner, 2005).
Chan (2004) defined globalization as the impact of global changes that cannot be
easily interfered with by national governments. Globalization breaks down national
borders, reduces national power, disrupts national structures, and blurs the differences
between societies. In higher education, with the advancement of information technology,
globalization transformed universities to transcend national boundaries.
In higher education, Teichler (2004) asserted that internationalization is often
discussed in relation to physical mobility, academic cooperation, academic knowledge
transfer, and international education. The term globalization tends to be used for any
supra-regional phenomenon related to higher education and/or anything on a global scale
related to higher education characterized by market and competition associated with
international competition for status and reputation as well as with commercial knowledge
transfer across borders. Hanson (2010) suggested that one of the major components of
globalization is the internationalization of education. The increasing pace and complexity
of global knowledge flows and the accelerating exchange of educational ideas, practices
and policies, are important drivers of globalization (Hanson, 2010).
15
Altbach (2007) further stated that globalization consists of the economic,
political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater
international involvement. Global capital has, for the first time, heavily invested in
knowledge industries worldwide, including higher education and advanced training. This
investment reflects the emergence of the “knowledge society,” the rise of the service
sector, and the dependence of many societies on knowledge products and highly educated
personnel for economic growth. The results of globalization include the integration of
research, the use of English as the lingua franca for scientific communication, the
growing international labor market for scholars and scientists, the growth of
communications firms and of multinational and technology publishing, and the use of
information technology (IT). IT facilitates communication; permits efficient storage,
selection, and dissemination of knowledge; and allows providers to offer academic
programs through e-learning (Altbach, 2007).
For the purposes of this dissertation, globalization is defined as the economic,
social, and political forces that facilitate and enhance world trade and collaboration.
Internationalization, in the context of higher education, is the way institutions respond to
the phenomenon of globalization. It is important to understand that globalization is
multifaceted and affects multiple sectors in society. Higher education is inevitably
affected, and, thus, internationalization strategies are put in place to cope with these
changes.
Globalization in Higher Education
Examining the impact that globalization has on higher education is crucial to
understanding why institutions choose to engage in certain types of international
16
activities in response to the force of globalization. First, in the US, financial support from
the government has either stagnated or decreased. This created a sense of urgency for
institutions to seek new sources of funding. Second, as new technologies blur the
boundaries of space and time, many new modalities in both learning and research are
made possible (Enders 2004). The effects of globalization include the financial incentive
of enrolling more international students, the increased demand for higher education and,
thus, the demand on faculty members to meet this need, and the more rigorous
accountability systems that compare themselves to the rest of the world. The force of
globalization pushed universities to actively formulate strategies to increase global
engagement. University leaders increasingly strive to internationalize their institutions
for economic, political, academic, and sociocultural rationales (de Wit, 2002; Knight,
1999).
Economic Rationales
Universities are motivated to engage in international activities as a means to
expand revenue. According to Porter and Vidovich (2000), education is increasingly
viewed as both a site and a tool of micro-economic reform to enhance competitive
advantage in the world marketplace by supplying skilled human capital to industries.
However, universities experienced government budget cuts at a time when the systems
were still expanding. Thus, there was a significant push to diversify income by increasing
nongovernmental resources from the private sector. Alternative sources include the
recruitment of overseas students paying full fees and competition for research grants.
Carnoy and Rhoten (2002) also stated that most governments experience financial
pressure to cut down public spending on education and to look for alternative sources to
17
expand their educational systems. The budget crisis motivates institutions to look beyond
the borders of their own countries and engage in international activities to bring in extra
revenues to either sustain or expand their current systems.
Douglass (2005) explored the paradigm shift in higher education markets and the
way nations and institutions deliver educational services. This shift changed recruitment
markets for students and faculty and international collaboration in higher education. First,
the rapid growth of the international market for students was driven by demand and by
institutions' market desires. In terms of demand, students study abroad to seek the quality
and credentials of programs offered by foreign universities, academic programs that are
not offered in their own countries, and a cultural experience. For the institutions, the
motivations are related to both academic and economic factors. These motivations
include increasing the quality of an institution's student pool, expanding their
international activity on academic grounds, and, more importantly, seeking new revenue
streams. This is particularly true for public institutions facing budget cuts. International
students can be charged a relatively high tuition rate to subsidize the cost of domestic
student enrollments.
The changes in funding landscape push universities to consider alternative
sources of revenues to either sustain or expand their current systems. For public
universities, increasing the enrollment of international students who are charged higher
tuition rate is a common practice to subsidize the enrollment of domestic students. Since
financial gain is one of the largest incentives for universities to engage in international
activities, this motive will also be reflected in the types of activities universities choose to
engage in.
18
Labor Market
Globalization affects the labor market in terms of workforce and hiring of faculty
members. Carnoy and Rhoten (2002) identified that globalization changes education in
terms of labor markets. In order to maintain a steady supply of skilled labor, governments
are highly motivated to attract foreign capital and talent as well as to increase the average
level of education in the labor force. Thus, higher education rises worldwide as a result of
the shifts of economic production to knowledge-intensive products and processes and
because governments implement policies that increase income inequality. As relative
income for skilled labor rises, the demand for university education increases, pushing
governments to expand higher education and, correspondingly, to increase the number of
secondary school graduates ready to attend postsecondary schools.
Hiring patterns of faculty also shifted from a largely national to an international
pool (Douglass 2005). Due to the norms of existing universities and colleges and national
restrictions focused on protecting local labor markets for domestic populations, there
have been powerful forces for limiting the hiring of non-national faculty. However,
globalization seems to change this hiring pattern. Since there is a significant growth of
higher education enrollment demand that is often facilitated by national governments, the
need for faculty members also increases dramatically to match the demand. Institutions
also perceive drawing from a larger pool of potential faculty as a benefit and, thus, are
motivated to introduce diversity in their faculty body.
Accountability System
Mok (2000) suggested that, since the1980s, universities in many countries have
shifted from elite to mass higher education. At times of economic constraint, public
19
universities experienced pressures from governments to demonstrate maximum outputs
from their allocated financial inputs. With emphasis given to results and accountability,
output-based schemes were adopted in the university sector. Porter and Vidovich (2000)
suggested that higher education places more emphasis on quality assurance due to
globalization. The accountability processes that are intended to monitor or audit
institutional processes and outcomes and funding are increasingly tied to the results. For
example, in the United Kingdom, the external assessment of teaching and learning is
done through both institutional and subject reviews and research performance is
monitored separately. According to Carnoy and Rhoten (2002), this change to the
accountability system is driven by the fact that the quality of national educational
systems is increasingly compared internationally. This placed increased emphasis on
math and science curriculum, standards, and testing and on meeting standards by
changing the way education is delivered. Testing and standards are part of a broader
effort to increase accountability by measuring knowledge production and using such
measures to assess teachers and administrators.
Globalization Strategies
According to Armstrong (2007), the greatest challenge that individual institutions
face in creating a strategy for globalization is in understanding why they want to
globalize. Institutions must have a clear understanding of their mission and how it relates
to their global initiatives. In recent decades, higher education increased its international
involvement in response to the economic, political, and societal forces of globalization.
US colleges and universities pursue international initiatives and partnerships based on
20
various motives. Some aim to make profits, and others seek to enhance research and
knowledge capacity and to increase cultural understanding (Altbach, 2007).
Armstrong (2007) suggested that some institutions engage in international
activities to increase skills that students at the home institution need in order to cope with
increasing globalization. The most typical international activities include sending
students abroad for foreign study, recruiting international students to the home campus,
and encouraging international faculty exchanges. In addition, global twinning
arrangements can be effective in significantly increasing the number of international
students coming to the home campus. There are also branch campuses or programs that
recreate the home program overseas. Generating new income is another reason for many
globalization efforts, including recruitment of international students to home campuses
and the newer approach of partnership relationships with institutions in other countries
including franchising and the establishing of overseas branch campuses and programs.
These partnerships and branch campuses and programs recruit international students who
cannot or will not come to the home campus to study. Increased international visibility is
also a driver for many transnational activities. Partnerships with governments or
prestigious foreign institutions are instrumental. High-level research is generally a key
component of the partnership or branch campus that is focused on increased international
visibility (Armstrong 2007).
Qiang (2003) stated that internationalization must be entrenched in the culture,
policy, planning and organizational process of the institution so that it can be both
successful and sustainable. Institutions engage in various types of activities in response to
globalization, such as establishing offshore schools, recruiting international students,
21
creating global citizen curriculum and expanding international research collaboration.
The author presented organizational and academic elements of internationalization
identified by researchers. Organizational elements include governance (e.g., active
involvement of faculty and staff), operations (e.g., communication systems for liaison
and coordination), and support services (e.g. support from institution-wide services
units). Academic elements covered academic programs, research and scholarly
collaboration, extra-curricular activities, and external relations and services (Qiang
2003).
The responses of institutions to globalization correspond to why they want to
globalize. Some common motives include increasing revenues, enhancing research and
knowledge capacity, increasing cultural understanding, and increasing international
visibility. Thus, institutions have to be clear about their motives and missions in order to
select appropriate international activities to fulfill their goals. For example, in order to
increase international visibility, an institution would more likely engage in research
collaboration rather than in increasing enrollment of international students.
International Research Collaboration
Scholarship focused on international research collaboration is very limited and
dated. Most existing literature addresses the forms of international research collaboration,
the patterns of research collaboration, and the benefits of collaboration to the researchers
but rarely the benefits of collaboration to the institution. Since there is no definition of
international research collaboration that researchers agree on, this section first discusses
the various definitions adopted by researchers and a working definition that will apply to
the present study. Second, the patterns of collaboration are examined to determine the
22
factors that shape international research collaboration. Lastly, the motives of
collaboration are discussed to understand what institutions may gain by establishing
international research collaboration.
Defining international research collaboration. Although many studies of
collaboration have been published, they lack a clear definition of collaboration in
research. Moreover, researchers rarely distinguish among different forms of
collaboration. Research collaboration could be defined as the working together of
researchers to achieve the common goal of producing new scientific knowledge (Katz &
Martin, 1997). However, this definition is too broad to practically identify collaborators
and collaboration activities. Katz and Martin (1997) also added that what constitutes a
collaboration varies across institutions, fields, sectors and countries and very probably
changes over time as well. Melin (1999) suggested that the forms of collaboration have to
do with the tradition and culture of the discipline, and, more specifically, with the field
that the collaborators belong to. The academic and intellectual background and its
environment play a significant role. The distance between the collaborators and
technological innovations also shape the form; exchanging drafts via e-mail is a different
way of collaboration compared to everyday contact within a team in the same lab (Melin
1999).
Due to this lack of a clear working definition of collaboration, Katz and Martin
(1997) established a few criteria to define collaborators in a research project. First, the
term “collaborators” refers to those who work together on the research project throughout
its duration, or for a large part of it, or to those who make frequent or substantial
contributions. Second, the names of collaborators or posts should appear in the original
23
research proposal. Third, collaborators should be responsible for one or more of the main
elements of the research, such as the research design, construction of research equipment,
execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data, and writing up the
results in a paper. The group of collaborators will generally exclude those who make only
an occasional or relatively minor contribution to a piece of research and those who are
not considered researchers, such as technicians and research assistants (Katz and Martin,
1997).
The patterns of collaboration. Luukkonen (1992) asserted that social factors
such as history, language, and cultural tradition seem to be important influences on the
collaborative networks among countries at the macro level. However, collaborative
patterns of individual countries seem to relate to intellectual dependence. For example,
one country might be an intellectual center while others are more or less dependent on it.
Moreover, intellectual influence may also explain the differences in the propensity of
countries to collaborate internationally. The less developed the scientific infrastructure of
a given country, the higher the tendency for international co-authorship collaboration.
Other reasons that contribute to increased collaboration include increasing specialization
of science, the fact that scientists from countries with a small scientific output have to
look for collaborative partners abroad, and the need for cost sharing. Nevertheless, there
is much variation in the rates of international co-authorship collaboration between
countries, and the relationship between the size of scientific output and the rate of
international collaboration is relatively weak. Economic reasons such as building and
maintaining expensive international installations for experimental work might largely
24
explain the high rate of international collaboration in physics and in earth and space
science (Luukkonen, 1992).
Frames and Carpenter (1979) used international institutional co-authorships as an
indicator of international research collaboration to investigate the level of international
scientific collaboration for the nine clinical scientific fields: medicine, biomedical
research, biology, chemistry, physics, earth/space science, engineering/technology,
mathematics, and psychology. The authors suggested that the degree to which
international collaboration on scientific papers occurs is related to a number of factors
closely tied to the nationality of scientists, the size of a national research effort, and to a
number of non-science factors such as geographic locale, linguistic, cultural, and political
issues which contribute to determining the collaborative patterns. Furthermore, field-to-
field variations in levels of international collaborations are very apparent. Basic
disciplines tend to have higher levels of international collaboration when compared to
applied disciplines. National scientific size is also an important factor that determines
collaborative patterns. The presence of abundant resources in large scientific
establishments attracts talent from resource-poor to resource-rich countries. Thus, high
levels of material and intellectual resources often go hand-in-hand. The size of a nation's
scientific effort will have an impact upon the degree to which scientist in the country
engage in international collaboration. Researchers in a resource-poor country tend to seek
material and intellectual resources outside their national borders and engage in
international collaboration. On the other hand, researchers in large, resource-rich
establishments are able to meet their research needs domestically, and, thus, international
collaboration happens less often (Frames & Carpenter, 1979).
25
Ponds, Van Oort and Frenken (2007) analyzed the role of geographical proximity
for collaborative research in science-based technologies between universities, companies
and governmental research institutes. The authors confirmed the hypothesis that the
collaboration between different kinds of organizations is more geographically localized
than collaboration between organizations that are similar due to institutional proximity.
These results suggest that geographical proximity is important for collaboration in
research within the Netherlands and that the importance varies among the form of
collaboration and among life sciences and physical sciences. Within the life sciences,
geographical proximity seems to be more significant for collaboration than within the
physical sciences, and geographical proximity seems to matter more for collaboration
between academic and non-academic organizations than for collaboration between
academic organizations. These findings indicate that geographical proximity is more
relevant for collaboration between organizations with different institutional backgrounds
than for collaboration between organizations with the same institutional background.
(Ponds et al., 2007)
Motives for collaboration. Through international research collaboration,
researchers are able to meet some needs that they cannot achieve otherwise. One apparent
need met is the alleviation of pressure to publish by allowing faculty to contribute a
fraction of a paper instead of the entire paper. Luukkonen (1992) pointed out that the
reasons for the high rate of institutional collaboration in medical fields and for the high
rate of international collaboration in mathematics are probably intellectual and social.
There is a need to exchange skills and data in medicine and, given the small size of
mathematics communities, a need to look for collaborative partners abroad in
26
mathematics. In medicine, the incentives to collaborate might be enhanced by the
pressure to publish in medical fields. The most obvious way to increase one's publication
count is by collaborating, through contributing a fraction of the paper to others, and
through intellectual cross-fertilization, which is enhanced through collaboration
(Luukkonen 1992).
Melin (1999) echoed by suggesting that increased visibility is one important
reason for researchers to collaborate. Collaborating with other researchers makes one
more visible and is likely to bring more recognition. Mostly, there is a feeling that there
is something to gain, whether material, intellectual or social. Possible gains are
equipment that will make new articles possible, knowledge that will increase the quality
of a present study, or a contact that may prove to be valuable in the future. Success for
the individual researcher in collaboration is due to success as a social individual and as a
scientist at the same time (Melin 1999).
International collaboration also brings prestige by attracting more citations.
Persson, Glanzel and Danell (2004) showed that citations to articles resulting from
international collaborations grew faster than those referring to domestic collaborations.
International collaboration attracts more citations compared to domestic papers. While, in
1980, internationally co-authored papers attracted approximately one citation more than
domestic papers and the mean citation rates of both types of co-publications showed an
almost perfect parallel increase, the situation completely changed in 1998. Domestic and
international papers start from almost the same level if a paper has one, two or three co-
authors, but international collaboration causes a more powerful increase if more than
three authors are involved. Unlike the correlation between number of co-authors and
27
length of reference lists, internationality has, beside the interaction found at the micro
level, apparently a large influence on citation behavior (Persson, Glanzel & Danell 2004).
In addition, international collaboration may further bring reputation to the
institution by increasing the number of publications in journals of higher impact factor
(IF). Arunachalam and Doss (1999) suggested that Israel uses collaboration with overseas
laboratories in order to overcome the problems of conducting world-class research in a
small country, such as limited resources. More than 42% of papers in the sample involve
international collaboration; half of them with laboratories in the USA and some with
Germany, France, the UK and Canada. Over 10% of papers resulted from domestic
collaboration. In general, internationally collaborated papers are published in higher
impact journals, but domestically collaborated papers more often appear in lower-impact
journals than single-institution papers. While the USA remains the most important
partner of Israel, papers co-authored with French and UK collaborators raise the IF value
of Israeli contributions more than do those co-authored with other partner countries
(Arunachalam & Doss, 1999).
International research collaboration benefits researchers in several ways. First,
through collaboration, the pressure to publish is alleviated since researchers only have to
contribute a fraction of the paper. Working with other researchers also facilitates new
ideas for future publications. Second, international research collaboration increases
visibility of the research and is likely to bring in more recognition. On the same note, and
more importantly, publications from international research collaboration attract more
citations that bring prestige for the researchers. The literature provides a solid foundation
for how international research collaboration benefits the researchers but not the
28
institution as a whole. The China Seven Cities Study at Claremont Graduate University
served as a case study to examine the role that such collaboration plays in enhancing the
global presence of the institution.
Framework
In the field of internationalization in higher education, literature that contributes
to framework development that explains the internationalization process of universities is
very limited. However, in business, there is a wealth of literature that suggests an
integrative framework of how small to medium-size enterprises (SMEs) apply unique
internationalization strategies to stay competitive in the global market. Etemad (2004)
asserted that SMEs, due to their sizes and limited resources, face much competition in
international markets and have low capacity to absorb the risk of experimentation in new
markets. Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework attempts to analyze the
internationalization process of SMEs through three theoretical constructs. These are
termed “the Pushing Forces of Internationalization” (the push factors), the “Attractive
Pulling Incentives of Internationalization” (the pull factors) and the “Mediating Forces of
Internationalization” (the mediating factors). It should also be noted that the impact of
these forces is intermediated by the firm’s assessment of a few factors: “(a) the external
environment, (b) its own competitive position, objectives, and aspirations, (c) internal
resources and capabilities in relation to the exerted influences and market requirements,
(d) the potential impact of exerted forces on a range of strategic options available to the
firm, and (e) the ease of formulation and implementation of the consequent strategies”
(p.6).
29
The Push Forces. This theoretical construct refers to a set of internal forces that
exert pressure on the firm from the inside to internationalize and push the firm’s strategy
along the internationalization process. The entrepreneurial nature of the push forces
emphasize acknowledging opportunities, especially when the firm has innovative
products, services, and processes. Practically speaking, the push factors function to
accelerate SMEs’ internationalization process to exploit international opportunities,
especially when domestic market inertia (Bloodgood, Sapienza & Almeida, 1996) may
encumber SMEs’ efforts.
Components of the push forces include founder/manager characteristics,
economics of operations, characteristics of competition and strategy, economics of R&D,
innovation and technological change, characteristics of high-technology products and
markets, strategic logic of international operations (Etemad, 2004). Founder/manager
characteristics deal with the international/global vision, international experience,
education and exposure of the firm’s leaders. This is an important internal factor because
the firm’s leadership makes decisions about the internationalization agenda. The leader’s
own international vision, experience and education influence the type of strategy the firm
is to employ, proactive or passive, and the amount of resources to be invested in the
international venture. Economics of operations target achieving economics of scale,
economics of scope, and high quality at low costs and prices. Participating in the
international market may mean that more quantity and types of products will be produced
to meet the needs and allow the firm to operate at a more efficient level. Characteristics
of competition and strategy refer to how fast and how well a firm responds to customers’
needs and competitor’s initiatives globally. It also includes the type of strategies a firm
30
utilizes to avoid or minimize competition in the local market. Economics of R&D,
innovation and technological change, suggest that high R&D costs and continuous
innovation require a large international market to make these worthwhile. Characteristics
of high-technology products and markets refer to the fact that high-technology products
have higher fixed costs and their market changes at fast pace. Thus, small firms need
larger international markets to increase sales and obtain fast and large returns. Strategic
logic of international operations suggests that a firm may be forced to access other
sources due to the limitations of the local market. International partnership may also
provide and additional resources and create a network that strengthens both parties.
The Pull Forces. This theoretical construct consists of a set of external forces that
enhance a firm’s competitiveness or provide attractive incentives for it to
internationalize. These forces attract the firm by providing incentives, or by signifying
the benefits of larger and richer international markets. This view is reinforced by the
firm’s perception that it may possess the capability of matching its supplies to the market
demands in light of its enhanced perception of abilities due to favorable contributions
from both the push and pull factors. Pull factors may also manifest in terms of providing
incentives that entice, if not enable, the firm to internationalize. They may also make the
process less expensive, easier and/or faster. Practically, they alert the internationalizing
firm to recognize an opportunity and to respond to the opportunity by, for example,
simply buying from the domestic market and then selling to the international market.
Components of the pull forces include liberalization of international markets,
advances in information and communication and transportation technologies (ICTTs),
attraction and resources of partners, and attraction of serving current buyers’ and
31
suppliers’ international needs. Liberalization of international markets facilitate exporting
and presence in international markets. It also allows specialization of labor and provides
expanded opportunities. Advances in information and communication and transportation
technologies (ICTTs) facilitate international market and network operations and reduce
cost by overriding the impact of time and distance for SMEs. Attraction and resources of
partners help SMEs counter the limitations of size, allow survival in competitive markets
and accelerate the internationalization process. The attraction of serving current buyers’
and suppliers’ international needs refers to responding to the needs of existing domestic
buyers and thus cultivate established relationship in the internationalization process
(Etemad, 2004).
The Mediating Forces. In addition to the Push and the Pull forces that interact to
exert influence on the firm’s internationalization processes, the true impact is eventually
mediated by the firm's (or its managers') perceived influence of such factors. The
influences of the above forces are intermediated by the firm's own internal dynamics,
which can either accelerate or decelerate the internationalization process. For example,
Coviello and Munro (1995) described how the mediated impact of New Zealand's small
market size (i.e., the Push forces) combined with the attraction of the larger liberalized
international markets (i.e., the Pull forces) may have interacted with managers’ openness
to internationalization (i.e., the Mediating forces), thus accelerating the pace of
internationalization of these firms.
Components of the Mediating forces include industry characteristics and drivers,
SME’s need for financial resources, the dynamics of learning organizations, leveraging
capabilities, products, and resources, and internationalized needs of customers and
32
suppliers (Etemad, 2004). Industry characteristics and drivers suggest that competition in
internationalized industries requires international presence. The level of international
presence then determines the speed of internationalization for the firm. SME’s need for
financial resources involves limited domestic market, availability of richer international
financing and integration of international financing markets. The dynamics of learning
organizations allow for learning from partners and competitors in international markets
and permit isolated experiments for broader learning worldwide. Leveraging capabilities,
products, and resources refers to how SMEs capitalize on their unique resources and
access to local national resources. Internationalized needs of customers and suppliers
describe the fact that SMEs respond to internationalization of customers as well as take
advantage of international supply chains and partner’s collaborative network.
Etemad (2004)’s internationalization framework for small to medium-size
enterprises can be adapted for internationalization in higher education. The researcher
was able to draw parallels between Claremont Graduate University (CGU) and a small-
medium size firm in terms of the internationalization process. As a small graduate-only
research university, CGU faces challenges similar to small firms, such as small domestic
market (i.e., the Push forces). In addition, the resources of partners serve as a significant
incentive for establishing international research collaboration (i.e., the Pull forces). Some
of the factors that may accelerate or decelerate the process include the unique
characteristics of higher education industry (conducting research instead of selling
products). Thus, it is clear that Etemad’s (2004) three major constructs (the Push forces,
the Pull forces and the Mediating forces) also operate in the internationalization process
33
of higher education institutions. The following section describes the specific components
of each construct that are most applicable in the case of CGU.
Components of the Push Forces applicable to CGU
1. Founder/manager characteristics: The international/global vision of the senior
administrators at CGU determines the scope, objectives and strategies of
internationalization for the institution.
2. Strategic logic of international operations: Like many small to medium-size
enterprises (SMEs), the institution’s size is one of CGU’s limitations. The
constrained resources domestically may force CGU to form collaboration and
partnership in order to leverage partners’ resources and network.
Components of the Pull Forces applicable to CGU
1. Liberalization of international markets: The China Seven Cities Study (CSCS)
facilitates presence in international market and allows for specialization and
division of labor as CGU researchers provide research expertise and capacity
building while the Center for Disease Control in China conducts intervention
and data collection.
2. Attraction and resources of partners: The strong established relationship with
partners in China put the research team in a more competitive position when
pursuing international grant funding.
Components of the Mediating Forces applicable to CGU
1. The dynamics of learning organizations: SCGH faulty provides trainings to
partners in China as part of the collaboration and, at the same time,
researchers learn from the population experts about health issues in China.
34
2. Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources: SCGH faculty capitalizes on
their research expertise and publication track record that are lacking and very
much needed in China.
Conclusion
In summary, although there is a no framework in the field of higher education to
explain the internationalization process of a small research university, Etemad’s (2004)
business internationalization framework for small to medium-size enterprises is well-
suited to be adapted for internationalization in higher education. Etemad’s (2004)
integrative framework attempts to analyze the internationalization process of SMEs
through three theoretical constructs. They are termed “the Pushing Forces of
Internationalization” (the Push factors), the “Attractive Pulling Incentives of
Internationalization” (the Pull factors) and the “Mediating Forces of Internationalization”
(the Mediating factors). The push forces refer to a set of internal forces that exert
pressure on the firm from the inside to internationalize and push the firm’s strategy along
the internationalization process. The entrepreneurial nature of the push forces emphasizes
acknowledging opportunities, especially when the firm has innovative products and
services. These pull forces consist of a set of external forces that enhance the firm’s
competitiveness or provide attractive incentives for it to internationalize. These forces
attract the firm by providing incentives or by signifying the benefits of larger and richer
international markets. In addition to the Push and the Pull forces that interact to exert
influence on the firm’s internationalization processes, the true impact is eventually
mediated by the firm's (or its managers') perceived influence of such factors. The
35
influences of the above forces are intermediated by the firm's own internal dynamics
which can either accelerate or decelerate the internationalization process.
36
Chapter Three:
Research Design and Methodology
Problem and Purposes Overview
Higher education institutions increasingly engage in internationalization activities
as a response to globalization. Institutions adopt various types of activities, such as
increasing international student enrollment to achieve their globalization objectives
regarding increasing revenue or visibility. International research collaboration is
perceived as one of the ways to enhance global presence. As a result, large amounts of
money and resources are invested in establishing international research collaboration.
However, little is known about what role such research collaboration play in enhancing
global presence and the mechanism of how research collaboration enhances global
presence and under what circumstance and conditions research collaboration would
work.
The goal of this study was to examine the international research collaboration at
Claremont Graduate University (CGU) and determine the extent to which this
collaboration contributes to creating greater global presence in the institution. The study
sought to understand how international research collaboration contributes to globalization
enhancement of an institution as a whole. This study identified important factors that
institutions should consider before implementing such collaboration. The School of
Community and Global Health (SCGH) at Claremont Graduate University (CGU) served
as a case study. Qualitative interviews with leaders and faculty at CGU were utilized as
the primary data collection method for this study.
37
Research Questions
One overarching question guided this study: Based on the perceptions of
institutional leaders, what role does international research collaboration to play in
enhancing the global presence of a university?
The research question generated three sub-questions:
A. How does the size of CGU as an institution affect its
internationalization strategies?
B. To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international research
to enhance reputation for their institution?
C. To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international research
to create global connection in the institution?
Research Design
The research design used herein is a single qualitative case study using purposeful
sampling. Yin (1993) defined case study as an empirical inquiry that “investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context and addresses a situation in which
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1993,
p.59). It is designed for exploring new processes, phenomenon or behaviors that are not
well understood or studied (Hartley, 1994). The case study approach is especially useful
for answering how and why questions about a contemporary set of events or phenomenon
in great-depth and where one can identify cases rich in information. The unit of analysis
can be people, organization, communities, cultures, events, and critical incidences
(Patton, 2002). The case study provides an analysis of the context and processes involved
in the phenomenon under study and is widely used in organizational studies in the social
38
science disciplines of sociology, industrial relations, and anthropology (Hartley, 1994;
Meyer, 2001).
Some major strengths of case study design include gaining a holistic view of a
certain phenomenon or series of events and providing a round picture by using multiple
sources of evidence (Gummesson, 1991). Another advantage is that a case study can
capture the emergent properties of life in organizations and the rapidly changing flow of
organizational activity (Harley, 1994). Researchers can also tailor the design and data
collection procedures to the research questions. However, case studies have been
criticized for lack of science rigor, reliability, validity, generalizablity, and objectivity
(Meyer 2001). Thus, Bryar (1999) suggested that a clear definition of the case study and
a clear conceptual framework are required in order to make this research approach
reliable and valid.
Based on the characteristics, strengths and weakness of case studies, the
researcher selected the School of Community and Global Health at Claremont Graduate
University to be the case in this research design. This single case study sought rich data
on the role of international research collaboration in this particular institution. Data
revealed information on processes, perceived benefits, and rationales of utilizing
international research collaboration as an internationalization strategy. This information
is valuable for practitioners and researchers who are considering employing such
strategies. Findings from the present study may serve as a model or roadmap to guide
practitioners in developing appropriate internationalization plans for their respective
institutions.
39
Population and Sample.
Patton (2002) suggests that sampling in a case study should be aimed at insight
about the phenomenon and not at empirical generalization from a sample to a population.
The current study employed purposeful sampling in which information-rich cases were
selected for study in depth. The participants recruited into this case study include senior
management at CGU, faculty from the research team in the SCGH, and non-SCGH
faculty at CGU. This approach enriched the understanding of the role of international
research collaboration from different perspectives in the institution. After collecting
interview data from all the participants, the researcher w analyzed content to look for
themes that emerged from the interview data. The following section explains how the
researcher collected and analyzed data in this case study. The researcher identified a set
of criteria regarding who should be recruited as subjects of the present study due to the
insight they would be able to provide to answer the research questions. They are senior
management at CGU, faculty from the research team in SCGH, and non-SCGH faculty at
CGU. First, Senior administrators included the current president who sets the agenda for
the internationalization plan at CGU, the former and current provost of academic affairs
who is familiar with the university administration before and after the School of
Community and Global Health joined the institution. In addition, the vice provost and
director of research and vice provost and director of transdisciplinary studies program
provided valuable information on the research landscape at CGU. Second, all of the
faculty members at the School of Community and Global Health research team including
principal investigators, faculty with administrative responsibilities and faculty without
administrative responsibility provided insight regarding the impact of their research
40
collaboration from scientific researchers’ perspectives. Third, non-SCGH faculty were
recruited to explore whether research collaboration enhances global connections in other
departments of CGU. The non-SCGH faculty recruited into the study either had prior
collaborations with SCGH or they had their own international initiatives and experiences
in their respective departments. With senior administrator and faculty members who were
directly and indirectly involved in the research collaboration, unique perspectives
contributed to rich data and invaluable insights. The researcher then consulted with the
current Dean to identify individuals who fit into the criteria above.
Instrumentation
Three interview protocols for senior administrative staff, SCGH faculty, and non-
SCGH faculty were the primary methods of instrumentation in this study. The researcher
submitted these protocols to the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board. The following are the details on the interview protocols for CGU senior
administrative staff, SCGH faculty, and non-SCGH faculty.
Interview protocol for administration. The administrative leaders interviewed
were senior management personnel who set the international agenda at Claremont
Graduate University. After consulting with the Dean of the School of Community and
Global Health at CGU, the researcher determine which staff was most appropriate for
participation. The following interview questions addressed the overarching research
question: Based on the perceptions of institutional leaders, what role does international
research collaboration to play in enhancing the global presence of a university?
41
1. (Strategic logic of international operations) Please describe the mechanism of
how international research collaboration enhances the global presence at
CGU?
2. (Liberation of international markets & attraction and resources of partners)
What are some benefits that you think the research collaboration at SCGH
bring to CGU?
a. Probing question: Does CGU realize any economic gain from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
b. Probing question: Does CGU realize any academic advances from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
c. Probing question: Does CGU realize any prestige gain from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question one: How does the size
of CGU as an institution affect its internationalization strategies?
3. (Strategic logic of international operations) What is the role of research
collaboration in a small university? Do you think that such collaboration is
more critical at a small institution? If so, in what ways?
4. (Founder/manager characteristics) What is your vision of CGU being a global
university? Please give examples of strategic planning that will help CGU
achieve its global objectives?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question two: To what extent do
leaders and faculty perceive international research collaboration to enhance reputation for
their institution?
42
5. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Do you think international research collaboration enhances the
reputation of CGU? If so, in what ways?
6. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Are there other research collaborations beyond SCGH? If so,
what is their role in enhancing the global presence of CGU?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question three: To what extent
do leaders and faculty perceive international research to create global connection in the
institution?
7. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Do you think that the global connection SCGH established is
advancing the internationalization agenda of other schools in the institution?
If so, in what ways does international research collaboration contribute to it?
Interview protocol for SCGH faculty. All of the faculty at the School of
Community and Global Health research team, the principal investigator and co-principal
investigators provided insights regarding the impact of their research collaboration from
a scientific researcher’s perspective.
The following interview questions addressed the overarching research question:
Based on the perceptions of institutional leaders, what role does international research
collaboration to play in enhancing the global presence of a university?
1. (Strategic logic of international operations) Does research collaboration
enhance CGU’s global presence? If so, how? What mechanisms facilitate this
enhanced status?
43
2. (Liberation of international markets & attraction and resources of partners)
What are some benefits that you think the research collaboration at SCGH
bring to CGU?
a. Probing question: Does CGU realize any economic gain from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
b. Probing question: Does CGU realize any academic advances from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
c. Probing question: Does CGU realize any prestige gain from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question one: How does the size
of CGU as an institution affect its internationalization strategies?
3. (Strategic logic of international operations) What is the role of research
collaboration in a small university? Do you think that such collaboration is
more critical at a small institution? If so, in what ways?
4. (Attraction and resources of partners) What kind of resources do the partners
in the research collaboration provide? How would the research be like if
SCGH has no foreign partnership?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question two: To what extent do
leaders and faculty perceive international research collaboration to enhance reputation for
their institution?
5. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Do you think international research collaboration enhances the
reputation of CGU? If so, in what ways?
44
6. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) SCGH faculty provides trainings and capacity building for
overseas partners who are involved in the research collaboration. Do you
think that these activities enhance CGU’s reputation? If so, in what ways?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question three: To what extent
do leaders and faculty perceive international research to create global connection in the
institution?
7. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Do you think that the global connection SCGH established is
advancing the internationalization agenda of other schools in the institution?
If so, in what ways does international research collaboration contribute to it?
8. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Can you give an example of how the research collaboration
facilitates connections or capacity building for other schools?
Interview protocol for non-SCGH faculty. Non-SCGH faculty members were
recruited to explore if research collaboration enhances global connection in their school.
Since SCGH was, at the time of this study, starting a partnership with the Drucker School
of Management to provide dual degree of MPH/MBA in China, key faculty who were
involved in this partnership were recruited for the study. This provided a good sense of
the level of capacity-building and global network from the perspective of an international
collaborator. The following interview questions address to the overarching research
question: Based on the perceptions of institutional leaders, what role does international
research collaboration to play in enhancing the global presence of a university?
45
1. (Strategic logic of international operations) Can you describe the mechanism
of how international research collaboration enhances the global presence at
CGU?
2. (Liberation of international markets & attraction and resources of partners)
What are some benefits that you think the research collaboration at SCGH
bring to CGU?
a. Probing question: Does CGU realize any economic gain from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
b. Probing question: Does CGU realize any academic advances from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
c. Probing question: Does CGU realize any prestige gain from this
collaboration? If so, how significant is this to the institution?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question one: How does the size
of CGU as an institution affect its internationalization strategies?
3. (Strategic logic of international operations) What is the role of research
collaboration in a small university? Do you think that such collaboration is
more critical at a small institution? If so, in what ways?
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question two: To what extent do
leaders and faculty perceive international research collaboration to enhance reputation for
their institution?
4. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Do you think international research collaboration enhance the
reputation of CGU as an institution? If so, in what ways?
46
The following interview questions pertain to sub-question three: To what extent
do leaders and faculty perceive international research to create global connection in the
institution?
5. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Do you think that the global connection SCGH established is
advancing the internationalization agenda of other schools in the institution?
If so, in what ways does international research collaboration contribute to it?
Can you give some examples of how this collaboration benefits your school
specifically?
6. (Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources & the dynamics of learning
organizations) Are there other research collaborations beyond SCGH? If so,
what is their role in enhancing the global presence of CGU?
Data Collection
The researcher conducted in-person semi-structured interviews at Claremont
Graduate University to obtain opinions and perspectives of administration and faculty.
Content analysis of the data sought answers to the research questions. The raw data was
collected from senior management at CGU, faculty from research team in SCGH, and
non-SCGH faculty at CGU through semi-structured open-ended 30 to 45-minute
interviews. An interview guide was used to ensure that all topics were covered and gave
the researcher the flexibility to probe and explore. Patton (2002) suggests that interview
guides help interviewers decide how to best use the limited time available during an
interview.
47
Data collection consisted of interviews with 19 administrators and faculty at
CGU. Interview data sought their perceptions of the role international research
collaboration plays in enhancing global presence in the institution. This case study may
serve as a model or reference for institutions that are considering engaging in
international research collaboration as an internationalization strategy. Data from these
interviews was transcribed and analyzed using Etemad’s (2004) internationalization
framework for small to medium-size enterprises.
Data Analysis
Patton (2002) explained that the case study approach to qualitative analysis
consists of a specific way of collecting, organizing, and analyzing data. The purpose was
to gather comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information about each case of
interest. In the present study, the raw data included transcriptions of interviews with
CGU senior management personnel, SCGH faculty and non-SCGH faculty. The
researcher assembled the raw data and then created a case record that organized the case
data into a comprehensive, primary source package for final analysis. All the interviews
with CGU senior management personnel, SCGH faculty and non-SCGH faculty were
transcribed into text for content analysis, which “is used to refer to any qualitative data
reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and
attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings” (Patton, 2002, p.453). The
researcher started with inductive analysis to look for patterns, themes, and categories in
the interview data to create a codebook. Once patterns, themes and categories are
established, the researcher took the deductive approach to test if the inductive content
analysis is appropriate using Etemad’s (2004) internationalization framework for small to
48
medium-size enterprises. Data were grouped into three major categories (the Push forces,
the Pull forces, and the Mediating forces), six sub-categories (founder/manager
characteristics, strategic logic of international operations, liberalization of international
markets, attraction and resources of partners, the dynamics of learning organizations, and
leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources) and other themes that emerged from
the interviews. Since the interview protocol was developed based on Etemad’s (2004)
framework, analysis was performed around the three major construct and the six
components of the constructs. Finally, after confirming the themes of the role
international research collaboration plays in enhancing global presence for an institution,
the researcher wrote up conclusions, implications and recommendations for future
research and practice.
Credibility and Validity
According to Patton (2002), the researcher is the instrument in qualitative inquiry.
The credibility of qualitative methods depends a great deal on the skill, competence, and
rigor of the researcher who does fieldwork. In reporting, the researcher emphasized the
empirical findings that include solid description and analysis rather than the researcher’s
own personal perspectives or voice while acknowledging that subjectivity and judgment.
It is important to realize that absolute objectivity is impossible to attain. However, the
researcher was prepared to admit and deal with bias and strive for objectivity (Patton,
2002). In addition to acknowledging the researcher’s own beliefs and biases prior to data
collection, the researcher also pilot tested the interview protocol on the first three
interviewees to ensure the reliability of the interview guide. When necessary, the
49
researcher made revisions to the interview guide based on the pilot interviews to make
sure these questions yielded answers to the research question and sub-questions.
Limitations
The most significant limitation of the study was its scope. The goal of this single
case study was to examine the international research collaboration at CGU and determine
the extent to which this collaboration contributes to creating greater global presence in
the institution. The study sought to understand how international research collaboration
contributes to globalization enhancement of an institution as a whole. This study
identified important factors that institutions should consider before implementing such
collaboration. In addition, due to logistics constraints, the previous administration was
not be contacted, and, thus, the study lacked perspective from that angle. It should also be
noted that the present study utilized a convenient sample that may contribute to sampling
bias and limit its generalizability to the rest of the faculty body. Although CGU is one of
the few graduate-only, research-extensive universities in the country, the roles of
international research collaboration as an internationalization strategy should be similar
to that of other research universities, and, thus, findings may be generalized to such
institutions. This case study may provide valuable in-depth information on international
research collaboration, and such practice may be replicated at other higher education
settings.
Delimitations
The present study intended to understand the role that international research
collaboration plays in enhancing the global presence of an institution from the
perspective of senior personnel: SCGH faculty who were involved in the collaboration
50
and non-SCGH faculty who were not involved in the collaboration. It was solely based
on perceptions of interviewees and how they felt about the influence of the research
collaboration on the institution. Actual evaluations of these claims were beyond the scope
of this study.
51
Chapter Four:
Findings
This chapter presents the results from the qualitative case study conducted at
Claremont Graduate University. The study takes a narrative analytical approach to
interpret data collected from nineteen interviews with key administrators, faculty
members in the School of Community and Global Health, as well as faculty members
outside of the School of Community and Global Health. These three categories of key
participants were selected to provide an understanding of the role of international
research collaboration from the perspectives of various stakeholders. The compiled data
were analyzed and synthesized to present the administrators and faculty’s perceptions of
the role of international research collaboration in enhancing the global presence of an
institution.
The chapter examines the case study in four sections. First, an introduction and
history of the establishment of School of Community and Global Health (SCGH) at CGU
is presented. Then, the overarching question and three sub-questions are discussed.
This study was guided by one overarching research question: Based on the
perceptions of institutional leaders, what role does international research collaboration
play in enhancing the global presence of a university?
In order to answer the research question, three sub-questions were addressed as
well.
Sub-question A: How does the size of CGU as an institution affect its
internationalization strategies?
52
Sub-question B: To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international
research to enhance reputation for their institution?
Sub-question C: To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international
research to create global connection in the institution?
The first sub-question relates to how administrators and faculty think the size of
CGU as a small university influences its internationalization strategy. The second sub-
question addresses the extent to which administrators and faculty perceive international
research collaboration to enhance the reputation of CGU. The third sub-question focuses
on how international efforts spread in the institution and how the international research
collaboration at SCGH helps to build global connections for other departments at CGU.
The chapter concludes with a discussion and reflection from the research on findings
from the case study.
Overview of the School of Community and Global Health (SCGH)
Claremont Graduate University (CGU) formed the School of Community and
Global Health (SCGH) in the summer of 2008 to foster the study of twenty-first century
health threats such as accelerated shifts in global populations and spikes in preventable
health-related problems. SCGH is dedicated to generating scientific knowledge about the
causes and prevention of disease and the improvement of health and well-being of
diverse populations locally and globally. The school is responsible for training
professional practitioners to translate prevention science into improved practice and
policy for health promotion and disease prevention at the individual, community and
global levels. The school offers a Ph.D. in Health Promotion Sciences and M.P.H.
degrees; the MPH program, which enrolled its first students in the fall of 2009, is fully
53
accredited, at the time of this study, by the Council on Education for Public Health for
five years, which is the longest allowable for a newly accredited program and the
announcement was made in July 2012. The Council on Education for Public Health
(CEPH) is an independent agency recognized by the US Department of Education to
accredit schools of public health and public health programs. In order to earn CEPH
accreditation, Claremont Graduate University’s MPH program underwent an intensive
two-year review. CEPH examined details of the program’s operations, ranging from the
rigor of its academics to the quality of its research to the diversity of the faculty, staff,
and students. In its final report, CEPH praised the program's faculty as "exceptionally
well qualified" and called faculty research "excellent" (CGU, News and Event, 2012).
Prior to joining CGU, the majority of faculty at SCGH were affiliated with the University
of Southern California. The researcher conducted interviews with administrators and
faculty both at the CGU main campus and the SCGH satellite office. Each interview
lasted between 20-60 minutes as necessary. Nineteen interviews were conducted with
eleven SCGH faculty, five administrators, and three non-SCGH faculty members. The
data was analyzed through the lens of Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework that argues
push forces, pull forces and mediating forces explain the success of a small to medium
size firms in global competition.
The Research Questions
Analysis of in-depth interviews shows that most faculty and administrators
perceived international research collaboration as enhancing the global presence of CGU
through various mechanisms such as promoting academic advances, economic gain and
prestige gain and creating global connections in the institutions. These mechanisms are
54
organized through Etemad’s (2004) internationalization framework for small to medium-
size enterprises. This framework seeks to explain internationalization of SMEs through
the constructs of push forces, pull forces and mediating forces. The push forces are
usually internal factors that exert pressure on the firm from the inside to internationalize.
The pull forces, which are usually external, enhance the firm’s competitiveness or
provide attractive incentives for it to internationalize. The mediating forces are the true
manifestation of the above forces affecting the firm. The firms’ processes depend on its
basic characteristics, the orientation of its entrepreneur or managers and circumstances
under which these forces exert pressure on or interact with the firm. The interactive
factors refer to those forces that result from the interaction between active components of
the Pull and the Push forces exerting influence on the firm. By addressing the push
forces, pull forces and mediating forces, administrators and faculty articulated how
internal factors (push forces), external factors (pull forces) and university characteristics
(mediating forces) affect the internationalization effort at CGU. The data were analyzed
to address the overarching question and three sub-questions.
This study was guided by one overarching research question: Based on the
perceptions of institutional leaders, what role does international research collaboration
play in enhancing the global presence of a university?
The overall finding from interviews with administrators, faculty members in the
School of Community and Global Health (SCGH) and non-SCGH faculty members
revealed that they perceived international research collaboration to be a catalyst that
enhances the global presence of a university through promoting academic advances by
broadening the range of cutting-edge research topics, by increasing grant funding, tuition
55
and professional training programs, and by making the institution more visible and
prestigious by networking and producing publications. These perceived benefits are pull
forces that enhance CGU’s competitiveness or provide attractive incentives for it to
internationalize.
Pull Forces. Etemad (2004) suggested that attraction and resources of partners, a
component of attractive factors pulling SME’s internationalization, shorten the
internationalization process, increase the speed of internationalization, and allow for
survival in competitive markets. International collaborators provide various kinds of
support to make conducting research in their respective countries. Logistically, faculty
received access to population or study subjects, access to data, access to bureaucracies
and access to facilities. Intellectually, collaborators provided both experts who were
knowledgeable of the population and communities as well as personnel who acted as
cultural interpreters to increase cultural understanding between collaborators. With data
collected from these subjects, faculty were able to look at phenomenon across countries
and study a wide range of topics that were cutting edge and timely.
Academic advances. International research collaboration plays a crucial role in
facilitating academic advances by broadening the range of cutting-edge global health
issues that faculty can study and by expanding the scope and diversity of the research
conducted by SCGH faculty. The China Seven Cities Study (CSCS) provides
longitudinal data that cover a variety of topics including tobacco use, alcohol use, and
other related health behaviors in seven of China’s most populated urban areas. Since the
Western lifestyle is a powerful determinant of health and disease in developing countries,
the collaboration enables SCGH faculty to research global health issues that are
56
important and timely in the field. Disaster related research is a good example of how
SCGH faculty, with help from the Chinese collaborators, access disaster sites that are
normally unavailable to other researchers. This experience demonstrates the importance
of having a close relationship with foreign collaborators who can provide political access
to the appropriate government bureaucracies. SCGH faculty felt that, if they did not have
international partners, the topics that they would be able to study would be narrower, less
interesting and less visible. They would also be limited in terms of the research questions
they can ask. The Chinese collaborators, at the time of this study, provided a variety of
logistical support and resources such as labor, transportation, and access to bureaucracies,
population, unique physical environment and facilities. These resources make the actual
execution of the research plan much easier and feasible.
Economic gain. Since SCGH joined CGU in 2008, the school brought their
previous funding and acquired new grants that totaled roughly 21 million dollars. This
made SCGH the school with highest research funding at CGU. NIH, which is one of
SCGH’s major funding sources, has an intense interest in global health. Therefore, as
NIH funding allocation for global health increases, the funding opportunities for SCGH
faculty’s global health research also increase. It is important to note that the total grant
funding of SCGH included both domestic and global work. After teasing out the
community health portion, the funding may not be as substantial. However, faculty
pointed out that international projects led to a number of publications that were the first
of their kind. These pioneer projects were likely to lead to new grant opportunities and,
more importantly, to build a brand for SCGH and CGU that would make it more likely to
gain both international and domestic grants. Faculty reported that the number of grants
57
they could apply for increased after SCGH joined CGU because of their international
experience. In terms of tuition revenue, many SCGH faculty and administrators
perceived international research as a major selling point for students to attend CGU. They
mentioned three categories of students to whom international research would appeal:
students who are interested in global issues and working overseas, international students
from overseas, and students who are interested in the effects of globalization on health
locally. In the US, the rapid growth of global health education programs indicates student
interest in global health and the scope of related income potential . At the time of data
collection, SCGH faculty were also in the process of developing non-degree professional
training programs for the Chinese collaborators that may result in direct revenue benefits
for the university.
Prestige gain. According to administrators and faculty, CGU has relatively low
visibility and name recognition overseas, and international research collaboration helped
CGU gain prestige by associating with partners around the world to, ultimately, extend
CGU’s network as an institution. When SCGH faculty conduct research in another
country they perform outreach and bring recognition to CGU’s name by interacting
establishing working relationships with collaborators. More importantly, high impact
research and publications that disseminate research findings are some of the most visible
activities in terms of increasing institutional prestige. International research can
potentially open a door for faculty to submit to a better selection of journals, including
journals that have an international focus. Publications in scientific and professional
journals also helped the group attract more international research collaborators, since
publishing in leading journals motivate collaborators to consider research productivity
58
and publications as a major asset in this partnership. Thus, SCGH faculty had become
very attractive to the colleagues in Chinese universities because of their leadership and
capacity in turning out high quality scientific professional publications.
Attraction and resources of Chinese collaborators. International research
collaboration plays a crucial role in facilitating academic advances by broadening the
range of cutting-edge global health issues that faculty can study and expanding the scope
and diversity of the research conducted by SCGH faculty. The China Seven Cities Study
(CSCS) consist of longitudinal studies that cover a variety of topics including tobacco
use, alcohol use, and other related health behaviors in seven of China’s most populated
urban areas. The seven cities represent various economic developmental stages, thus
providing a unique opportunity to study regional variations of the impact of
westernization and modernization on substance use and control (School of Community
and Global Health, 2012). As populations in developing countries begin to adopt western
lifestyles, the prevalence of chronic diseases rises. Landrigan (2011) suggested that
global spread of the Western lifestyle is powerful determinant of health and disease.
Chronic diseases once seen only in high-income countries are now epidemic in the low-
to middle- income countries. Today, nearly 20% of school children are overweight or
obese (Wu et al., 2005). Westernization and its impact on health is a relatively recent
phenomenon, and, thus, research in this area is very much needed to provide knowledge
and solutions in improve health globally. The fact that SCGH faculty recognized the
opportunities over a decade ago put them in an advantageous position in gaining a larger
market share of global health research in China.
59
Their collaboration opens doors to research opportunities that are both pioneering
and timely. Disaster related research is a good example of such opportunities. Faculty
need access to disaster affected areas to collect data on damage, disaster response, health
risks, and aftermath. One SCGH Faculty shared the experience of SCGH faculty
members studying the impact of earthquakes in China. In order to gain access to those
disaster areas, one needs formal approval from both the local and the national
government. The Chinese collaborators are knowledgeable of the approval process and
have strong connections in the government. This helps faculty tremendously in making
their disaster related research projects possible. This experience demonstrates the
importance of having a close relationship with foreign collaborators who can provide
political access to the appropriate government bureaucracies. It also shows the level of
trust between the collaborators and the researchers, since information about disasters is
generally considered sensitive and confidential information in China. Another SCGH
faculty commented that much of the work that their faculty have done with students is
often typically not done by others. This illustrates that SCGH faculty have much pride in
the unique research topics.
When faculty were asked the question of what they thought research would be
like at SCGH if they did not have international partners, faculty expressed that the
quantity of research that is produced at SCGH would probably stay the same because
their faculty are very productive. However, the topics that they would be able to study
would be narrower, and, thus, the research would be less interesting and visible. It would
also limit the research questions they can ask and cause faculty to miss opportunities to
understand health behavior from different perspectives such as cultural factors and
60
genetic factors which are more difficult constructs to study in the US. For example, one
SCGH faculty suggested that the natural history of smoking in China is unique, and, thus,
it is worth studying the way it distributes in China. He said, “It limits the questions we
can ask because there are some things that we could research in China that is difficult to
research here: cultural factors, biological genetic factors, even natural history of smoking
because of the way the smoking distributes in China, the age at which people smoke and
how much they smoke.” This quote indicates that, without international research
collaboration, faculty feel that they would be unable to ask the same research questions
so the science they can perform would be restricted. Another SCGH faculty asserted that
international work improves the quality of research by providing faculty with a broader
view of public health and helps them understand how public health systems and cultural
influences affect behavior.
Physical environment is another component that is hard for faculty to recreate
domestically for research purposes. International collaborators enable faculty to have
access to settings with unique physical attributes. One SCGH faculty gave an example of
how Beijing’s bike culture is converted into car culture and the transportation
infrastructure is rapidly changing. This is a great opportunity to study the effects of
physical environment and urban planning on health. Collaboration will help researchers
gain access to unique physical settings like this. Another SCGH faculty mentioned a
project that studied the health risks of people living in close proximity to polluted rivers
and the impact of population displacement that is caused by the river clean up in the
Philippines. He explained, “Some of the very dirty and polluted rivers are being cleaned
up in the Philippines. Lots of people live on the riverbanks, so there are lots of health
61
risks for them. Some of those populations migrated off of the riverbanks into other places
during the cleanup. Some people are allowed to move back in but most people really get
displaced and moved somewhere else. One of the projects is looking at the effect of that
clean up on the people and on the area itself.” The effects of the river clean up and
population displacement draw academic interests and also have important implications
for policy making. According to Landrigan (2011), hazardous industrial processes no
longer tolerated in North America or Western Europe are exported to developing
countries, where populations are exposed to toxic chemicals on a daily basis. The
consequences include cancer, birth defects, and sterility. This indicates that, in order to
better understand the environmental influences on health, it is crucial for SCGH to have
collaboration to gain access to development countries and study those unique physical
environments to advance the current knowledge on environmental influences.
Faculty also expressed that international research give them opportunities to test
theories and programs in actual contexts and extend their research ideas in overseas
settings to study the influence of culture and physical environment. One non-SCGH
faculty suggested that, in the field of social science, theories are not adequately tested in
the real world and, by doing international research, faculty can test the theories in a
context that has not been tested before to gain a better understanding of how well certain
theories generalize and the role of cultural influence. Ultimately, researchers could refine
the theories based on the data collected from the field. When researchers study the effects
of certain risk factors on health, these developing countries provide settings for
experimental design in which researchers assign subjects to either control or treatment
groups to observe the effects of the independent variable. This methodology would be
62
difficult to conduct in a developed country since most of the population has already been
exposed to the risk factors and, thus, is not suitable to be in control groups. One non-
SCGH Faculty who conducted research studying the effects of television suggested that
developing countries are ideal settings for experimental methodology. For example, cities
can be randomly assigned to have TV to study the level of violence. One non-SCGH
faculty member stated:
We would always almost dream for we have like five, six cities where
they never had TV before. So we can give these three TVs, these three
now, let's see what happens. Are they more violent? What is happening
here?
This comment highlights the importance of control groups and the vast
information that researchers can potentially obtain from an experimental study.
According to Ndlovu (1999), international research collaboration is an effective method
of building science, improving global health care and preparing future researchers.
Logistical support and resources. The logistical support and resources that the
Chinese collaborators provide also make the actual execution of the research plan much
easier. One of the most important resources is access to government bureaucracies such
as the Chinese Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Political access is crucial for a
country like China. It would be very difficult to set up the research project if the
government did not approve and cooperate. The Chinese CDC does not only give the
green light for SCGH faculty to conduct their research, but they are involved and
invested in the process. One SCGH faculty commented that the manpower and
coordination contributed by the Chinese CDC was impressive when stating, “Before we
63
go out and collect data, they would send these huge teams of physicians and health
educators and buses carrying them out to the sites. They did all the fieldwork and
program delivery.” The Chinese CDC health professionals also have knowledge and
cultural understanding of study subjects that were crucial in developing effective health
intervention and measurement tools for the research projects. They gave a lot of inputs in
what they thought would work in the tobacco prevention curriculum and how questions
should be worded in the surveys. Access to a large number of foreign research subjects
enabled SCGH faculty to study a wide range of health issues, including obesity, tobacco,
alcohol and substance use, neuroscience processes, and sexual behaviors. Study subjects
in CSCS included migrant workers, students in vocational and academic high schools and
even hidden population like commercial sex workers. In addition, one SCGH faculty
commented that, when partnering with health care facilities, researchers gain access to
clinical populations which refer to patients and potentially their families as well. The
Chinese collaborators also provided faculty with access to facilities. For example, much
neuroscience research requires functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) imaging, and the
collaborators give SCGH faculty access to imaging facilities for free.
One SCGH faculty member stated, “Much of our neuroscience work, imaging
studies we've done in China, we have done at no cost of us and they [Chinese
collaborators] provided all the imaging facilities. Here, we pay $600 per scan. We get it
free in China.”
This quote demonstrates the convenience of the fact that the collaborators
arranged imaging facilities and speaks to the money saved from not having to pay for the
fMRI scans because the collaborators covered it in these neuroscience studies. SCGH
64
faculty also save money in terms of labor and transportation since the Chinese CDC
professionals do all the program implementation, and the CDC provides them with salary
and transport. Their substantial financial support is an important economic implication.
The next section further discusses different kinds of economic gains that international
research brings to the university.
Economic gain. Liberalization of international markets facilitates exporting and
presence in international markets and allows for specialization and division of labor. The
China Seven Cities Study (CSCS) facilitates exporting and presence in international
market and allows for specialization and division of labor as CGU researchers provide
research expertise and capacity building while the Center for Disease Control in China
conducts intervention and data collection. The strong established relationship with
partners in China puts the research team in a more competitive position when pursuing
international grant funding.
The major sources of revenue for the School of Community and Global Health
(SCGH) are grant funding, foundation funding and tuition. Interview data with SCGH
faculty suggested that SCGH had a large research portfolio which was about three
quarters of all research dollars in the university. According to the dean of SCGH, in the
past 10 years, including the time when the group was with USC, since the grant was
continuous, the research team has brought in between $21 and $22 million in research
funding. On top of that, the Chinese partners have provided matching resources such as
manpower, cost of implementing programs and transportation. Before the team went out
to collect data, the Chinese collaborators would send out large teams of physicians and
health educators to conduct all the fieldwork. The role of SCGH faculty was to train these
65
health professionals who would be in charge of the implementation of programs. Wages
are much lower in China, but if these health professionals were paid US salaries, it would
be equivalent to about $20 million over a 10-year period.
Table 1
External funding 2008-2011, CGU Office of Research and Sponsored Programs,
Sponsored Program Awards
2006-2007 $6,815,934
2007-2008 $5,729,950
2008-2009 $13,323,453
2009-2010 $11,826,396
2010-2011 $7,390,829
66
Table 2
External funding 2008-2011 by departments, CGU Office of Research and Sponsored
Programs
SES: School of Educational Studies
SBOS: School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences
SCGH: School of Community and Global Health
SISAT: School of Information Systems and Technology
SOR: School of Religion
SPE: School of Politics and Economics
SMS: School of Mathematical Sciences
SAH: School of Arts and Humanities
As SCGH joined CGU in 2008, SCGH brought over their grant funding, and this
increase in funding was reflected in the sponsored program awards of CGU for fiscal
year 2008-2009. There was a growth in funding from $5,729,950 in 2007-2008 to
$13,323,453 in 2008-2009, as shown in Table 1. A portion of each grant is allocated to
pay for indirect costs or overhead expenses for which CGU would otherwise pay. Thus,
grant funding is a direct economic gain for CGU as an institution. Table 1 also shows a
funding decline in 2010-2011. This is a result of a regular multi-year grant cycle. Table 1
reflects grants that were brought to CGU or awarded that particular year instead, although
67
the research proceeds according to the duration of the grants. Thus, the amount of
funding fluctuates depending on the grant cycles. Table 2 shows the external funding of
CGU from 2009 to 2011 by department. SCGH had almost four times as much funding as
the second highest funded department in the first three years SCGH joined CGU. One
administrator commented that this was a huge and relatively permanent increase in
CGU’s grant portfolio by bringing in grant active faculty, especially those grant active
with NIH, which is a substantial funding source in scientific research. It should be noted
that NIH funding is very selective and, thus, is highly challenging to obtain. In FY2010,
NIH research project grants that were new submissions had an 11.5% success rate,
whereas resubmissions had a 34.9% success rate (National Institutes of Health, 2011).
One SCGH faculty echoed this comment by adding that SCGH brought substantial NIH
funding to CGU. This comment reflects the fact that SCGH faculty are proud of the
school’s NIH funding contribution to CGU and also consider it as an asset in attracting
collaborators. One SCGH faculty member stated,
CGU was considered a low to mid-level research university based on NIH doors
before we came here from USC. Since we've come here, we've moved up because
we brought around $21 million in grants and there are only about $2 million from
the other schools. So, we currently are responsible for 75% of NIH funding and
there is only seven faculty. So, we've been able to bring that much money. It’s
important because when universities abroad or even our collaborators look at us,
that gives us some status because we are very good at bringing money.
According to Merson (2006), global health has is a focus of intense interest at the
US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Director Francis Collins named
68
improvement of global health one of his top priorities. This indicates that NIH prioritized
global health and allocated research funding accordingly to achieve the goal to improve
health globally. The increasing trend of NIH funding available translates into more
funding opportunities for SCGH in global health research.
It is important to note that the total grant funding of SCGH includes both
domestic and global work. After teasing out the community health portion, the funding
may not look as substantial. However, faculty pointed out that international projects led
to a number of publications that were the first of their kind. Faculty expressed that they
believed these pioneer projects were likely to lead to new grant opportunities and, more
importantly, it built a brand for SCGH and CGU that made it more likely to earn both
international and domestic grants. One SCGH faculty argued that international research
indirectly enhanced the entire research portfolio of SCGH through branding, but this can
be overlooked if focus lies solely on the actual amount of international grants. He
explained,
Our brands have brought in a lot of funding, many millions of dollars. So and
they hired a lot of people. There are a lot of people working on those projects.
Then we were able to bring in some students and help pay their tuition and they
get RA funds. It helps bringing in students to the university that wouldn't have
come here if we didn't have some resources that helps their careers and expand
science.
His statement demonstrates that faculty valued the fact that international projects bring
talent and create a branding that may help them with future funding opportunities.
69
Due to SCGH faculty’s research track record, their research experience in
different countries, and international connections, faculty reported that the number of
grants they could apply for increased after SCGH joined CGU. For some grants, it is a
prerequisite to have foreign contacts and affiliations to be eligible to apply. For example,
SCGH faculty a Fogarty Grant that supported training in global health with various
international partners. Non-SCGH Faculty also reported feeling more confident of getting
international grants. Some faculty might have had interest in doing international work in
the past but were unable to gain a grant due to lack of international experience and global
collaborators. Now, they perceived these opportunities to open up because they could
involve SCGH faculty who have international experience and made the grant proposal
much stronger. Thus, they might pursue international grants that they would not have
pursued before the establishment of SCGH. One non-SCGH faculty commented that the
international experience of SCGH faculty filled in a crucial gap in grant application. He
explained,
The number of grants that I can go for because SCGH has these international
connections goes up five tenfold. Now when I am looking for grants, I know all
the partners I have over there [SCGH]. So if there is a grant to do research in
Japan but I don't have the international experience. So, I won't be able to get
funded on my own. If I partner with them [SCGH faculty], all of a sudden we’re a
powerhouse team. I do the persuasion and they do the international relation
aspect. So it is like there is 8000 opportunities that exists purely because they
have already done this, either (a) in the place they are already doing it or (b) in
70
other places because we can work with them and their expertise will make us
more likely to get funded.
This quote shows the positive attitude of non-SCGH faculty in submitting grants with
SCGH faculty in order to get access to more grants and increase the chance of getting
funded. One administrator echoed this view and expressed that involving Chinese
partners in the grant proposals increases their likelihood of getting the grant. Thus, in his
opinion, international research collaboration is not only academic opportunity but also
financial opportunity.
Faculty members also have the option of applying for grants to test what works
domestically in a different country. This would be a way for researchers to expand their
domestic work and potentially have a larger impact. Collaborating countries are
motivated to adopt these interventions because they have already been proven to work in
the US. One SCGH faculty explained that as the science grows exponentially, grants
have to be cutting-edge in order to get funded. Faculty consistently have to come up with
new ideas. One of the benefits of having international collaboration is that SCGH faculty
can get funding to do something similar outside of US because of their prior experience
of the foreign country. In a sense, it is a win-win situation because the faculty benefits
from working with another population and the foreign countries benefit from receiving
interventions that have already been proven to work in the US.
Faculty also expressed that international research increased the recognition and
visibility of CGU as a good research university among general editors and grant proposal
reviewers. Faculty perceived this to make it easier to earn research grants both
domestically and internationally. One major factor that grant proposal reviewers consider
71
is how likely the researchers are to execute the research plan on the proposal. The track
record of SCGH’s international research reflects positively on CGU as a good research
university. One non-SCGH faculty explained,
When you apply for grants, they surely will look at where it is coming from. The
more CGU was out there as being the stellar place to execute research, the more
confident our reviewers would be that we can pull it off, because on the grant
applications you get judged on five different things and one of them is the
environment. Basically can they pull off what they say they are going to pull off?
Now, if CGU is known for doing the Seven Cities study overseas then my ability
to pull off a local study becomes really unquestionable. It lets people know we
were good at what we do. We have the resources to do we have to do and that we
just have a great track record. So, in some ways I like the halo effect that SCGH
gives us.
This comment highlights the importance of a good research track record for a university,
as it is one of the considerations in the decision making process of grant reviewers.
Tuition. For a private university like CGU, tuition is a major source of revenue.
The research portfolio for SCGH at CGU also increased the number of students.
Research plays a key role in attracting students, especially graduate students who aspire
to be the next generation of researchers. Research opportunity is one of their main
considerations, since research experience equips them with skills and knowledge to
become researchers and also strengthens their resumes when applying for academic and
research related positions. One SCGH faculty said that international research
collaboration definitely helps to attract students to the university because many students
72
are interested in looking at application and learning tools. Because of the research at
SCGH, students are able to gain experience through internships or through research
assistantships, so many students become researchers or are able to get jobs in areas that
may have a research component. That has given them an advantage.
Many SCGH faculty and administrators perceive international research as a major
selling point for students to attend CGU. There are three categories of students to whom
international research would appeal: students who are interested in global issues and
working overseas, international students from overseas, and students who are interested
in the effects of globalization on health locally. According to one SCGH faculty,
international research is valuable for attracting students who are interested in learning
about global issues and gaining their research experience at a university where the
context for research are available. He believes that, in various arenas, SCGH has been
very successful in appealing to the students from overseas and students who want to do
work overseas. Another SCGH faculty reported that the name of school, School of
Community and Global Health, often attracts master’s students as well as PhD students
who are interested in doing global work at a couple of levels. In Southern California, a
diverse region, many of the students looking at domestic issues affected by globalization,
such as population migration patterns and the impact these have on health. Students are
also interested in doing work internationally in the field.
One SCGH faculty member stated, “This school and partly because of its global
programs has the greatest potential for growth among students, numbers of students and
quality students.” This view is supported by Landrigan et al. (2011)’s finding that global
health has become an increasingly important focus of education, research, and clinical
73
service in North American universities and academic health centers. At the time of this
study, there were at least 49 academically based global health programs in the United
States and Canada, as compared with only one in 1999. The trend of rapid growth in
global health education programs are growing in the U.S. indicates student interest in
global health. Landrigan (2011) also stated that 74% of first-year medical student
respondents to a 2010 incoming student survey expressed a desire to spend at least some
portion of their professional careers working in a low- and middle-income country. This
represents a more than 10-fold increase in such interest from a decade earlier. The rapid
increase in global health programs and student interest supports the claim that
international work attracts students to SCGH and, ultimately, increases its tuition
revenue.
Professional Training. Besides the traditional degree programs that CGU offers,
SCGH faculty expressed an opportunity in providing non-degree professional training
programs from SCGH’s international collaborators. International collaborators view
SCGH faculty as public health experts and received capacity building in research over
the years of collaboration. In the process, collaborators realized the need for their health
professionals to receive more training and also what SCGH faculty could offer. My
experience working directly with health professionals in China Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) in summer 2007 highlighted this demand for professional training.
Through conversation with Chinese CDC employees, the researcher found that their
educational backgrounds were mostly in medicine. Most possessed medical degrees but
decided not to practice medicine. Even though a good portion of CDC’s mission is to
improve public health, its employees had no training in public health prior to joining the
74
CDC. SCGH faculty expected that the Chinese government would subsidize the tuition
and send their employers to train at CGU. This can be a direct revenue benefit for the
university from this global initiative. Brewer et al. (2002) examined higher education as
an industry and identified four markets that generate revenue including student
enrollment, research funding, public fiscal support, and private giving. International
research collaboration has shown substantial financial contributions in the areas of
research funding and student enrollment for both degree and non-degree programs as the
global health program grows.
Prestige Gain through Visibility Overseas. Based on the interview data,
administrators expressed that international research collaboration helped CGU gain
prestige through networking with partners around the world, and this, ultimately, extends
CGU’s network as an institution. While SCGH faculty conducting research in another
country, they perform outreach and publicize CGU’s name at the same time by
interacting with collaborators and establishing working relationships. One administrator
shared that faculty spread CGU’s name when doing work and meeting people
internationally, “I have done a lot of work internationally. I have met people all over the
world. My business card carries CGU’s name on it. Some people have never heard of it
before.” People whom faculty members meet as they work overseas may not have heard
of CGU before, so faculty act as ambassadors of CGU. One administrator commented
that SCGH faculty are the ones who do the most international research, and it is very
important for them to make connections and develop working relationship when they are
overseas. Another administrator echoed that CGU, because of its scale, could become a
very comfortable, almost “country club” kind of a place. The effort to push to grow
75
connections and outreach is crucial to maintain visibility. By making connections and
extending CGU’s network, the international projects in SCGH make a constructive
difference in CGU’s visibility.
Publication. According to administrators and faculty, high impact research and
publications that disseminate research findings are some of the most visible activities to
increase institutional prestige. One administrator stated that university prestige is
fundamentally built on visible projects in the research literature that are known in a
community, especially at the graduate level. A SCGH faculty member echoed that he
thinks that the extent to which the research findings are widely disseminated can only
increase the visibility and reputation of CGU.
International research can potentially increase publication by opening a door for
faculty to submit to a better selection of journals, such as journals that have an
international focus or journals that are interested in international work. SCGH Faculty
explained that some journals have an international research focus, so having international
projects is the prerequisite to publish in those journals. Other journals, although not
having an international focus, are interested in international work and like to publish that
work because the scientific community is interested in cross-culture or multi-country
research. In addition to the quantity of publications produced, one SCGH faculty brought
up the point that this research had to be recognized as quality research in the scientific
community for CGU to benefit from prestige gain and explained that what adds to the
prestige of CGU is the fact that SCGH faculty perform quality research and publish.
Thus, scientists within and outside of the country recognize the research quality of CGU.
Melin (1999) supported this view in suggesting that increased visibility is one important
76
reason for researchers to collaborate because collaborating with other researchers makes
one more visible and is likely to bring more recognition. Persson, Glanzel and Danell
(2004) found that citations to articles resulting from international collaborations grew
faster than those referring to domestic collaborations. This shows that international
collaboration is more powerful than domestic partnership in increasing visibility because
they attract more citations when compared to domestic papers.
Publications in scientific and professional journals also helped the group attract
more international research collaborators, since publishing in leading journals motivated
collaborators to engage in research. Collaborators saw the productivity of SCGH faculty
as a major asset in this partnership. One SCGH faculty member commented that the
publications that are produced in the scientific and professional journals, without
question, enhanced global presence. In a country like China, for example, where things
are developing fast, there is a real press for scholars and for scientists to publish in
leading journals. Thus, SCGH faculty have become very attractive to the colleagues in
Chinese universities because of their leadership and the capacity to turn out high quality
scientific professional publications.
To summarize the findings, most administrators and faculty characterized
international research collaboration as a catalyst that promotes academic advances in the
institution by broadening the range of cutting-edge global health issues that faculty can
study and by expanding the scope and diversity of the research conducted by SCGH
faculty. International research collaboration also contributed to increased grant funding,
and, potentially, to more tuition from both degree and non-degree programs since global
health programs show a trend of substantial growth in higher education. In addition,
77
faculty serve as ambassadors of CGU while they interacting with foreign partners and
increase CGU’s visibility overseas. Finally, publications that result from international
research give CGU recognition in the academic community. These benefits are consistent
with Etemad’s (2004) notion that Pull forces attract a firm by providing incentives and
signifying the benefits of larger and richer international markets. These forces may also
make internationalization less expensive, easier and faster.
Sub-Question A
How does the size of CGU as an institution affect its internationalization
strategies?
Push forces. According to Etemad (2004), strategic logic of international
operations is a component that pushes SMEs to internationalize because constrained
resources at home force SMEs to access others’ resources. Similarly, scarce resources
comprise one of CGU’s limitations. The constrained resources domestically may force
CGU to form collaboration and partnership in order to leverage partners’ resources and
networks.
About half of the participants believed that international research is more crucial
in a small university and the other half thought that it was equally important in both big
and small universities. Many faculty members believed that the size of departments at the
university was a better determinant of the amount of resources and support available.
This heterogeneity indicates that there are other predictors for perceived resources.
However, there was a consensus that international research collaboration has a larger
impact and receives more recognition in a small school because there are fewer projects
to compete for attention. Small universities may even have an advantage over bigger
78
universities because they may have less bureaucracy and, thus, could be able to respond
faster to international opportunities. Administrators also pointed out that the mission
statement drives internationalization, and CGU’s mission statement clearly supports
international research and education. Data analysis revealed that small universities are
pushed to internationalize to gain more resources and being a small university actually
gives them advantages to compete in the international markets.
Constrained resources. SCGH faculty expressed that there are limited resources
in the School of Community and Global Health (SCGH) due to the fact that the school is
newly established and under-funded. It has very little to do with the size of the institution
and more with how willing the institution is to allocate resources to certain
departments/schools within the institution. One SCGH faculty expressed that when his
department was housed in a bigger institution, it received more administrative support
because the department was bigger and the university was willing to give it more
resources. Here, they started a new school with very little funding and did not have the
resources they needed. Thus, he believes that the size of the department, rather than the
size of the institution, determines the amount and type of resources available to faculty
members. Another SCGH faculty observed missed opportunities due to limited resources
and infrastructure in information and telecommunication technology, which would be
helpful for the development of a successful distance-learning program targeting
prospective students globally. He added that he sees potential and room for global
education and global research to grow at CGU. IT infrastructure will enable them to do
more globally, particularly in education and to improve their interaction and
communication with overseas collaborators.
79
For small universities where resources are more scarce compared to larger
ones, institutions often choose to specialize in certain fields. For example, Cal
Tech is small but very well known in the fields of engineering and other bench
sciences. According to an administrator, CGU is also very focused on what it does
well and strives to specialize in narrower fields. As a result, CGU has visibility
only in a small number of fields. SCGH, the only health school on campus, has
not only brought in a new field of study to CGU but also made CGU more visible
in the health circle. One administrator expressed that large schools with greater
visibility were able to attract collaborators more easily and to forge formal
institutional arrangements to advance their internationalization agenda. For a
small school like CGU, because of limited resources and visibility internationally,
global engagement often stays at the faculty level rather than at the institutional
level. He said, “The limitation for small university like ours is we do not have lot
of resources and we may have limitations in recognition of our name. This
university is small and so to attract attention, we need to double our effort.” This
comment indicates the perceived difficulties for small schools to internationalize
from the administrator perspective.
International research also affects how CGU is viewed as a school in terms of
quality. According to a non-SCGH faculty, international research is one way for a small
university to show that it is only small in numbers. He explained that, when people hear
about a small school, a lot of stereotypes come up, such as an intimate classroom setting
with top students in the field or a classroom in a strip mall with four students in it. Since
the phrase “small school” is not enough of a description, people look for clues to
80
determine whether it is a good school. Although CGU has a small faculty body of about
114 full-time faculty, the international projects reflect the kind of work that CGU faculty
do, “Our faculty is trying to stop the smoking crisis in Asia and figuring out how to
reduce smoking in China. Our school just got millions to do this and we are really the
only ones in the country that are studying that specific issue, does it sound like a small
school to you? That right away puts people in a different mindset.” This notion suggests
that visible high impact international research changes the way people view a university
and gives the institution a more positive image.
Small universities are more flexible. Faculty reported that they saw the size of
CGU as an advantage in developing international research collaboration. They suggested
that it might be easier for smaller universities to form partnerships than for large
universities since they have less bureaucracy. Thus, small universities should be more
flexible and act more quickly in response to international opportunities to advance their
agenda. Faculty also felt more connected with administrators in smaller universities and
open communication with senior administrators was easier to arrange. This makes it
easier for them to find out if senior leadership shares the same values of
internationalization and the kind of support they are willing to provide. Faculty perceived
fewer barriers in establishing partnership and reported positive experience in discussing
forming partnership with senior administrators. One none-SCGH faculty member stated:
Non-SCGH faculty: “Nobody is stopping me from forming partnerships or
going after international initiatives. I have a direct line to the provost and I
tell them this is what I want to do, [they say] great, go for it.
81
This quote demonstrates that direct communication and positive feedback
from senior administrators help lower the perceived barriers for faculty to pursue
international initiatives. The level of bureaucracy can be very important in terms
of faculty satisfaction. One SCGH faculty gave an example of a former colleague
who left a major public university, despite the incredible resources, to work for a
small college because he felt that bureaucracy made it almost impossible to get
anything done. “I asked, why are you leaving? And he said, ‘I can't get anything
done here. They said they want this, but then when I tried to do it, I can't. I am
hoping that at this smaller college, I am going to able to do more and I can talk to
the president directly.’” The fact that bureaucracy and direct communication with
senior administrators are reoccurring themes highlights that they are crucial
elements to motivate faculty to engage in international activities.
Staskevicuite, Neverauskas, and Ciutiene (2006) support faculty’s view that small
universities are more flexible by pointing out that it is easier for a small university to
utilize organizational intelligence (the capacity of an organization as a whole to gather
information, to innovate, to generate knowledge, and to act effectively basing on the
knowledge it has generated) because there are more possibilities to embody informal
communication networks, which are used to transfer knowledge to other units.
Organizations mired in bureaucracy are slow to respond to environmental change such as
globalization. Thus, a small university with less bureaucracy should be able to respond
more nimbly to international research opportunities.
It is important to note that when faculty commented that small colleges might be
more flexible in response to internationalization opportunities there were a few
82
underlining assumptions. First, small universities have fewer bureaucracies compared to
large universities. Second, administrators are open to direct communication and take
faculty opinion into consideration when making decisions. Since these are stereotypes
that may or may not apply to all small universities, size is unlikely to be the only
predictor. Other alternative explanations include management structure and
organizational culture.
More recognition and greater impact on the institution. Faculty reported that
they believed international research projects would receive more recognition and have a
larger impact on a smaller institution. Many stated that big universities such as USC and
UCLA have already established a lot of collaboration and ongoing projects. Thus,
addition of new international projects and research funding does not really make a big
difference in such settings. Some SCGH faculty believe that international research
collaboration may be more important in a small university. In a big university with many
projects, one more project does not make much of a difference. However, in a small
university where there are not many international activities, the same project is viewed as
a considerable addition.
Most SCGH faculty expressed that new collaboration can be more important at a
small school because it has room to grow. Moreover, bigger universities are more
diversified financially and academically. CGU is good at certain areas, but the overall
offerings are limited in comparison, so adding the international research component
would have a relatively larger impact on the institution. One SCGH faculty compared his
experience working at a big public university to his experience at CGU. He reported that,
in a big university, landing a multimillion-dollar grant does not get much attention or
83
acknowledgement because there is much going on. However, in a smaller university like
CGU where there were not many established international research projects, having
research studies in the scale of the China Seven Cities Study is a big deal, and faculty
receive a lot more acknowledgement for their achievements. One SCGH faculty member
noted:
USC or UCLA, there is so much going on. School like ours [School of
Community and Global Health] whether or not we have five more international
collaborations, they are not going to care much about it. Here they would because
it's so small. So a little bit makes a big difference here. In a big school, it doesn't.
That's just like a million dollars [research grant funding] or something, they are
not going to blink an eye. But here [CGU] it's like, oh, wow, a couple millions,
big thing.
This quote contrasts faculty’s frustration at not being recognized in a big school and the
excitement of receiving a great deal of acknowledgement in a small school for similar
achievements. Although recognition is an intangible reward, most faculty spoke with
pride and passion about the fact that they found their work rewarding and felt that they
contribute significantly to the university. Their comments demonstrate that recognition
plays a role in motivating faculty and increasing faculty satisfaction.
University Missions. Interviews indicated that administrators have a different
view regarding the effect of institutional size on internationalization strategy. Most
administrators expressed that international research collaboration is important for both
big and small universities and the school missions determine if the schools would
prioritize internationalization. For example, if a school’s missions are to train and
84
prepare students for employment in a certain region so they can contribute to the local
economy, it may not be as crucial for them to internationalize. Mission statements of this
kind are more common in public universities. One administrator commented, “Large
institutions like Cal State Fullerton or Cal Poly Pomona may have less need [to
internationalize] because it focuses so much on a regional education than a much smaller
institution.” On the contrary, CGU, as a private school, has a mission that focuses more
on research and appears to align with the advancement of its internationalization agenda.
CGU’s mission statement states that CGU is nimble and free from many of the
constraints faced by huge research universities. One of the emphases of CGU’s mission is
to “follow the problem,” which means that their research and teaching transcend
academic boundaries. Their research aspires to “advance knowledge by convening
leaders and scholars to tackle the most important problems facing the local region and the
world” (About CGU, 2012). The mission statement of CGU clearly indicates its emphasis
and commitment on international education and research that solves both domestic and
global problems.
This section explores administrators’ and faculty’s perceptions regarding the
impact of a university’s size on its internationalization strategy. The result is consistent
with Etemad’s (2004) view that strategic logic of international operations, a component
of push forces, pushes SMEs to internationalize because constrained resources at home
forces SMEs to access others’ resources. About half of the participants believe that
international research is more crucial in a small university while the other half thinks that
it is equally important in both big and small universities. Many faculty members believe
that the size of departments in the university is a better determinant of the amount of
85
resources and support available. This heterogeneity indicates that there are other
predictors for perceived resources. However, there is a consensus that international
research collaboration has a larger impact and receives more recognition in a small
school because there are fewer projects to compete for attention. Small universities may
even have an advantage over bigger universities because they have less bureaucracy and,
thus, are able to respond to international opportunities faster. Administrators also pointed
out that the mission statement drives the decision of internationalization and CGU’s
mission statement clearly supports international research and education. Data analysis
reveals that small universities are pushed to internationalize to gain more resources and
that being a small university actually gives them advantages to compete in the
international markets. While it is crucial to examine what pushes small universities to
internationalize, the external pull forces that attract universities to internationalize such as
visibility in the international markets comprise another important dimension explored in
the next section.
Sub-Question B
To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international research to enhance
reputation for their institution?
Pull forces
The findings regarding sub-question B relate to Pull forces as discussed in
Etemad’s (2004) framework.
Visibility in international markets. According to Etemad (2004), liberation of
international markets facilitates exporting and presence in international markets. Overall
findings from interviews revealed that CGU has low name recognition outside of the U.S.
86
Through international research collaboration, foreign partners get to know CGU as an
institution by interacting with faculty members and, thus, CGU’s visibility internationally
increases. Domestically, dissemination of international work in the forms of publication
and conferences makes a statement that CGU is a player in high impact international
research. According to Cyrenne and Grant (2009), enhanced reputation may assist in
attracting high-quality student applicants, more research funding or greater government
funding, and it assumes magnified importance with a greater reliance on private fund
raising. Thus, enhanced reputation, both within and outside of the US, is an important
pull factor that attracts CGU to internationalize.
SCGH faculty gained a reputation for being reliable long-term partners and for
doing ethical work in developing countries. Their partnership with the Chinese Centers
for Disease Control, had been in existence for more than a decade at the time of this
study. This continuity and consistency assures international collaborators selecting
SCGH as their partner of choice when new opportunities arise. SCGH faculty were also
proud of their partnership approach in that they treat their international collaborators as
equal partners when conducting research in developing countries. Based on their respect
for cultural diversity, they developed a unique style of working relationship that
emphasized relationship-building and friendship. Some of the components included a
preference for informal negotiations during social events and indirect communication
through a trusted middle person. The fact that SCGH faculty embraced and adjusted
themselves to the Chinese style work relationship represents an uncommon practice for
investigators from the western culture. Thus, when international collaborators select
partners, SCGH faculty stand out as top candidates. SCGH faculty stated they make sure
87
they understand the needs and expectations of the collaborators and try to incorporate
them into the research projects. Maintaining a high level of transparency in the research
plan was crucial in making collaborators feel respected. Exchanging favors was another
major theme in nurturing this relationship. While the Chinese collaborators provided
research access and support, SCGH faculty provided training to their staff and helped
them build research capacity and infrastructure. One of the major research infrastructures
that SCGH built in China was the setting up of a local Institutional Review Board (IRB)
in each of the seven cities they work with and substantially increasing their research
capacity.
Administrators and faculty expressed that it takes time for branding of SCGH to
happen and for CGU to move up in university rankings. The Dean of SCGH argued that
the largest factor in all university rankings is productivity of the faculty, which is
measured primarily by research grants and publications. With the high level of research
productivity exhibited by the SCGH faculty he predicted that, when it is time for the next
cycle of rankings, the graduate public health programs at SCGH would rank very highly
and this would definitely bring prestige to CGU.
Reputation of Being a Reliable Long-Term Partner. In addition to the reputation
of conducting high quality research, SCGH faculty gained their reputation for being
reliable long-term partners and performing ethical work in developing countries. For
example, their partnership with the Chinese Centers for Disease Control is not project-
based and, thus, does not end when funding cycles ended. This continuity and
consistency assures international collaborators that SCGH faculty are reliable and, thus,
they are more likely to select SCGH as their partner of choice when new opportunities
88
arise. The dean of SCGH commented that it is important that SCGH is recognized as
being a good and long-term collaborator:
People can count on you to be there and you don't walk away when you are
through with a three-year or five-year grant. You are still there working with the
best. That's a very important thing and I think you develop a reputation for that.
There are these cases, not universities as a whole, but individual investigator
groups came in, got out of the collaborative in China, what they wanted was other
parts of the world and then walked away. That is not looked on so favorably I
think. The fact that we have been there for the long run really enhances the
reputation of the university.
This long-term partnership shows commitment and integrity of SCGH faculty and
reflects positively on CGU as a university.
Partnership Approach. SCGH faculty take a great deal of pride in their
partnership approach wherein they treat their international collaborators as equal partners
when conducting research in developing countries. According to Costello and Zumla
(2000), a partnership model pays attention to ownership, sustainability and the
development of national research capacity. SCGH faculty respect cultural diversity and
develop a unique style of working relationship that reflects their cultural understanding
with the Chinese collaborators. One SCGH faculty stated that cultural understanding is
the crucial piece in establishing international collaboration. In order to succeed in the
long run, researchers have to be willing to develop relationships and friendships that are
deeper than just research relationships. For example, it is common for SCGH faculty to
go on vacations with their Chinese collaborators. This is a way for the collaborators to
89
get to know the researchers and build the relationship. If the researchers refuse to spend
the time to go on vacations with them, there is a good chance that collaboration will not
happen because they would not feel that they can relate on that level. These leisure
activities also serve as opportunities for negotiation to happen. This reflection highlights
the importance of cultural understanding and acceptance in developing a working
relationship that is culturally appropriate for international collaborators. One SCGH
faculty member stated:
The negotiations I have made have been made over meals, over two-hour dinners
with the [Chinese] CDC. We don't talk business in the office, that's where they
send us details; the details are made over dinner, over handshakes and over
drinks. That’s the way it is and it’s a little bit different [from the western culture].
That really makes a difference if you truly understand and accept the culture.
SCGH faculty also encounter cultural differences in communication and pointed
out that Chinese people rarely give direct answers. SCGH faculty address this issue by
hiring native people who are from the country. One SCGH faculty member explained, “I
like to have a native people on my crew who are from the country. Sometimes they
[collaborators] will go to them [middle person] and not to me. And then that person who
become trusted middle person will then come to me.” Again, adjusting to their modes of
communication is a way to display cultural understanding that contributes to a successful
collaborating relationship. SCGH faculty explained that they make sure they understand
the needs and expectations of the collaborators and try to incorporate them into the
research projects.
90
Maintaining a high level of transparency is crucial in making collaborators feel
respected. SCGH faculty elaborated:
They need to be involved in the grant. They need to have a copy of the grant.
They need to know exactly what the research is. In other words, we can say, we
are going to do this research, will you do it? We have to lay out the entire
research plan and get their blessing. And they need to be able to say, we can't do
this piece. And so, we say, is there a way we could do it? Yes or no, and if they
can't, we have to adjust. So, we don't ask them to do things that they can't do. Or
if there is something that they are not doing right for whatever reason or that isn't
working, we need to be transparent and honest with them.
This description shows that there is two-way communication between SCGH faculty and
the Chinese collaborators. Both parties have opportunities to provide input and voice
their concerns. Braa, Monteiro, and Sahay (2004) suggest that a key strategy to make
action research sustainable is to align interests with the investigator’s approach and
philosophy. The long-term collaboration between SCGH faculty and the Chinese CDC
proves that their approach is successful in sustaining their international research projects
in China.
Exchanging favors is another major theme in nurturing this relationship. While
the Chinese collaborators provide research access and support, SCGH faculty provide
training to their staff and help them build research capacity and infrastructure. SCGH has
an open door policy when the collaborators request to send people to the US for training.
The collaborators generally pay for the plane fare and SCGH will cover lodging during
the training. The reciprocation of nice gestures strengthens both their relationship and
91
research partnership. One SCGH Faculty explained that foreign institutions experienced
exploitation in the past in the form of “helicopter research” when researchers fly to a
country and use the population for data collection purposes. When researchers get all
their data and leave, the local population has nothing other than data collection skills.
One SCGH faculty said:
This is the old model. I don't do that but that's the old model. So, countries know
that now and they are very picky. Unless you are willing to build research
capacity, so that they can do this work when you are gone, they won't work with
you anymore. By providing capacity building, you are building that relationship
and you are building trust and they know that you really do care about their
welfare.
This comment indicates that the partnership approach and research capacity building help
SCGH faculty stay competitive in forming and maintaining collaboration in developing
countries. The dean of SCGH expressed that US institutions have a commitment to build
and improve research infrastructure and collaborators hold universities that excel in
capacity building in higher esteem. One of the major research infrastructures that SCGH
built in China is setting up local Institutional Review Board (IRB) in each of the seven
cities that they work with. None of them had IRBs before. Thus, this infrastructure
increased their research capacity substantially.
These comments echo Costello and Zumla’s (2000) view that researchers should
move away from the existing semicolonial model “parachute research” in which western
researchers travel to Africa or Asia for short periods of time to collect data and publish
results with minimal representation of African or Asian input. The emphasis on
92
ownership, sustainability and the development of national research capacity has a
positive effect on the local society by building infrastructure. In the long term, a balanced
and equal research partnership has much greater development impact and the scope for
broader, multidisciplinary research increases (Costello & Zumla, 2000). The partnership
approach is also crucial in the building of trust and relationships that open doors to more
collaboration opportunities. One SCGH faculty member’s quote demonstrates the trust
from foreign government for the SCGH faculty as a positive outcome of the partnership
approach. This member stated, “When there was a tsunami in the Pacific, our faculty
have been doing some research and the government officials there asked him to come and
train some of their staff in responding to tsunami.”
The fact that the government officials invited them to train their staff on disaster
response and were not afraid to reveal sensitive disaster information shows that these
foreign governments do not only trust their expertise in academics but also their ethics
for not taking advantage of the situation. This shows that these foreign governments have
a lot of respect for the researchers at SCGH and perceive them as a research group with a
good reputation. SCGH faculty gained their reputation as ethical and reliable
collaborators through establishing a balanced and equal partnership with their overseas
collaborators. It should be noted that prestige started at the individual level when
collaborators associated prestige with SCGH faculty. Over time, prestige would transfer
to the institutional level when collaborators become more familiar with the institution.
University Rankings. Administrators and faculty expressed that it takes time for
branding of SCGH to happen and for CGU to move up in university rankings. One
administrator commented that it takes time for this brand new school to get firmly
93
established, for its programs to get accredited, for its faculty to grow, and for the faculty
affiliation with CGU to become well known. The names of the investigators and the work
they did were associated with USC, so it would be some time before faculty’s prestige
transferred to CGU. Thus, the addition of faculty and the international research projects
they brought with them may not have shown any effects on the university rankings yet.
According to Grewal, Dearden, and Llilien (2008), USNews university rankings are
partly based on institutional resources and reputation, which are two broad categories of
university attributes that normally change slowly.
The Dean of SCGH stated that people pay a lot of attention to rankings such as
those of USNews and of the Chronicle of Higher Education for overall university ranking
and National Research Council (NRC) rankings for graduate programs at the PhD level.
He argued that the largest factor in all of those rankings is productivity of the faculty,
which is measured primarily by research grants and publications. He commented, “That's
the coin of the realm” and added that the research productivity of SCGH faculty per
capita ranks among the highest in the country. Since coming to CGU, these faculty
doubled their research grant productivity. However, this increased productivity has not
been reflected in the NRC rankings for CGU because the last NRC rankings had been
published two years prior. That specific publication of rankings used data from 2006-
2007 when SCGH faculty were still affiliated with USC, which resulted in a benefit in
terms of rankings. The Dean believed that CGU would be the beneficiary of the research
productivity of SCGH faculty when the next NRC rankings were published and expects
SCGH’s graduate programs in public health to rank highly. Thus, CGU as whole will
benefit from that indirectly.
94
The Dean’s view on criteria for university rankings is consistent with those of
Buela-Casal et al. (2007) that measures regarding “quality of research” are the most
frequently used and receive the highest weights across the international university
rankings. Van Dyke (2005) also showed that the category of “Quality of Academic
Staff/Faculty” received the highest weights across ten national rankings. Seventy five
percent of these national rankings placed all weight onto a subcategory titled
“Research/Prestige” and teaching quality received much less attention. This indicates the
emphasis of research productivity in determining the rankings of a university.
Sub-Question C
To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international research to create
global connection in the institution?
Mediating forces. The dynamics of learning organization allow for transferring
and leveraging the learning at home and to other international markets. SCGH faculty
with rich international research background share their global connections and experience
with faculty from other departments at CGU. According to Etemad (2004), a firm’s own
characteristics, internal decision-making, strategy formulation and implementation
dynamics influence the ultimate results of internationalization. Interview data suggested
that CGU’s characteristics, such as an academic culture that highly encourages
transdisciplinary research and a proposal for reorganization to align multiple departments
studying international issues into one school, are “enablers” that accelerate the process of
internationalization at the university.
The findings indicate that the transdisciplinary academic culture at CGU
developed a supportive environment for faculty to share resources and create global
95
connections. The preliminary reorganization plan mandated that SCGH merged with the
international components of the School of Politics and Economics and thereby allowed
SCGH faculty to collaborate with other international-minded faculty to cover more
international issues. Some non-SCGH faculty reported that the international experience
of SCGH increased capacity for doing international research for the rest of the university.
The support of transdisciplinary research at CGU was reflected by the Transdisciplinary
Studies Department as a formal mechanism to promote collaboration, the Global
Educators Collaborative of Claremont (GECC) as a platform for international-minded
faculty and students to come together and discuss potential collaboration for international
projects, and by the new Executive Master in Global Health Leadership degree for
Chinese health professionals as a joint effort between SCGH and the Drucker School of
Management. The international research collaborations at SCGH set a successful
precedent in gaining buy-in from faculty who were not in favor of internationalization in
higher education. Administrators and faculty interviewed were optimistic that more
substantial collaboration among faculty from different departments would materialize in
the future.
Reorganization. During the data collection phase in March-April 2012, CGU was
in the process of planning a reorganization of the institution. There was a proposal that
the current nine schools, Drucker School of Management, School of Educational Studies,
School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, School of Religion, School of Politics
and Economics, School of Information Systems and Technology, School of Arts and
Humanities, School of Mathematical Sciences, and School of Community and Global
Health, would be combined into five schools. What this meant for the School of
96
Community and Global Health was the possibility of merging with one or more schools
on campus. The dean of SCGH explained that School of Arts and Humanities, School of
Religion, and the Botany program confirmed merging. The Drucker School of
Management, the School of Mathematics and the School of Information Sciences and
Technology would become one school as well. The rest of the schools, the School of
Behavioral and Organizational Sciences (SBOS), School of Community and Global
Health and School of Politics and Economics (SPE) were still in discussion regarding
what the reorganization will look like for their schools. One proposal was that SBOS and
some elements of SPE would combine and some elements of SPE will combine with
School of Community and Global Health.
If this arrangement were finalized, SCGH would combine with the global
elements at SPE including global economics and global politics. In this case, SCGH
would transform into a school that studies a wide range of international issues. Thus, the
international component in SCGH would likely expand and involve faculty members
from other disciplines. Most administrators and faculty viewed it as a positive change
since it would create opportunities for interdisciplinary studies and resources sharing
among faculty from different schools on campus. One SCGH faculty expressed that
faculty who perform research on global economics and global politics were very
interested in joining them and using the resources that they developed in Asia. At the
student level, many students from other schools had come to SCGH to take classes
because of the global work. Thus, the new global school would be a great environment
for both faculty and students who are interested in global issues. One administrator
anticipated this new global school would become a “natural habitat” for interdisciplinary
97
studies and stated that the global school would have several units such as public health,
international relations, economics, international economics, potentially global health
economics, public administration and global health. The diversity of disciplines in this
new global school indicated opportunities for faculty to approach a problem from
different angles and collaborate to come up with solutions.
The reorganization may help to break down some of the silos and barriers among
different academic units in the institution. For example, at the time of this study, the
reorganization had opened up communication for faculty from different departments by
bringing them together into planning meetings to share their international research
interests and their thoughts on the reorganization plan. Knowing who the different
players are and establishing personal relationship lay the foundation for future
collaborations when opportunities arise.
Culture of Transdisciplinary Studies at CGU. Both administrators and faculty at
CGU stated supporting and valuing transdisciplinary collaboration among different
schools on campus. From the administrator perspective, transdisciplinary is a major
criterion that the accreditation agency considers during the reaccreditation process. One
administrator explained that there were two themes that organize the reaccreditation
materials that CGU submitted to WASC. The first theme was applied research that has
immediate information for the world. The other was transdisciplinary, which means
bringing different perspectives to the table to understand a problem in a new way and that
can lead to new and more creative solutions. The administrator stated:
The work that Andy and his team are doing in the School of Community and
Global Health are exemplary in both regards. Their research agenda deals with
98
issues that are immediate interest to population around the world and that they
bring different perspectives to the table when they are doing that.
This quote demonstrated the administrator’s supportive and favorable attitude toward
interdisciplinary study and international research that can be applied around the world.
The fact that SCGH involved faculty from other schools in creating joint degree
programs and research was highly appreciated. SCGH faculty confirmed this view by
expressing that there was a strong mandate at CGU to work in transdisciplinary
collaboration and that donors allocate funding particularly for enhancing the visibility
and the execution of transdisciplinary collaboration.
From the faculty perspective, collaborating with researchers from other schools
on campus brings expertise from various fields and enriches the research being
conducted. In addition, each school that is brought to the table has its own connections
either in the US or in other countries. By working together, faculty are able to share
resources like contacts and study subjects. One non-SCGH faculty stated that SCGH
opened up contacts for all of CGU and conducted cross-cultural study that involved
thousands of possible foreign study subjects. He explained that, in the past, he had
requested some items of his own research interests be put in a survey that SCGH faculty
administered to their Chinese research subjects and collected data for his study. If SCGH
were to no exist, he would not have gained access to this large number of study subjects
for cross-cultural studies. Now, he felt that he had more opportunities and could make
similar types of requests to get support from SCGH. A number of SCGH faculty also
reported submitting grant proposals with faculty from another school at CGU. This did
not only bring experts from different fields of study to tackle an issue from different
99
angles, but the global experience of SCGH also made the grant proposal stronger. One
non-SCGH faculty member said:
I put in a grant [proposal] six weeks ago about expectancy violations and I got
SCGH faculty and then I got my team. That’s the beauty of it. In SCGH there are
leaders in the field, in global research. You put together a grant [proposal] where
they are together and you look stellar.
These interviews confirmed the culture of transdisciplinary studies at CGU. The
fact that administrators consider promoting transdisciplinary studies as a priority and
clearly communicate this to the faculty encourages faculty to increase collaboration
among themselves. This environment, in which faculty from different disciplines are
encouraged to connect with other schools, is advantageous in terms of sharing resources
and creating global connections to further the internationalization agenda of CGU.
Establishment of Transdisciplinary Studies Department. CGU established the
Transdisciplinary Studies Department as a formal mechanism to promote campus-wide
collaboration. This formal structure further supports CGU’s commitment to create a
transdisciplinary culture. According to the homepage of the Transdisciplinary Studies
Department, globalization and the complex nature of community and world problems
heightened the need to provide students with an education that enables them to work
collaboratively across multiple fields of study and to develop the habits of life-long
learning. Thus, in 2003, CGU’s faculty voted to add the transdisciplinarity core course
(T-Course) requirement for doctoral students. CGU faculty understands the T-Course
within the broad context of the history of ideas and education. CGU defines
transdisciplinarity as the interaction of three or more disciplines, distributed across two or
100
more schools, that produces results not likely to be obtained by any one discipline alone.
The Transdisciplinary Studies Department provides members of the CGU community
with opportunities to incorporate Transdisciplinarity into their personal research and
professional careers through Transdisciplinary Course requirements for Ph.D. students;
100 interfield and dual degree programs; Reading/Working Groups; Transdisciplinary
Dissertation Awards; Transdisciplinary Research Awards for CGU faculty members; and
a variety of on-campus events (CGU, Transdisciplinary Studies, 2012). Bordons, Zulueta,
Romero, and Barrigon (1999) suggested that Multidisciplinary Research Programme
(MRP) acts as a catalyst to enhance interdisciplinary relations within the university. An
evaluation of MRP at UCM revealed that the scientific output of the MRP research group
had a higher interdisciplinary collaboration rate than did the rest of the university (17%
vs 9%). This shows that a formal structure of a transdisciplinary center that provides
support is effective in increasing interdisciplinary collaboration within the university.
Global Educators Collaborative of Claremont (GECC). Although the
reorganization and the interdisciplinary research seem promising in bringing faculty from
different disciplines together, some faculty believe collaboration happens when two or
more invested leaders identify a problem that they are interested in working on and
contribute expertise from their own fields to come up with solutions. In order to address
this issue, a faculty member within CGU’s Teacher Education started an organization
called the Global Educators Collaborative of Claremont (GECC). The main aim of this
group was to break down some of the silos, build relationships among students, faculty
and staff from the Claremont Colleges and Claremont community members who care
about “things international” and promote synergistic and collaborative relationship
101
among its members (Special Initiatives: Globally Minded Educators, 2012). GECC hosts
monthly lunch meetings so faculty can discuss their international partnership and
potential collaboration. One non-SCGH faculty member explained:
It is aimed at building social capital among these people who have a
common interest in international things. I hope that there will be a
synergistic mutually beneficial relationship between the partners of these
meetings.
The establishment of GECC indicates that there is a good number of
faculty members who are interested in doing international work. GECC provides
a communication platform for these faculty to share resources, connections and
global experience. This informal campus-wide effort was instrumental in creating
global connections in the institution.
Joint Degree Programs. SCGH faculty observed from their experience that more
students from other schools on campus were interested in either taking classes in global
health or in pursuing a dual degree in global health. Thus, there is an opportunity for
different schools to collaborate in providing dual degrees or joint degree programs. At the
time of this study, SCGH collaborated with the Drucker School of Management to offer a
dual degree program in business administration and public health (MBA/MPH) that
aimed to provide leadership and management training for the health services industry at
the local, national and international levels. CGU was one of the ten universities in the
nation to offer this special degree combination. SCGH also collaborated with the School
of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences (SBOS) to offer a dual degree program in
Master of Applied Psychology (MA) and Master of Public Health (MPH) designed for
102
individuals who envision a career in psychology that combines public heath principles
(SCGH, 2012). One SCGH faculty member noted:
Students have a very strong interest in global health and so we are starting to see
an interest in dual degrees. For example, a student is working with mentors in
economics and they are learning about health by pursuing a dual degree in public
health. So there is it sort of interest in public health spreading through the CGU
campus from that standpoint.
Moreover, SCGH planned to expand these joint educational degree programs
overseas by developing a new unique degree with Drucker School of Management. It is
the Executive Master's degree in Global Health Leadership, which would have courses
and faculty from both Drucker School and SCGH. It would include training and
education in both business and public health. The plan was to start it out in China and
then expand to other countries. According to a SCGH faculty, the concept was inspired
by their experience working with Chinese collaborators in their research projects. They
observed a great demand for an executive master’s degree in public health among
beginning and middle level public health officials in China who lack public health
training. Collaborators in research advised them that this would be very valuable for
those professionals because it puts them on track to leadership positions. One SCGH
faculty commented that this program would be training the next generation of public
health leaders and professionals who have five to eight years of public health in China
but need this degree as a “union card” to be able to move up:
SCGH Faculty: There is a great need especially in People's Republic of
China where the positions in public health wasn't [appointed based on]
103
meritocracy. People have good contacts politically and got into positions
but weren't prepared to provide the kind of services that the country needs
and deserves. And so our collaborators were very supportive of starting
this.
The proposed format of this new Executive Master in Global Health Leadership
would be a combination of distance learning and intense training face-to-face at CGU
and locations in China. Students would earn their degrees in 12 to 13 months. At the
beginning of the program, students would study at Claremont for duration of 5 weeks to 2
months to work five or six days a week taking courses full-time. Then, they would return
to their countries and work on papers and projects in the distance-learning format. There
was also a possibility that faculty would visit to give lectures. Finally, students would
return the following summer for a shorter period of time to complete their papers,
presentations and projects.
At the time of this study, the largest hurdle was to get CGU on the Ministry of
Education’s approved list as a university in China. It is the Chinese equivalent of
accreditation. Employers will not endorse their employees’ enrollment and students
would not be interested unless CGU becomes an approved university. The former provost
had been instrumental in taking steps to get CGU approved and they hoped to receive
approval within months. Despite the obstacles, SCGH faculty were hopeful and confident
that this degree would succeed in filling a niche education market because their research
work over the years laid a good foundation by building relationships and reputation
overseas. One SCGH faculty member stated:
104
It is something that we were all excited about, both in the Drucker School and
here. We feel that we have a niche that others don’t in part because of the years of
experience in conducting research in these countries.
This quote highlights the importance of international experience in developing
educational programs overseas. Getting a new program accredited is a long and
complicated process. Much emphasis is placed on past international research and
experience. SCGH faculty were very confident that they would be approved in China
because of their years of experience. Thus, it would be beneficial for universities to start
their global engagement early to build up their international portfolio, which, in turn,
translates into more global opportunities.
Opportunities are still Unfolding. The international work of SCGH also helped
to inspire and gain buy-in from other faculty who did not agree with internationalization
in education. One administrator explained that SCGH faculty show other colleagues that
internationalization through international research collaboration can be achieved. Not
everyone is convinced about internationalization of education and setting a precedent
means much to other programs in this university.
Although the extent of SCGH involving other schools in internationalization
activities may not seem substantial, both administrators and faculty expressed that
collaboration took a long time to develop and it also took time for faculty in other schools
to learn who they are and what they do. SCGH also a spent majority of its energy in its
first few years of existence establishing the school, recruiting students, getting programs
accredited and keeping its own research going. However, once colleagues learned about
each other and where collaborations lie, they believed there would be momentum and
105
synergy and the effects would show within a few years. Both faculty and administrators
saw much potential for SCGH to create global connections in the university and were
excited to unfold the opportunities and effects in the near future. One administrator said:
I think that the impact of the school or the importance of having the school at
CGU will become stronger and more apparent with each passing year. People
have to spend some time adjusting and figuring out where the collaborations lie
and so forth. But, once you get that process going, you get a certain momentum
going and I think we will begin to see that in the next several years.
Since, at the time of this study, SCGH had only been established for about four
years, many collaboration and degree programs were still in the planning and developing
stage. It was a challenge for the current study design to showcase examples of actual
global connections created in the institution. However, CGU is showing mediating forces
that are positive in contributing to success in internationalization. These characteristics
include CGU’s strong interdisciplinary culture, administrators’ supportive attitude toward
interdisciplinary and international research, and interests in collaborating and sharing
international connections and resources at the faculty level. As a result, both
administrators and faculty expected to see more collaboration and global connections
within the university.
Conclusion
In-depth interviews with nineteen administrators, SCGH faculty and non-SCGH
faculty yielded a wealth of data for analysis to provide conclusions for the overarching
question and the three sub-questions. International research collaboration enhances the
global presence of CGU by facilitating academic advances, economic gain and prestige
106
gain. The transdisciplinary academic culture of CGU is a supportive environment for
faculty to share resources and create global connections. SCGH faculty take much pride
in the cutting-edge research projects that are made possible because international
collaborators provide access to bureaucracies, population, and physical environments
with unique tributes. Financially, international research collaboration also contributed to
increased grant funding, and, potentially, to more tuition from both degree and non-
degree programs since global health programs show a trend of substantial growth in
higher education. International research also introduced CGU to foreign institutions and
partners that may not have heard of the university before. The publications in scientific
and professional journals further make a statement about SCGH faculty’s research
quality and productivity. These are external pull forces that attract CGU to continue or
expand its international engagement.
However, internally, the fact that administrators and faculty felt the limitation of
scare resources and infrastructure at both the university and department levels pushes
them to seek out international partners in order to access their resources. Despite the
sense of insufficient resources, both administration and faculty view that being a small
private university can be an advantage in internationalization. Small universities have
less bureaucracy and more informal communication channels with senior leadership. This
gives them an edge in responding to international opportunities quickly. The
transdisciplinary academic culture at CGU also develops a supportive environment for
faculty to share resources and create global connections. Thus, although SCGH is a very
new school with scare resources, and many positive effects such as improved rankings
have yet to show, the general finding is that administrators and faculty are optimistic and
107
confident in the potential of international research collaboration to enhance the global
presence of CGU and create global connections in the university.
108
Chapter 5:
Discussion
Synthesizing the Results
The study sought to understand the role of international research collaboration in
enhancing the global presence of an institution in terms of academic advances, economic
gain and prestige gain, and to explore how the size of an institution affects the
internationalization strategies and how international research establishes global
connection in the institution.
Chapter One explained that higher education increased its international
involvement in response to the economic, political, and societal forces of globalization.
Some of the typical international activities are sending students abroad, recruiting
international students, establishing offshore campuses and encouraging international
faculty exchanges. Increasing international visibility through international research is a
driver for many transnational activities. The problem is that, while funding and resources
are increasingly invested in establishing international research collaboration, little was
known about what role such research collaboration plays in enhancing global presence.
Without a comprehensive understanding of research collaboration as a global initiative
and part of the internationalization plan, it is difficult for institutions to carry out their
internationalization plans.
Scholarship focused on international research collaboration is very limited and
dated. Most existing literature addresses the forms of international research collaboration,
the patterns of research collaboration, and the benefits of collaboration to the researchers
but rarely the benefits of collaboration to the institution. This case study examined the
109
School of Community and Global Health (SCGH) at Claremont Graduate University
(CGU). The purpose was to identify the role of SCGH’s international research
collaboration on enhancing the global presence of CGU as an institution. Thus, CGU
would serve as a model and provide lessons learned for universities that are considering
or implementing this internationalization approach.
Chapter Two presented a literature review that examined globalization, the impact
of globalization on education and the utilization of international research collaboration as
a means to globalize a higher education institution. Specially, the chapter explored the
concepts of globalization and internationalization, the impact of globalization on higher
education, the definitions and patterns of international research collaboration, and the
motives for institutions to engage in international research collaborations. The literature
review also went into depth on the Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework that was used
in data analysis. Since there is a limited framework that explains the internationalization
process in higher education, an integrative business framework of how small to medium-
size enterprises (SMEs) apply unique internationalization strategies to stay competitive in
the global market was adopted by the researcher for data analysis. Etemad (2004)
asserted that SMEs, due to their sizes and limited resources, face much competition in
international markets and have low capacity to absorb the risk of experimentation in new
markets. Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework attempts to analyze the
internationalization process of SMEs through three theoretical constructs. They are
termed “the Pushing Forces of Internationalization” (the Push factors), the “Attractive
Pulling Incentives of Internationalization” (the Pull factors) and the “Mediating Forces of
Internationalization” (the Mediating factors).
110
The Overarching Research Question: Based on the perceptions of institutional
leaders, what role does international research collaboration to play in enhancing the
global presence of a university?
Sub-Question A: How does the size of CGU as an institution affect its
internationalization strategies?
Sub-Question B: To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international
research to enhance reputation for their institution?
Sub-Question C: To what extent do leaders and faculty perceive international
research to create global connection in the institution?
The data was collected at CGU through in-person and phone interviews. A total
of nineteen interviews were conducted with administrators, SCGH faculty and non-
SCGH faculty. Based on the data, the summary of overall findings is presented below
along with best practice recommendations for universities seeking to increase global
presence through international research collaboration.
Addressing the Overarching Question
Administrators and faculty perceived international research collaboration to serve
as a catalyst in enhancing the global presence of CGU through facilitating academic
advances, economic gain and prestige gain.
Academic advances. International research collaboration plays a crucial role in
facilitating academic advances by broadening the range of cutting-edge global health
issues that faculty can study and by expanding the scope and diversity of the research
conducted by SCGH faculty.
111
The China Seven Cities Study (CSCS) provides longitudinal data that cover a
variety of topics including tobacco use, alcohol use, and other related health behaviors in
seven of China’s most populated urban areas. Since the western lifestyle is powerful
determinant of health and disease in developing countries, the collaboration is enabling
SCGH faculty to research global health issues that are important and timely in the field.
Disaster related research is a good example of how SCGH faculty, with help from the
Chinese collaborators, access disaster sites that are normally unavailable to other
researchers. This experience demonstrates the importance of having close relationship
with foreign collaborators who can provide political access to the appropriate
government bureaucracies. SCGH faculty felt that, if they did not have international
partners, the topics that they would be able to study would be narrower, less interesting
and less visible. They would also be limited in terms of the research questions they can
ask. The Chinese collaborators, at the time of this study, provided a variety of logistical
support and resources such as labor, transportation, and access to bureaucracies,
population, unique physical environment and facilities. These resources make the actual
execution of the research plan much easier and feasible.
Economic gain. Since SCGH joined CGU in 2008, the school brought over their
previous funding and acquired new grants that totaled about 21 million dollars. This
made SCGH the school with highest research funding at CGU. NIH, which is one of
SCGH’s major funding sources, has an intense interest in global health. Therefore, as
NIH funding allocation for global health increases, the funding opportunities for SCGH
faculty’s global health research also increase. It is important to note that the total grant
funding of SCGH included both domestic and global work. After teasing out the
112
community health portion, the funding may not be as substantial. However, faculty
pointed out that international projects led to a number of publications that were the first
of their kind. These pioneer projects were likely to lead to new grant opportunities and,
more importantly, to build a brand for SCGH and CGU that made it more likely to gain
both international and domestic grants. Faculty reported that the number of grants they
could apply for increased after SCGH joined CGU because of their international
experience.
In terms of tuition revenue, many SCGH faculty and administrators perceived
international research as a major selling point for students to attend CGU. They
mentioned three categories of students to whom international research would appeal:
students who are interested in global issues and working overseas, international students
from overseas, and students who are interested in the effects of globalization on health
locally. In the US, the trend of rapid growth of global health education programs
indicates student interest in global health and the potential income this interest translates
to. SCGH faculty were also in the process of developing non-degree professional training
programs for the Chinese collaborators that can be a direct revenue benefits for the
university.
Prestige gain. According to administrators and faculty, CGU has relatively low
visibility and name recognition overseas, and international research collaboration helped
CGU gain prestige through networking with partners around the world and this,
ultimately, extends CGU’s network as an institution. While SCGH faculty conduct
research in another country, they perform outreach and bring recognition to CGU’s name
by interacting with collaborators and by establishing working relationship. More
113
importantly, high impact research and publications that disseminate research findings are
some of the most visible activities to increase institutional prestige. International research
can potentially increase publication by opening door for faculty to submit to a better
selection of journals, including journals that have an international focus or journals that
are interested in international work. Publications in scientific and professional journals
also helped the group attract more international research collaborators, since publishing
in leading journals motivated collaborators to engage in research and consider research
productivity and publications as a major asset in this partnership. Thus, SCGH faculty
had become very attractive to the colleagues in Chinese universities because of their
leadership and capacity in turning out high quality scientific professional publications.
Sub-Question A: Size and Internationalization
About half of the participants believed that international research is more crucial
in a small university and the other half thought that it was equally important in both big
and small universities. Many faculty members believed that the size of departments at the
university was a better determinant of the amount of resources and support available.
This heterogeneity indicates that there are other predictors for perceived resources.
However, there was a consensus that international research collaboration has a larger
impact and receives more recognition in a small school because there are fewer projects
to compete for attention. Small universities may even have an advantage over bigger
universities because they have less bureaucracy and, thus, are able to respond to
international opportunities faster. Administrators also pointed out that the mission
statement drives the decision of internationalization and CGU’s mission statement clearly
supports international research and education. Data analysis reveals that small
114
universities are pushed to internationalize to gain more resources and being a small
university actually gives them advantages to compete in the international markets. While
it is crucial to examine what pushes small universities to internationalize, the external
pull forces that attract universities to internationalize, such as visibility in the
international markets, is another important dimension and is explored in the next section.
Sub-Question B: Reputation Enhancement for the Institution
SCGH faculty gained their reputation for being reliable long-term partners and for
doing ethical work in developing countries. Their partnership with the Chinese Centers
for Disease Control, at the time of this study, had been in existence longer than a decade.
This continuity and consistency assures international collaborators select SCGH as their
partner of choice when new opportunities arise. SCGH faculty was also proud of their
partnership approach in that they treat their international collaborators as equal partners
when conducting research in developing countries. Based on their respect for cultural
diversity, they developed a unique style of working relationship that emphasized
relationship building and friendship. Some of the components included the preference of
informal negotiations during social events and indirect communication through a trusted
middle person.
The fact that SCGH faculty embraced and adjusted themselves to the Chinese
style work relationship is not a common practice for investigators from the western
culture. Thus, when international collaborators select partners, SCGH faculty stand out as
top candidates. SCGH faculty stated they make sure they understand the needs and
expectations of the collaborators and try to incorporate them into the research projects.
Maintaining a high level of transparency by laying out the research plan was crucial in
115
making collaborators feel respected. Exchanging favors was another major theme in
nurturing this relationship. While the Chinese collaborators provided research access and
support, SCGH faculty provided training to their staff and helped them build research
capacity and infrastructure. One of the major research infrastructures that SCGH built in
China was the setting up of a local Institutional Review Board (IRB) in each of the seven
cities they work with and substantially increasing their research capacity.
Administrators and faculty expressed that it takes time for branding of SCGH to
happen and for CGU to move up in university rankings. The Dean of SCGH argued that
the largest factor in all university rankings is productivity of the faculty, which is
measured primarily by research grants and publications. With the high level of research
productivity that SCGH faculty have, he predicted that, when it is time for the next cycle
of rankings, the graduate public health programs at SCGH would rank very high and this
would definitely bring prestige to CGU.
Sub-Question C: Creating Global Connection in the Institution
The findings indicate that the transdisciplinary academic culture at CGU
developed a supportive environment for faculty to share resources and create global
connections. The preliminary reorganization plan that SCGH merged with the
international components of the School of Politics and Economics allowed SCGH faculty
to collaborate with other international-minded faculty to cover more international issues.
Some non-SCGH faculty reported that the international experience of SCGH increased
the capacity for doing international research for the rest of the university. The support of
transdisciplinary research at CGU was reflected by the Transdisciplinary Studies
Department as a formal mechanism to promote collaboration, the Global Educators
116
Collaborative of Claremont (GECC) as a platform for international-minded faculty and
students to come together and discuss potential collaboration for international projects,
and the new Executive Master in Global Health Leadership degree for Chinese health
professionals as a joint effort between SCGH and Drucker School of Management. The
international research collaboration at SCGH set a successful precedent in gaining buy-in
from faculty who were not in favor of internationalization in higher education.
Administrators and faculty interviewed were optimistic that more substantial
collaboration among faculty from different departments would materialize in the future.
Implications
The current study provided findings on the role of international research
collaboration in enhancing the global presence of an institution. These findings can be
utilized to design appropriate internationalization agendas. The results indicate that
faculty and administrators perceived the institution gained visibility through increasing
research funding and publication, student tuition, name recognition by foreign
collaborators, and capacity for non-SCGH faculty to conduct international research. The
data revealed that, in order to encourage faculty to engage in international research,
senior administrators need to show support and have open direct communication with
faculty regarding the university’s stance in terms of internationalization activities and
how the activities at the faculty level fit in the big picture. In addition, the institution has
to minimize bureaucracy so faculty can respond to international opportunities quicker
and encounter fewer barriers in the process.
The experience international collaborators have with faculty members, both good
and bad, directly reflect on the university’s reputation as a research institute. Faculty who
117
perform international research represent the university and, thus, should be equipped with
tools to deal with foreign collaborators. The university should establish clear formal
guidelines on research ethics and provide faculty with resources and trainings of best
practices. Cultural sensitivity is also an important element that determines the success of
collaboration. It would be beneficial to have a mentoring program whereby faculty who
are experienced in international research share lessons learned in the form of
presentations and one-on-one mentoring in order to better prepare faculty who are new to
international research.
Sharing global connections and having faculty collaboration among different
departments at the university would increase the capacity for less globalized departments
to engage in international activities. In order to take full advantage of established
international research collaboration, departments cannot work in silos and limit
themselves in their own fields. CGU created Transdisciplinary Studies Department as a
formal mechanism for faculty and students from different fields to work together and
design solutions of complex problems from various angles. The global forum GECC at
CGU also provided an opportunity for international-minded faculty and students to meet
and learn more about each other’s international work and contacts that may lead to
collaboration. Formal infrastructures that facilitate collaboration and resource sharing are
highly desired by faculty and students, since they found it difficult to connect with
researchers outside of their fields. Universities may also consider establishing centers for
international research to more effectively connect international-minded faculty and
students.
118
The case study demonstrated that pursuing international research collaboration as
an internationalization strategy takes a considerable amount of time before the effects and
tangible benefits become evident. It is a long-term investment of resources and, thus,
leaders should consider this as a factor in strategic planning of internationalization
agenda. It is also worth noting that, in the current study, international research
collaboration was not the only factor that contributed to desired effects such as increased
funding. It was more often perceived to work indirectly for the university to achieve
these outcomes. For example, editors and funders may view the university as having the
capacity to conduct quality research based on its strong international research portfolio,
which makes it easier for faculty from the same university to publish or gain funding. In
this case, the international component is just one consideration and the university can
partially attribute the success to having international research. Leaders must fully
understand how international research collaboration works and must have realistic
expectations in terms of investment and returns. It is recommended that leaders establish
measurable outcomes and evaluation on a regular basis to track the internationalization
progress of the institution utilizing international research collaboration as an
internationalization strategy.
The current study also raises the question of whether the nature or the type of
research makes a difference. The type of research that SCGH faculty conduct is mostly
population research. It does not only involve human subjects but also experts from
different academic disciplines and stakeholders who facilitate and implement the
projects. For example, the partners in China Seven Cities Studies include the Chinese
Centers for Disease Control in all the seven cities, local high schools, hospitals and local
119
universities. Compared to a bench scientist who shares a laboratory with other
researchers overseas and have remote information exchange, it takes a deeper level of
involvement and interaction to coordinate international population research. As a result,
an institution may benefit more from population research collaboration due to a deeper
level of relationship building with collaborators.
Usefulness of Framework
Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework seeks to understand the success of
internationalization for small to medium-size enterprises through constructs of the push
forces, pull forces and mediating forces. The push forces are usually internal factors that
exert pressure on the firm from the inside to internationalize. The pull forces, which are
usually external, enhance the firm’s competitiveness or provide attractive incentives for it
to internationalize. The mediating forces are the true manifestation of the above forces
affecting the firm. The firms’ processes depend on its basic characteristics, the
orientation of its entrepreneur or managers and circumstances under which these forces
exert pressure on or interact with the firm. The interactive factors refer to those forces
that result from the interaction between active components of the Pull and the Push forces
exerting influence on the firm.
In the present study, the researcher applied Etemad’s framework in an attempt to
understand the internationalization process of CGU. It was useful to the extent that the
lens of Push forces, Pull forces and Mediating forces keep the research focused by
organizing themes into internal factors, external factors and how university
characteristics support or deter these forces. to the framework was useful in portraying
the how different parts work together to facilitate internationalization at CGU: scare
120
resources push the university to internationalize, incentives of resources from partners,
academic advances, economic gain and prestige gain pull the university to
internationalize, and these forces interact with CGU’s flexibility and transdisciplinary
culture to support resource sharing and the spread of internationalization within the
university. On the other hand, the major downside of applying Etemad (2004) on this
case study was that many sub-components of the push, pull and mediating forces are not
applicable to higher education. The researcher originally proposed to use six sub-
categories (founder/manager characteristics, strategic logic of international operations,
liberalization of international markets, attraction and resources of partners, the dynamics
of learning organizations, and leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources) in data
collection, but used only three(strategic logic of international operations, liberalization of
international markets, attraction and resources of partners, the dynamics of learning
organizations). The researcher found that, when applying this framework in higher
education, the subcategories were too specific to the industry and may make data analysis
inflexible.
Limitations
The most significant limitation of the study was its scope. The goal of this single
case study was to examine the international research collaboration at CGU and determine
the extent to which this collaboration contributes to creating greater global presence in
the institution. The study sought to understand how international research collaboration
contributes to globalization enhancement of an institution as a whole. This study
identified important factors that institutions should consider before implementing such
collaboration. In addition, due to logistics constraints, the previous administration was
121
not be contacted, and, thus, the study lacked perspective from that angle. It should also be
noted that the present study used a convenience sample that may contribute to sampling
bias and limit its generalizability. Although CGU is one of the few graduate-only,
research-extensive universities in the country, the roles of international research
collaboration as an internationalization strategy should be similar to that of other research
universities, and, thus, findings may be generalized to such institutions. This case study
may provide valuable in-depth information on international research collaboration, and
such practice may be replicated at other higher education settings
Delimitations
The present study intended to understand the role that international research
collaboration plays in enhancing the global presence of an institution from the
perspective of senior personnel, SCGH faculty involved in the collaboration and non-
SCGH faculty not involved in the collaboration. It was solely based on perceptions of
interviewees and how they felt about the influence of the research collaboration in the
institute. Actual evaluations of these claims were beyond the scope of this study.
Future Research
Based on the findings of this study, future research is needed in several
perspectives to better understand the role of international research collaboration in
enhancing the global presence of an institution. First, a longitudinal and comparative
study of multiple institutions that are comparable to CGU in terms of size to explore the
long-term effects of international research collaboration on prestige gain, economic gain,
academic advances and collaboration within the university would be beneficial for both
researchers and practitioners. Since this descriptive study only examined one institution,
122
more case studies would provide data that could be generalized beyond the scope of the
current study. One of the major findings was that it took time for programs to develop,
connections within the institution to form, and for the effect on prestige to materialize.
Thus, a longitudinal design would allow researchers to access long-term effects of
international research collaboration on the institutions.
One of the limitations of this study was its use of a convenience sample that may
result in sampling bias. Thus, future research should consider employing random
sampling to ensure that the sample is representative of the population. This will increase
the study’s ability to generalize and make inference about the entire population.
Moreover, the present study only explored the issue from the perspectives of faculty and
administrators. Future studies that include the views of students and members of the
board of directors may shed light on important aspects that contribute to the success of
internationalization. An examination of support from various stakeholders, such as
faculty, dean, provost, president and board of directors, in terms of internationalization in
higher education is crucial for the implementation and future success of an institution’s
internationalization agenda. It is especially important to examine why some stakeholders
are not in favor of advancing the university’s internationalization agenda, so practitioners
can anticipate resistance, access readiness, and address any major concerns before
implementation.
A comparative study between an institution that acquires a team of faculty with
rich international experience and an institution that asks existing faculty to establish
international research projects would contribute to understanding of the pros and cons of
these different approaches. This will also help to better understand how prestige of
123
faculty is transferred to the institution, how much ownership the faculty have for the
internationalization activities, and how internationalization is spread in the campus
through collaboration at the faculty level. In addition, since SCGH had both domestic and
international research components when the school joined CGU, it was hard to tease out
the effect of the international component from the effect of SCGH as a whole. Examining
institutions that have a clear starting point in their international research engagement
would allow a pre- and post-comparison and would make it easier to attribute the effects
to international research collaboration.
Finally, a mixed method study to examine both the qualitative and quantitative
aspects of institutional prestige and revenue would be beneficial for decision makers to
determine whether they would invest resources into international research collaboration
as an internationalization strategy. In approaching the theme of prestige, it is worth
noting that this is a nebulous, difficult to define, construct. In the present study, prestige
was defined as school name recognition by foreign collaborators and ranking of
American universities. In future studies, researchers may be interested in examining the
perception of prestige from other stakeholders, such as grant awarding agencies,
accreditation agencies, donors and alumni. The quantitative aspect may include research
funding per capita and number of large grants received, as a single high value grant may
be more prestigious than many separate grants and may better reflect the departments’
capacity to conduct large-scale, rigorous, and important research. Other factors worth
considering are the number of students who choose to enroll in the institution’s degree
and non-degree programs because of its international research portfolio.
124
Conclusion
The overall conclusion drawn from the analysis of interviews is that faculty and
administrators perceived the role of international research collaboration as enhancing the
global presence of an institution by increasing research funding and publication, student
tuition, name recognition by foreign collaborators, and capacity for non-SCGH faculty to
conduct international research. The results from faculty and administrator interviews
demonstrated that international research collaboration facilitates academic advances by
expanding the scope and diversity of the research conducted by SCGH faculty. In terms
of economic gain, SCGH increased the overall research grant funding of CGU and may
provide more revenue from tuition of degree programs and non-degree professional
training programs. Faculty and administrators also believed that CGU had relatively low
visibility and name recognition overseas, and international research collaboration helped
CGU gain prestige through networking with partners around the world. When SCGH
faculty conduct research in another country, they perform outreach and bring recognition
to CGU’s name by interacting with collaborators and by establishing working
relationship. The transdisciplinary academic culture at CGU developed a supportive
environment for faculty to share resources and create global connections within the
institution. The theoretical lens from Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework
demonstrated how Push forces (scarce resources) spurred SCGH to internationalize, Pull
force (resources of collaborators) attracted SCGH to internationalize, and Mediating
force (transdisciplinary culture and collaborations within the institution) accelerated the
process of internationalization.
125
At the time of this study Claremont Graduate University was undergoing major
changes of reorganization to reduce the number of departments from nine to five. It is
difficult to predict the long-term implications, but the speculation is that these changes
may reduce overhead and encourage collaborations within the institution. It was also a
major milestone for the MPH program at SCGH when it received accreditation from the
Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) on July 2012. These changes point to a
positive trajectory of promoting internationalization. If CGU can maintain its
transdisciplinary culture and supports from administrators, CGU is likely to maintain and
expand its current success in internationalization.
126
References
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.
Armstrong, L. (2007). Competing in the Global Higher Education Marketplace:
Outsourcing, Twinning and Franchising. New Directions for Higher Education,
140, 131-138.
Arunachalam S. & Doss M. (1999). Science in a small country at a time of globalisation:
domestic and international collaboration in new biology research in Israel.
Journal of Information Science. 26, 39-49.
Buela-Casal G., Gutierrez-Martinez O., Bermudez-Sanchez M. and Vadillo-Munoz O.
(2007). Scientometrics. 71(3), 349-365.
Bordons, M., Zulueta, M.E., Romero, F. and Barrigon S. (1999). Measuring
Interdisciplinary Collaboration within a University: the Effects of the
Multidisciplinary Research Programme. Scientometrics. 46(3), 383-398.
Braa J., Monteiro E. and Sahay S. (2004). Networks of Action: Sustainable Health
Information Systems across Developing Countries. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 337-
362.
Bryar R.M. (1999). An examination of case study research. Nurse Researcher. 7(2), 61-
78.
CGU: About CGU. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from http://www.cgu.edu/pages/157.asp
CGU: School of Community and Global Health: About Us. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from
http://www.cgu.edu/PAGES/5648.ASP
CGU: School of Community and Global Health: Research. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from
http://www.cgu.edu/PAGES/5650.ASP
Carnoy M. & Rhoten D. (2002). What does globalization mean for educational change: a
comparative approach. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 1-9.
Chan, W.Y. (2004). International cooperation in higher education: Theory and practice.
Journal of studies in international education, 8(1), 32-55.
Childress, L.K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309.
Collins FS, Glass RI, Whitescarver J, et al. (2010). Public health: developing health
workforce capacity in Africa. Science, 330, 1324–1325.
127
Costello A. and Zumla A. (2000). Moving to Research Partnerships in Developing
Countries. British Medical Journal, 321(7264), 827-829.
Cyrenne, P. & Grant H. (2009). University decision making and prestige: An empirical
study. Economics of Education Review, 28, 237-248.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10, 191-193.
de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of
America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Douglass, J.A. (2005). All globalization is local: countervailing forces and the influence
on higher education markets. Center for Studies in Higher Education UC
Berkeley Research and Occasional Paper Series. CSHE.1.05.
Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalization, and the nation-state: recent
development and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education. 47(3), 361-
382.
Etemad H. (2004). Internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises: A
grounded theoretical framework and an overview. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Services, 21(1), 1-21.
Frame J.D. & Carpenter M.P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies
of Science, 9(4), 481-497.
Geiger R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: research universities and the paradox of the
marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1988). Abroad and beyond: Patterns in American
overseas education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Government Accountability Office. (2007). Global competitiveness: Implications for the
nation’s higher education system. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07135sp.pdf
Green, M. F. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A strategic approach. International
Educator, 7(1), 13-26.
Grewal R., Dearden J.A., and Llilien G.L. (2008). The university rankings game, The
American Statistician, 62(3), 232-237.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
128
Hanson, L. (2010). Global citizenship, global health, and the internationalization of
curriculum: A study of transformative potential. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 14(1), 70-88.
Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell and G.
Symon, (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide
(209-229). London: Sage.
Katz J.S. and Martin B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26,
1-18.
Khairul Baharein Mohd Noor. (2008). Case Study: A Strategic Research Methodology.
American Journal of Applied Sciences 5(11), 1602-1604.
Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In J. Knight & H. de Wit
(Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.
Landrigan, P.J., Ripp, J., Murphy R.J.C., Claudio, L., Jao, J., Hexom B., Bloom H.G.,
Shirazian, T., Elahi, E., & Koplan J.P. (2011). New Academic Partnerships in
Global Health: Innovations at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Mount Sinai
Journal of Medicine, 78(3), 471-483.
Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization
contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72 (4), 533-561.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a
longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3),
248–66.
Levin, J.S. (1999). Mission and structures: Bringing clarity to perceptions about
globalization and higher education in Canada. Higher Education, 37, 377-399.
Lim, G. C. (2003). The rationale for globalization. In G. C. Lim (Ed.), Strategy for a
global university (2nd ed., pp. 3-20). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Luukkonen T., Persson O., & Sivertsen G. (1992). Understanding Patterns of
International Scientific Collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values.
17(1), 101-126.
MacFarlane, S.B., Marian J. Ephata K. (2008). In the Name of Global Health: Trends in
Academic Institutions. Journal of Public Health Policy, 29(4), 383-401.
129
Melin G. (1999). Impact of national size on research collaboration: a comparison
between northern European and American universities. Scientometrics, 46 (1),
161-170.
Merson, M.H., and Page KC. (2006) The dramatic expansion of university engagement in
global health: Implications for U.S. policy. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic
and International Studies.
Meyer, C.B. (2001). A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329–352.
Meyer J, Spilsbury K, & Prieto J. (2000). Comparison of findings from a single case in
relation to those from a systematic review of action research. Nurse Researcher, 7
(2), 37-59.
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.
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (2004). A call to
leadership: The presidential role in internationalizing the university. Retrieved
June 28, 2011, from
http://www.nasulgc.org/CIP/Task%20Force/Call_to_leadership.pdf
National Institutes of Health. (2011). Success rates. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from
http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx
Ndlovu, R. (1999). A model for international research collaboration. International
nursing review. 46(4),117-121.
Palmisano, S. J. (2006). The globally integrated enterprise. Foreign Affairs, 85(3), 127–
136.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Persson, O., Glanzel, W., & Danell, R., (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: the role
of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative
studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.
Ponds R., Van Oort F., and Frenken K. (2007). The geographical and institutional
proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-444.
Porter, P. & Vidovich L. (2000). Globalization and higher education policy. Educational
Theory, 50(4), 449-465.
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual
framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-270.
130
Reichard, J. F. (1983). Summary and agenda for future interchanges. In H. M. Jenkins
(Ed.), Educating students from other nations: American colleges and universities
in international educational interchange (pp. 295-318). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st Century.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1):3-10.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education.
Higher Education, 48, 5-26.
Van Dyke N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in
Europe, 30,103–125.
Wagner C.S. and Leydesdorff L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the
growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10):1608–
1618.
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Applied Social Research Series,
Vol. 34. London: Sage.
Wu, Y., Ma, G., Hu, Y., et al. (2005). The current prevalence status of body overweight
and obesity in China: data from the China nutrition and health survey. Chinese
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39, 316–320.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In recent decades, higher education institutions have steadily increased their international involvement in response to globalization. High-level research is generally a key component in efforts to increase international visibility (Armstrong, 2007). International research collaborations are perceived to be an important way to enhance global presence. However, little is known about what role such research collaboration plays in enhancing global presence. The goal of this study was to examine international research collaboration at Claremont Graduate University (CGU) and determine the extent to which this collaboration contributes to creating greater global presence in the institution. Utilizing a case study of CGU’s School of Community and Global Health (SCGH), this study sought to understand how international research collaboration contributes to the globalization of an institution as a whole. ) The methodology included interviews with administrators, SCGH faculty and non-SCGH faculty. Data were analyzed through the lens Etemad’s (2004) integrative framework of internationalization. The findings indicated that administrators and faculty perceived international research collaboration to serve as a catalyst in enhancing the global presence of CGU through facilitating academic advances, economic gain and prestige gain.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement
PDF
Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university
PDF
An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study
PDF
The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management
PDF
The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China
PDF
Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program
PDF
Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university
PDF
Selection of partners for international joint degree programs
PDF
Examining the market entry strategies of a university's international expansion into a developing country
PDF
Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study
PDF
Recruiting faculty abroad: examining factors that induced American faculty to work at branch campuses in Qatar's Education City
PDF
The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit
PDF
Cross-cultural training of expatriate faculty teaching in international branch campuses
PDF
Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis
PDF
The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs
PDF
The market for branch campuses: UNLV Singapore and the role of the government in defining its market
PDF
Establishing and marketing an international branch campus: a case study of Savannah College of Art and Design Hong Kong
PDF
Achieving faculty diversity at University of California medical schools while maintaining compliance with proposition 209
PDF
Google Apps: an opportunity to collaborate
PDF
Increasing international student enrollment at an East Asian university: a gap analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ao, Fiola Ka Wa
(author)
Core Title
The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/09/2012
Defense Date
10/18/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Globalization,Higher education,internationalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,Prestige,research collaboration,visibility
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Diamond, Michael A. (
committee chair
), Robison, Mark Power (
committee chair
), Cen, Steven Yong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
fionaao@gmail.com,kawaao@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-107378
Unique identifier
UC11289152
Identifier
usctheses-c3-107378 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AoFiolaKaW-1274.pdf
Dmrecord
107378
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ao, Fiola Ka Wa
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
Tags
internationalization
research collaboration
visibility