University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

1

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION:
A CASE STUDY OF THREE KOREAN PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

by

Yonghwan Bang

_______________________________________________________________

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

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Yonghwan Bang

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to Hyejin, my lovely wife and daughters, family
members, and Roz, my good friend and mentor who always believed in me and
supported me from the beginning until the end. Without all your understanding and
patience through this whole process, I could not be where I am today. To take this
opportunity, I want to say that I love you all so much!

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Dominic J. Brewer who has encouraged me to pursuit
my academic goal and has been patient as I finish my dissertation. I also would like to
show appreciation to the other members of my dissertation, Dr. Melora Sundt and Dr.
Justin Gukhyun Cho for their understanding and assistance so that I can complete this
difficult process.
I also wish to acknowledge the help and support from the universities I have
visited for this study. I really appreciate the support from Monique and Ash, my
classmates from the University of Southern California – Hawaii cohort 2007. Lastly, I
wish to thank the staff and academic advisors at USC Rossier School of Education who
have been an additional supporting system for me to complete this hard task.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 13
Internationalization of Higher Education in Asian Countries 14
Enrollment Drop in the Korean Higher Education Market 16
University Organizational Culture for Internationalization 18
Statement of the Problem 20
Purpose of the Study 22
Importance of the Study 24
Limitations and Delimitations 25
Organization of Study 27
Chapter Two: Literature Review 29
Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education 29
Goal and Rationale of Internationalization and Globalization 31
Patterns and Trends of Globalization and Internationalization 33
National Level – Higher Education Sector 35
Education Reform and New Public Management 39
Marketization/Recruitment Strategies 43
Institutional Level 46
Strategic Planning and Organizational Culture 48
Presidential Leadership for Internationalization at the Institutional Level 52
Chapter Three: Methodology 56
Qualitative Inquiry 57
Case Study Design 59
Sampling and Population 60
Overview of Institutions 61
Participants 62
Rationale for Selecting the Cases 64
Instrumentation 66
Questions for President 67
Questions for Dean and Director, Office of International Affairs 69
Data Collection Procedures 72
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

5
Data Analysis 74
Ethical Considerations 75
Conclusion 75
Chapter Four: Findings 77
Institutions, Interview Settings, and Background Information of 79
Informants
The Purpose of the Internationalization 83
The Process of Internationalization 88
The Outcomes of the Internationalization 94

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 101
Summary 101
Discussion 105
Conclusion 115
Implications for Practice 119
Areas for Future Research 121
References 122
Appendices 133
Appendix A: Information/Facts Sheet for Non-Medical Research 133
Appendix B: Recruitment – Phone/Email Dialogue for Informants 135
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for University Presidents 136
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for University Dean and Director, 138
Office of International Affairs
Appendix E: Documents to be Analyzed 140
Appendix F: Quantitative Findings 141

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: List of Potential Participants 78
Table 5.1: Jane Knight (2007), Institutional Level Strategies for 103
Internationalization
Table 5.2: Motivations for Internationalization of Campus 106
Table 5.3: Purposes of Internationalization of Campus 107
Table 5.4: Conditions for Internationalization of Campus 109
Table 5.5: Stages of Internationalization of Campus 114
Table F.1: Number of International Students and Countries of Origin 154
Table F.2: Number of Active Partner Institutions Between 2008 and 2011 160
Table F.3: Number of Out-Bound and In-Bound Students Between 2008 167
and 2011

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure F.1. Summary of internationalization indexes based on JEDI 145
evaluation
Figure F.2. Percentage of foreign faculty 147
Figure F.3. Country of origin and academic fields for foreign faculty 149
Figure F.4. Percentage of international students 151
Figure F.5. Total number of international students 151
Figure F.6. Types of international students between 2009 and 2012 152
Figure F.7. Country of origins based on the average number of students 156
between 2009 and 2012
Figure F.8. Top 5 countries of international students 157
Figure F.9. Academic fields for the international students 159
Figure F.10. Changes of out-bound and in-bound between 2008 and 2011 161
Figure F.11. Average number of out-bound and in-bound students between 164
2008 and 2011

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

8
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the current practices of internationalization at three
private universities in Korea. It seeks to describe how and why the universities began
internationalizing their campuses, and what strategies and programs they have
implemented based on the role of presidential leadership. In analyzing the leader’s role
in implementing internationalization strategies, the study employs two theoretical
frameworks. First, the leadership orientation is analyzed thorough Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) four frames of leadership. Second, the study adopted Knight’s (2007)
institutional level strategies for internationalization to review the activities and practices
at the universities.
The examination of the rationales for internationalization, how the process is
displayed, and what the results were after internationalization is operationalized by two
data-gathering processes. The first includes interviews conducted with presidents,
senior and middle level administrators, and staff – the key persons responsible for
implementing the university’s internationalization strategy. The second is a review of
quantitative data – the number of international faculty and students, number of students
who were engaged in international academic programs, and number of courses offered
in English – based on the government’s information disclosure system for the university
and a newspaper’s university evaluation and ranking information.
Findings from the study revealed the President’s vision and support are crucial
as an input for internationalizing the campus. While Knight (2007) only described
presidential leadership as one of the factors under governance within the organizational
strategy, in the Korean context the findings from the cases in this study suggest adding
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

9
presidential leadership as a separate strategy from the organizational one. International
activities, programs, and strategies as a process of internationalization are on-going
phenomena and continue to evolve from outbound-oriented exchange student programs
to assisting developing countries, all of which have been influenced by external
incidents such as Korea becoming an OECD member.
Quantitative findings such as numbers of international partners, students,
faculties, programs, and courses as outcomes of internationalization demonstrated that
current internationalization policy and strategies at the universities varied by geographic
location, size of the university, and the organizational culture. The key quantitative
finding is that most universities have achieved a certain level of internationalization but
should diversify the country of origins among the international students.
The study recommends that a university can be transformed or developed so
long as the appropriate leadership has been placed into the organization. Also, an
integrated leadership-oriented president, according to Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
multiple frames for leaders, tends to resolve more issues and conflicts for the
organizational development. Building a strong culture at the university is dependent on
how long the president can lead the organization and whether the president started the
strategy during the university’s nascent stages or initiated them in the middle stages of
the university’s history.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

10
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Globalization has impacted many areas of life, from products to the nation’s
economy and industry, politics, and relationships with foreign countries. The pressure to
globalize has also created various formats of higher education that have influenced
developmental changes in higher education in many countries (Altbach & Knight, 2007;
Wende, 2007; Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002; Ginkel, 2003; Beerkens, 2003; Altbach, 2004a;
Mok, 2005; Knight, 2007; Marginson & Wende, 2007).
Over the last two decades, universities around the world have noticed rapid
growth in international activities between institutions, accompanied by student’s
mobility in cross-border higher education. Kritz (2006) illustrated this movement by
clarifying definitions of globalization, internationalization of higher education, cross-
border higher education, and transnational education. According to his illustration,
internationalization of higher education refers to institutional arrangements set up by
governments, universities, and education agents that involve the delivery of higher
education services in two or more countries. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) uses the term cross-border higher education
(CBHE) to convey that same concept. Transnational education is another term that
describes educational services that extend beyond the borders of a single country.
Recent years have seen a tremendous surge in the internationalization of many
aspects of education. According to Altbach (2004a):
more than one and a half million students study abroad at any one time—the
largest proportion of the world’s students since the medieval period. Some
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

11
observers estimate that by 2020 perhaps eight million scholars will travel abroad
temporarily or migrate for academic work. (p. 67)

At the same time, the movement of students and higher education across borders has
become a growth industry. OECD estimated that there were 30 billion US dollars’
worth of education trade among OECD countries in 2000 (OECD, 2004, p. 13), while
Merrill Lynch placed the size of the international education market at two trillion US
dollars in 1999 (Hira, 2003, p. 911). With these projections, The World Trade
Organization will provide a regulatory framework to encourage international trade in
education and service-related industries as part of negotiating the General Agreement
on Trade in Services (GATS) (Altbach & Knight, 2006, p. 2). These reports and trends
suggest that student mobility will continue to grow, and concepts of marketization or
commercialization of higher education are being spurred on by the globalization forces.
Internationalization of education is not limited to economic models, Kritz (2007,
p. 8) noted that different types of cross-border higher education have also evolved from
simple patterns: from international collaboration between scholars or international
travel by students pursuing degrees in other countries, to various popular programs
including Study Abroad programs (The ERASMUS MUNDUS program in Europe),
Program partnerships (The Trium MBA program administered jointly by the London
School of Economics and Political Science, the New York University Stern School of
Business, and the HEC School of Management, Paris), Branch or Offshore campuses
(Education city by Qatar Foundation with five prestigious U.S. universities), Distance
learning (University of Phoenix), Corporate Training programs (Thomson Learning),
and Outward-Bound training programs (St. George School of Medicine, Grenada).
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

12
International organizations such as United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), OECD, World Bank, Institute of International Education
(IIE), and International Association of Universities (IAU) have all studied the trends of
student and scholar mobility in this globalization era.
Intrigued by the growing impact of globalization on the higher education sector,
Knight (2003) designed a survey to track some of the major developments and issues
among the member institutions of IAU. One of the main objectives of the survey was to
provide information on the practices and priorities of internationalization at the
institutional level and to ensure that the voice of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
are heard in the ongoing discussion of the purpose, rationales, risks, benefits, issues, and
trends of the international dimension of Higher Education (HE). The survey was
designed with open-ended questions, and 621 IAU members received the survey and
responses completed by 176 HEIs from 66 different countries.
The survey generated an enormous amount of useful information on practices,
priorities, issues, and trends related to the international dimension of higher education in
institutions in 66 countries in every region of the world (Knight, 2003, p. 24). While the
results covered various areas such as importance, rationales, risks, benefits,
organizational factors, academic programs, and strategies, Knight (2003) summarized
the data according to three levels—Regional, National, and Institutional—and
suggested topics for further discussion that require greater attention and investigation.
More recently, Knight (2007) highlights how it has been increasingly clear that
internationalization needs to be understood both at the national and sector levels as well
as at the institutional level. This is because the national and sector levels have an
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

13
important influence on the international dimension of higher education through policy,
funding, programs, and regulatory frameworks. Therefore, an analysis of the
international dimension utilizes both a bottom-up (institutional approach) and a top-
down (national/sector) approach, and also looks at the dynamics relationship between
these two levels. Knight’s recent approach has also been adopted to examine current
practices of internationalization of Korean higher education for this study.

Background of the Problem
Huang (2007) describes the patterns and situations that differ from those in
developed countries and in developing nations. Huang suggests that:
in many developed countries, particularly English-speaking countries in Europe
and USA, internationalization of higher education is more commercially-driven
by an entrepreneurial spirit, while internationalization is more affected by
academic factors such as in dispatching students and members of faculty abroad
for advanced studies or research in the majority of developing countries. (Huang,
2007, p. 203)

The OECD and UNESCO World Education Indicators database found that five
countries received 70% of the foreign students in 2003—the United States (28%), the
United Kingdom (12%), Germany (11%), France (10%), and Australia (9%). Within
this greater scope of internationalization patterns described by Huang (2007), this study
will analyze the current practices in the Korean higher education sector.
With these current practices around the globe, internationalization practices of
Korean universities will be explored in this study. Another element that will be explored
in this study, the various forms listed above fall within the scope of internationalization
of higher education and show that college students in this globalization era have
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

14
numerous opportunities to broaden their horizons through various types of international
programs. As a response to current globalization forces, institutions have also revised
their purpose and missions in order to ensure that their students have the “knowledge,
skills, and attitudes” that will position them to become successful citizens of the world
(McCabe, 2001; Marginson & Wende, 2007).
While student mobility is one of the important areas in internationalization of
higher education, Armstrong (2007) describes how most of what is happening today in
cross-border or transnational higher education does not fit the innovative global
economy model. Instead, “it resembles an older, hub-and-spoke model of industrial
internationalization of home country manufacture with international distribution, with
students and faculty sent to foreign partner organizations to briefly study or do research
and then return to enrich the home institution” (p. 2). According to him, a relatively
small number of universities have moved beyond this hub-and-spoke model into setting
up off-shore degree granting branches and programs which are called off-shoring,
franchising, and branch-campus (Knight, 2003; Armstrong, 2007). Armstrong’s (2007)
proposed new conceptual framework will be used in this study to examine how the
globalization impact of the higher education sector and patterns and trends of
globalization will be examined in Chapter 2 through the literature review.

Internationalization of Higher Education in Asian Countries
Along with the general trend of internationalization of higher education
worldwide, the Asia region has seen increasing numbers of students in cross border
higher education, yet decreasing numbers of domestic college-age students, especially
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

15
in Korea and Japan due to the low birth rate. As a result, many Asian countries are
reviewing their current tertiary educational systems, and some countries such as Taiwan,
China, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand have already
started reforming their higher education fields in order to improve the quality of the
universities according to global standards. (Huang, 2003; Kritz, 2006; Mok, 2007).
Another issue brought on by globalization is the needs of the workplace.
According to Mok (2007), the global community wants to hire more creative and
innovative employees who have the skills, knowledge, and attitude to solve problems.
Traditionally, educational systems in Asia have focused more on memorization rather
than problem solving, and tend to be teacher-centered rather than student-oriented (Jin
& Cortazzi, 1998). As such, one of the general mission changes of higher education is
fostering students to work and perpetuate their lives in this global world upon
graduation.
Different countries approach this problem in different ways. In Taiwan and
Korea, diversification and decentralization processes have been integrated into
university systems to encourage creativity, innovation and responsiveness to external
and internal changes among students (Mok, 2007). In Japan, national universities are
going through the process of corporatization; the Japanese government is very keen to
inject market ideas and strategies to reform its national university system by making it
more flexible and responsive to the changing global environment (Oba, 2007).
Following these Japanese initiatives, corporatizing the national universities in Korea has
become a strategy intended to strengthen the nation’s academic competency. Merging
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

16
national universities has already been under way in Korea since 2006 (Kim & Lee,
2006).
Many studies have reviewed current practices and issues of internationalization
and reform of higher education in Asian countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Hong
Kong, Philippines, Thailand and Singapore (Mok, 2007; Huang, 2007; G. Kim, 2005;
Bernardo, 2003; Chan, 2004). According to Bray (2002):
It could be difficult to find general patterns or issues in Asian countries
considering their various cultures (Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism,
Christianity), Economic wealth (Japan may be contrasted with Philippines),
country size (China may be contrasted with Brunei), Political Ideology
(Singapore may be contrasted with North Korea). (p. 75)

However, Mok (2007) has identified some general patterns among trends in the post-
secondary sector in Asia as ‘marketization’, ‘corporatization’, and ‘privatization’.
Adhering more towards the market and corporate principles and practices, the Asian
universities tend to be now run on a market-oriented and business corporation model.
Based on Mok’s (2007) findings, this study is going to explore how the concepts
of marketization, corporatization, and privatization are currently placed in the Korean
higher education system through analyzing the national level’s policy and three private
universities’ practices.

Enrollment Drop in the Korean Higher Education Market
As mentioned above, several Asian countries, including Korea, are expected to
see a decrease of high school graduates due to the low birth rate. Korea has the lowest
birth rate among developed countries at 1.08% (KEDI & MOE, 2006); the school age
population is expected to drop at least 30% by 2020. Therefore, higher education needs
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

17
to prepare itself for the upcoming loss of students (Kim & Lee, 2006; OECD 2007).
Since 2004, prestigious universities located in Seoul have already reduced the number
of incoming students drastically, and ten national universities have merged into five (G.
Kim, 2005; Jon, 2009). The merger and acquisition of the universities started as a
response to both the over-supply of universities and the under-supply of the college-
aged population (MOE & HRD, 2005a).
Most private universities rely almost exclusively on students’ tuition for 90% of
their funding. Most of them do not generate substantial private donations and do not
have any significant amount of accumulated endowment due to the relatively short
history of private universities in Korea (Kim & Lee, 2006). Considering this fact, the
population decline is a significant threat to many private universities in the nation. In
particular, the universities located in provincial, which have a comparatively short
school history and low school budget and therefore mainly depend on tuition, have
already faced difficulties maintaining their schools (Kim & Lee, 2006).
While high-profile and national universities are responding aggressively to the
anticipated enrollment drop, mid and low-tier universities located in provincial areas are
currently developing new markets such as China, as well as on-line programs targeting
overseas Korean and non-traditional students, which will help them to make up the
enrollment challenges in the near future (Jon, 2009). Under the current circumstances,
with pressure in globalization and a decline in enrollment, presidents at private
universities in Korea have asked the most creative and innovative leadership to assess
the current issues in the history of Korean higher education. Mindful of the different
strategies and rationales of internationalization in provincial areas and Seoul, this study
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

18
will look into one large-size (enrollment size of 20,000 or above) comprehensive
research university in the nation’s capital, another large-scale comprehensive 4-year
HEI located in one of the metropolitan cities of Korea, and a small-size (enrollment size
below 5,000) comprehensive university located in a small city.

University Organizational Culture for Internationalization
For many institutions that want to internationalize the campus, developing a
strategic plan is very crucial for the process of internationalizing the campus. Bolman
and Deal (2003) mentioned that a series of studies have shown that the ability to use
multiple frames is associated with greater effectiveness for leaders (Bensimon, 1989,
1990; Birnbaum, 1992; Bolman & Deal, 1992), and suggested that when leaders
encounter problems, applying concepts from the frames of leadership can help to solve
them through a process referred to as reframing. In this study, Bolman and Deal’s four
frames will be used as one of the theoretical frameworks to understand how the
presidents at three private universities in Korea respond to globalization and enrollment
issues to create an international learning community, as well as key players for the
internationalization initiatives at the institutions. Taylor (2004) described how, toward
the end of the 20th century, strategic planning assumed new importance within the
management of higher education at the institutional level. Driven by pressure on
resources, the growth in public accountability, and the emergence of market forces
influencing teaching and research, institutional leaders have been forced to assess their
activities and priorities for the future.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

19
Bartell (2003) noted that university culture is viewed as the values and beliefs of
those associated with the universities (including administrators, faculty, students, board
members and support staff), developed in a historical process and conveyed by use of
language and symbols (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). The effect of these values and beliefs
on decision-making at universities is strong (Tierney, 1988). To develop an
organizational culture that can facilitate and support adaptation to environmental change
and to a successful process of innovation, such as the internationalization of the
university, would require that strategic planning be guided and supported by an
acknowledgement and understanding of the existing culture, the mission, the
communication patterns, the feasible outlooks, and the world views (Bartell, 2003).
Tierney (1988) studied organizational culture in higher education to define the
essentials. According to Tierney, institutions certainly are influenced by powerful,
external factors such as demographic, economic, and political conditions; yet they are
also shaped by strong forces that emanate from within. This internal dynamic has its
roots in the history of the organization and derives its force from the values, processes,
and goals held by those most intimately involved in the organization’s workings. An
organization’s culture is reflected in what is done, how it is done, and who is involved
in doing it. It concerns decisions, actions, and communication both on an instrumental
and a symbolic level.
While this study adopts Bolman and Deal’s (2003) conceptual framework of
leadership, Tierney’s (1988) organization theory will be used to understand how the
cultures of three private universities in this study have influenced the implementation of
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

20
internationalization and how the culture creates challenges or opportunities for the
presidents to implement the internationalization strategies.

Statement of the Problem
To explain the current situation of higher education in Korea, we must first look
at its origins and history. The tertiary education expansion of Korea in the past was
spectacular even by international comparison. The returns Korea achieved in thirty
years took notably longer in Britain, the United States, Japan, and Taiwan (Kim & Lee,
2006). With the liberalization of laws regulating the establishment of universities in
1995, higher education became supply-oriented, and there was a boom in private
institutions (Kim & Lee, 2006; OECD, 2007). As the number of universities increased,
so too did the percentage of higher education attendance based on enrolled
students/school age population: from 5.4% in the 70s to 11.4% in the 80s, 23.6% in the
90s, 52.5% in 2000, and 61.7% in 2004. According to G. Kim (2005), the Korean
higher education sector is divided into the following segments:
• Universities: 182 universities (1.8 million enrollments each year)
• Polytechnics: 18 Industrial universities (200,000 enrollments each year)/ 1
technical college (196 enrollments)
• Junior Colleges: 158 junior colleges (900,000 enrollments each year)
• Others: 1 Open university (300,000 enrollment each year)/ 17 Cyber
colleges and Universities (40,000 enrollments each year)
However, over-supply of higher education institutions created a lack of
meaningful competition amongst them with little incentive to improve the standard of
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

21
education (J. Lee, 2000). This also led to the over-saturation of college graduates who
were neither appropriately high-quality, nor providing the manpower needed by the
labor market (J. Lee, 2006). Recently, the Korean government implemented various
internationalization programs in higher education such as “Brain Korea 21”, “Study
Korea Project”, and “World Class University project”. The government’s policy
expanded the number of sister projects and faculty or student exchanges, and created the
‘Study Korea project’ with the goal of attracting fifty thousand foreign students to
Korean universities by 2010.
As of 2008, the government achieved its aim of increasing the number of
international students up to fifty thousand by 2010 through a strong push on the policy.
A recent article in The Korea Times reported that as of April 1, 2008, a total of 49,270
foreign students were enrolled at 432 community colleges, universities and graduate
schools nationwide. Compared to 6,279 foreign students in 1999, the nation has
expanded foreign student enrollment by eight times during the last decade. In terms of
the internationalization of higher education, “the Korean government has offered
seventy six billion KR Won to nine Graduate Schools of International Affairs of nine
domestic universities between the year of 1996 and 2000 so as to develop expertise in
international relations” (J. Lee, 2004).
Additionally, in 2005, two laws were instated to ease regulations and provide
more autonomy in dealings with foreign education investments: the “Special Act on the
Establishment and Operation of Foreign Educational Institutions” and the “Law on Joint
Curricular Operation with Foreign Universities” (MOE & HRD, 2005b). In 2008, the
current government announced the “World Class University” project with the funding
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

22
of 825 billion Korean won (750 million US Dollars) to recruit world-renowned scholars
from abroad, who will collaborate with Korean researchers to activate key growth-
generating fields and contribute to enhancing Korean universities to meet Global
standards.
All of these programs are, however, government-introduced. So far, Korean
researchers and scholars have focused on general patterns and trends of
internationalization of higher education and national policy of higher education (Kim &
Lee, 2006; T. Kim, 2005; Byun & Kim, 2010). However, few studies have been done to
seek practices and strategies at the institutional level, as well as the impact of the
president’s leadership style into the internationalization initiatives.

Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to examine the process of internationalization
at three private universities in order to seek the similarities and differences at the
institutional level, and what the role of the president at Korean universities is, creating a
better international learning community to meet global standards, and finally, to
understand how they implement international initiatives, place the resources, and
arrange the organizational structure for achieving the goals. The author will be using a
case study to explore internationalization practices, priorities, and governance at three
private higher education institutions in Korea. Two universities have urban campuses in
metropolitan areas and the other is located in a small city where the population is
around twenty thousand to forty thousand.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

23
The three research questions for this study are:
1. What is the perception of the internationalization and globalization in the
higher education setting?
a. What are the presidents’ thoughts on internationalization and
globalization and their impact on the universities?
b. What are the OIA deans’ thoughts on internationalization and its
purposes for the university?
c. What are the OIA staff members’ thoughts on internationalization
and its purposes for the university?
2. What kinds of strategies and activities have been introduced in order to
internationalize the campus?
a. What were the motivations to initiate internationalization on campus?
b. What do the interviewees think are the basic conditions for
internationalization of the university?
c. How has internationalization at each university evolved?
3. What changes have occurred since internationalizing the university?
a. What changes did internationalization bring to the campus?
b. What is the future direction for each university’s internationalization?
c. What difficulties were encountered during the process of
internationalizing each university?
This study uses a qualitative, case study approach by interviewing university
presidents, senior leaders, and mid-level administration at those three universities in
Korea. The purpose of using a qualitative approach is to understand the phenomenon at
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

24
each institution more in-depth and to seek the answers of the research questions (Patton,
2002; Merriam, 1998). Also, the study is based on Knight’s (2007) framework to
analyze what types of international strategies and programs have been implemented at
three private universities in Korea, and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership
frames to examine the leadership styles in the process of internationalizing the campus.

Importance of the Study
At the end of this study, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers will better
understand what leadership and governance styles have been used in the Korean higher
education setting to successfully internationalize the campus and what were the specific
goals to implement internationalization initiatives at each institution. Presidential and
senior leadership levels such as presidents, vice presidents, academic deans at four-year
private universities in Korea may gain new insights from this study to apply at their
institutions and to predict what could be challenges when they implement the initiatives.
Since the Korean government placed globalization in higher education as a top
priority, policymakers may gain a better understanding of how the university’s senior
leaders respond to the current policies established by the ministry of education. Also,
the policymakers can see the challenges and difficulties the universities’ presidents have
when they are implementing internationalization initiatives at their universities.
Policymakers could then reflect on these findings when they set up the national level
agenda to bring the level of the universities into the global standard level and reform the
current higher education system in Korea.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

25
Finally, this study is a great addition to the Korean higher education field to see
how Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames can be used to understand
current senior leaders at the universities. Additionally, how Knight’s frameworks of
globalization and internationalization have been adopted in the Korean higher
educational setting. Using a case study approach, this study offers very specific and
descriptive analysis of leadership styles and campus internationalization initiative
models to respond to current globalization and upcoming demographic issues in Korea.

Limitations and Delimitations
This study used descriptive case study methodology to understand and describe
the impact of globalization on the presidential leadership, process and development of
internationalization at three private higher education institutions in Korea. While a case
study provides detailed and in-depth descriptive analysis, there is a major
methodological limitation of a case study that includes the inability to generalize
beyond the study itself (Yin, 2006).
The researcher narrowed the time period from 2006 to 2011 because of critical
incidents occurring during that time such as a dramatic increase in the number of
international students at one university and comprehensive organizational changes that
occurred by having new presidents at two institutions during that period. This
purposeful limitation of the time to gain the in-depth understanding of the phenomenon
at three institutions could limit the results to capture the overall organization culture of
the samples.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

26
As Patton (2002, p. 14) described in qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the
instrument. The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, hinges to a great extent on
the skill, competence, and rigor of the person doing fieldwork. Merriam (1998) points
out that human researchers are fallible and are limited by missed opportunities, mistakes,
and biases. Researcher bias was a potential limitation to this study as well since the
study could be limited by the skills of the researcher in conducting and interpreting
interviews, data collection, and overall analysis.
Patton (2002) also pointed out that qualitative findings are highly context- and
case-dependent. The researcher was not able to control such things as a president’s
change at the selected samples. Since this study is exploring how the university leaders
transform or internationalize their universities, the inability to interview a president
could be a crucial factor and limitation of the study. Limitation in scope to a few
questions and choosing a unit of analysis such as the presidents, deans at Office of
International Affairs (OIA), OIA middle-management staff, and OIA staff members
according to researcher’s preference rather than interviewing other divisional leaders
and crucial key players who have influenced internationalization at each sample may
affect the validity of this study.
According to Patton (2002), there are limitations of each type of source and data
collected from observations, interviews, and document analysis which has been used in
any case study. Observation limitations included interference by the researcher, a focus
exclusively on external behavior as opposed to internal processes, and a focus on the
limited sample of what is observable during the course of the observation (Patton, 2002).
Interview limitations included distorted responses due to the emotional state of the
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

27
interviewee, recall error, interviewee reaction to the interviewer, and responses that are
self-serving to the interviewee (Patton, 2002). Finally, document analysis was limited
by the incomplete and inexact nature of the documents themselves.
Over the last six years, the researcher has visited about 60 four-year higher
education institutions in Korea and met staff, senior-leaders, and presidents to discuss
developing an institutional partnership with the U.S. University where the researcher
used to work. Based on the researcher’s professional background and interactions with a
variety of universities in Korea, a delimitation of this study examined three four-year
private university settings located in a nation’s capital as a cosmopolitan level, a large
city, as one of the six metropolitan cities in Korea, and a small-sized city in Korea in
order to see the similarities and differences of their internationalization strategies and
how presidential leadership practiced at each case between 2006 and 2011.

Organization of Study
Chapter 1 provides the reader with a basic understanding and broad overview of
the study, including the background and statement of the problem, the purpose and
importance of the study, the limitations, delimitations, assumptions and definitions of
the study. The purpose of Chapter 2 is to review the literature through synthesis, noting
the methodologies and provide the reader with the significance of the literature
reviewed. Chapter 3 focuses on the methodology of the study, which describes the
sample and population of the study, the instrumentation used, how data was collected,
and the overall analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presents the reader with the study’s
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

28
findings per research question. And finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the study and
presents concluding remarks on the implications of the study.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

29
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the literature on globalization and
internationalization of higher education with a particular focus on the Korean tertiary
educational context. The chapter begins with general patterns and trends of
globalization and internationalization within the higher education setting around the
globe. Next, at the national level, internationalization initiatives and policies of the
Korean higher education sector are explored based on general patterns and trends of
globalization. After presenting national-level policies and activities of the Korean
university sector as responses to globalization, topics of the internationalization
strategies and presidential leadership as well as organizational culture are examined
from an institutional perspective. Each of these issues has major implications for
developing appreciably effective strategies to internationalize the campus in the current
globalized, knowledge-based world economy.

Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education
Many scholars and researchers describe how globalization has impacted the
higher education setting in various ways (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Wende, 2007;
Carnoy, 2002; Ginkel, 2003; Beerkens, 2003; Altbach, 2004; Mok, 2005; Knight, 2007).
Among these diverse scholars, Marginson (2007) stated:
Now the growing impact of the global environment is inescapable. In many
nations international mobility, global comparison, bench-marking and ranking,
and the internationalization of institutions and systems are key policy themes;
and governments and university leaders are preoccupied by strategies of cross-
border cooperation and competition.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

30
Marginson also said that globalization can vary according to policy, governance, and
management while mentioning that the templates of the new public management
include the modeling of national systems as economic markets, government-steered
competition between institutions.
Korea is also influenced by this world-wide force of globalization in its higher
education setting. During the 1990s, the Korean government publicized Segyehwa
(Globalization) as the most expedient way for Korea to become a first-class, developed
country. As Marginson (2007) described above, the Korean government is increasingly
concerned with making higher education in its system more globally competitive; for
this reason, the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development has
launched ambitious plans for successful educational globalization of Korea (Kim &
Choi, 2011).
Even though there may have been similar trends and patterns in the public
policy and public management domains along the line of privatization, marketization,
commodification, and corporatization influenced by globalization, Marginson (2007)
and Mok (2005) explained that globalization can also vary according to policy,
governance, and management.
According to Altbach and Knight (2007), over the last two decades, universities’
international engagement and activities have expanded dramatically in volume, scope,
and complexity. However, as Knight (2007) says, while it is encouraging to see the
increased use and attention being given to internationalization, there is a great deal of
confusion about exactly what it means. Armstrong (2007) highlights globalization, as
used in the corporate world, which most often describes a process in which
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

31
modularization of production is joined with IT and decreasing national trade boundaries
to enable an optimization of production and distribution. Bartell (2003) and Stromquist
(2007) have confirmed this perspective by describing that internationalization, viewed
as an organizational adaptation, requires its articulation by the leadership while
institutionalizing a strategic planning process. Wende (2007) explains that the
internationalization of higher education is often seen as a possible response to
globalization. Therefore, following Wende’s (2007) perspective, this study uses
internationalization as a lens to analyze how an institution responds to globalization.
Marginson (2006) and Rhoades (2006) described the definition in a simple way,
since internationalization can involve as few as two units, such as signing a student
exchange agreement between two universities, whereas globalization takes in many
nations, and is a dynamic process drawing the local, national, and global dimensions
more closely together, such as occurs in Europeans’ Bologna process. In this study, the
researcher has adopted a working definition of internationalization following that of
Knight (2003), which holds that internationalization at the national/sector/institutional
levels is defined as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global
dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p. 2).
Knight uses the term “process” deliberately to convey that internationalization is an
ongoing and continuing effort (Taylor, 2004; Knight & de Wit, 1999).

Goal and Rationale of Internationalization and Globalization
Knight conducted the 2003 institutional internationalization survey motivated by
UNESCO’s invitation for the International Association of Universities (IAU) to prepare
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

32
a background report on internationalization for the World Conference on Higher
Education in June of that year. 176 higher education institutions from 66 different
countries completed the survey. Based on the survey results, Knight summarized the top
reasons for internationalization, which included mobility and exchanges for students
and teachers, international and intercultural understanding, promotion and profile of
institutions, international student recruitment, and diversity in income generation.
One year after the World Conference on Higher Education, the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) published a
white paper, “A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in Internationalizing the
University,” giving American State Universities’ perspectives on internationalization.
The paper describes good reasons for students, communities, institutions and the nation
to internationalize a campus.
Among the rationales for internationalization described in the NASULGC white
paper and IAU report, one often-cited reason for cross-border activities is to increase
skills that students at the home institution need for coping with increasing globalization.
The most typical response is to increase the institution’s traditional international
activities: sending students abroad for foreign study, recruiting international students to
the home campus, and encouraging international faculty exchanges (Stromquist, 2007;
Armstrong, 2007; Yang, 2005; Knight, 2007).
Kim and Choi (2011) found that most of the rationales described above have
been confirmed in the Korean context. Kim conducted a survey of 100 staff members
and faculty/administrators from 23 universities in Korea; the three survey items that
emerged as the primary objectives for internationalization across institutions in Korea
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

33
are given below. The fact that each of these items attracted more than 70% agreement
meant respondents checked number four or higher on a six-point Likert-scale.
1. To advance academic quality (92.6% of respondents agreed that this
statement applied to their university);
2. To enhance cultural understanding (85.7%); and
3. To educate students for world citizenship (83.7%).
Knight (2007) used the more generic terms of purpose, function, and delivery,
instead of the specific functional terms of teaching, research, and service. By using
three more general terms, the proposed definition can be relevant for the sector level,
the institutional level, and the variety of providers—public, private, for-profit, non-
profit, local, international—in the broad landscape of postsecondary education.
Traditionally, the rationales for internationalization have been presented in four groups
that reflect fundamental drivers: social/cultural, political, academic, and economic
(Knight & de Wit, 1999).

Patterns and Trends of Globalization and Internationalization
According to Findlay and Knight (2009), mobility is a consequence of the
combination of the impact of economic growth and structural change on the demand for
education and the differences in demographic patterns among the region’s economies.
Important on the supply side is the established capacities in the developed but aging
economies. Altbach (2004b) highlighted that, at present, about two million students
worldwide study outside of their home countries, a number will increase to nine million
by 2025. T. Kim (2008) has also forecast that the number of international students will
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

34
increase from one million eight hundred thousand in 2020 to seven million six hundred
thousand in 2025, which implies annual growth of about six percent a year over this
period, compared to about four percent in the last two decades of the last century. Asia
expects to account for seventy percent of global demand by 2025. Findlay and Knight
(2009) further described the first wave of globalization for tertiary education as mostly
comprising the movement of students across borders. The number of students in Asia-
Pacific moving overseas for their university education almost doubled between 1999
and 2006.
Byun and Kim (2010) have explored the student mobility issues in the Korean
context. The number of Korean students studying abroad has increased rapidly since
1991. As of 2008, the number of Korean students pursuing education overseas stood at
about two hundred thousand. Half of these students were studying either in the United
States (about 60,000 students, or 28.8%) or in China (57,000 students, or 26%). They
have also described that while about 83% of Korean students in the United States were
degree-seeking students, 73% of Korean students in China were registered in language
courses (MEST, 2008).
On the other hand, the Study Korea Project launched in 2004, and the project
coupled with the fast-growing Asian student market (especially that of China), has
resulted in unprecedented growth in foreign student enrollment at Korean Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) (Byun & Kim, 2010, p. 8). Foreign student enrollments at
Korean HEIs increased from 4,682 in 2001, to 49,270 in 2007. Initially, the government
targeted fifty thousand students, but as this goal was achieved in 2007, much earlier
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

35
than expected, a second round of the project was developed and announced in 2008,
with the aim of increasing its number to more than one hundred thousand by 2012.
As Findlay and Knight (2009) described above, student mobility is influenced
by a country’s economic and demographic status. Since Korean society and the higher
education setting expect to experience a sharp decline in the number of high school
students over the next ten years, the government has developed the Study Korea Project,
in addition to supporting Korean universities’ international student recruitment
activities. This kind of government student mobility initiative is also found in the
Japanese context. Yonezawa, Akiba and Hirouchi (2009) described how governmental
committees under the Prime Minister’s Office argued the need to promote the
internationalization of Japanese universities for enhancing global competitiveness and
leadership of Japanese society as a whole. In 2008, the Council on Economic and Fiscal
Policy (CEFP) established the “Plan for thirty thousand exchange (or international)
students by 2020”, which implies a drastic increase in international students studying in
Japan from 117,927 in 2006 (CEFP, 2008; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Education [MEXT], 2007).

National Level – Higher Education Sector
The Korean educational sector has also been undergoing rapid change under
direct internationalization, which began as soon as the country was established as a
member country in 1995. Becoming a World Trade Organization (WTO) member
became a turning point for the Korean higher educational sector. Since 1995, the
Korean government and higher education institutions have gradually perceived higher
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

36
education as “an economic commodity,” which is tradable in the international market
(Byun & Kim, 2010, p. 2). In light of this, the government in the early 2000s introduced
a series of policy initiatives to recruit more international students in order to prepare for
a shrinking population of domestic students.
Up until 1995, the Korean higher education sector was able to focus exclusively
on domestic issues such as universal access to higher education, as well as other general
educational sectors. In 1996, the Korean government announced the “Initial Plan for
Opening the Higher Education market to Foreign Countries” in response to upcoming
WTO negotiations. Since 1995, the number of international exchange agreements has
soared at each higher education institution, and other forms of internationalization such
as joint-degree programs, dual-degree programs, and student mobility have been
introduced in its educational sector.
In 2007, the number of higher learning institutions increased from only 19
institutions after liberation to the current number of 408 schools, but the higher
education sector depends on about 97% of junior colleges and 78.8% of 4-year
institutions that are privately-run universities (S. Kim, 2008). As Kim and Lee (2005)
explained, these private institutions are heavily dependent on student tuitions. However,
the enrollment issue has been raised over the last ten years due to a marked lack of
university-school-aged people. S. Kim (2008) said the severity of the demographic shift,
and how higher education leaders in the nation should prepare for a steep declination of
traditional high-school graduates. As Kim stated, seats available to the freshman class
will surpass the number of high school graduates after 2020. This significant change is a
signal particularly for private universities located in suburban or rural areas to develop a
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

37
plan or strategy to contend with the upcoming phenomenon. As a response to declining
numbers of high school students, those universities located in rural or suburban areas
must take an aggressive recruitment strategy from neighboring countries, especially
China (Kim & Choi, 2011).
In 1994, the government created the Education Reform committee directly under
presidential authority to conduct education reform in an era of information and
globalization (T. Kim, 2008). Even though there were various policy changes after
liberation, the most comprehensive higher education reform occurred beginning in 1995;
namely, the neoliberal higher education reform (or the so-called May 31 Education
Reform Plan of 1995) that carried the most notably significant weight for current policy
(Byun & Kim, 2010). Following the announcement of the May 31 Education Reform
Plan of 1995, the Korean government also initiated establishment of the Songdo Global
University Complex, which consists of colleges as a form of branch-campus from the
U.S., U.K, and developed countries, in the Incheon Free Economic Zone. In order to
upgrade the nation’s higher education system, the government launched this project
after benchmarking Dubai’s Knowledge Village, Qatar’s Education City, and
Singapore’s Global Education House (Byun & Kim, 2010).
According to Byun and Kim (2010):
this eager idea first came into being in 1996, when the Korean Education
Ministry announced plans to open Korea’s higher education market to foreign
countries, a year after the establishment of the WTO, which initiated dialogue on
the possibility of free trade in education services around the world. (p. 10)

Within this scope, the Korea Ministry of Education revised the Private School Act in
1997, thereby making it legal for foreigners to set up Higher Education Institutions on
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

38
Korean soil. As a result, in 2008, small-sized Netherlands Sea Transport education
center and Germany’s FAU opened their own education facilities in Kwangyang city
and Busan city as the first foreign higher education institution in Korea. Initially, even
though the Korean local governments signed various Memorandum of Understandings
(MOUs) with foreign institutions from developed countries such as the United States,
U.K, and Finland, the projects could not be enacted because of strict regulations on the
part of the Ministry of Education and Science Technology. Finally, in July 2011, State
University of New York – Stony Brook was approved by the Korean MEST and will
commence its first semester in March 2012.
The study of Beerkens indicates that national government still plays a key role
in creating the frameworks and opportunities for the internationalization of higher
education (Wende, 2007). In Korea especially, where the government’s control is quite
influential over higher education, the policies of the Ministry of Education and Science
Technology (MEST) can guide the entire higher educational sector; this is quite
different from the U.S.’s higher education system. Knight (2007) also describes how the
national/sector level has an important influence on the international dimension of higher
education through policy, funding, programs, and regulatory frameworks. According to
Beerkens (2003), higher education has long been used as a method for nation building.
Universities were not just educational institutions but also protected the national
cultural heritage and provided the future leaders for the national society and economy.
Beerkens’ hypothesis has been confirmed many times over the history of Korean higher
education (S. Kim, 2008).
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

39
Mok (2005) expresses that, even though there have seemed to be similar trends
and patterns in the public policy and public management domains along the lines of
privatization, marketization, commodification, and corporatization, government in
different parts of the globe may use similar strategies to serve their own political
purposes. Education reforms under the context of globalization could be characterized
by a finance-driven reform emphasizing decentralization, privatization, and improved
performance (Carnoy, 2000; Welch 2002). Within the Korean context, beginning in the
mid-1990s, economic rationales have become the dominant justification for the Korean
government’s internationalization policies for higher education. Internationalization
policies have become heavily market-oriented and promoted, due to the challenges of
globalization, and the worldwide reform trends based on the New Public Management
principles and trade negotiations in educational services have motivated further
marketization of higher education in Korea.

Education Reform and New Public Management
Each nation has developed its own method for responding to Globalization;
education reform is one such method. Wende (2007) highlights that governments have
to consider what the best way is to make the national higher education system more
globally competitive. According to Yang (2005), in order to improve the ‘global
competence’ of its citizens and to make its higher education system more efficient,
higher education restructuring along the line of ‘university merging’ was launched in
the mid-1990s in China (Mok, 2005). Findlay and Knight (2009) also describes that
tertiary education was once largely the domain of public provision in Asia, but it is
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

40
currently undergoing dramatic privatization; furthermore, Knight (2007) confirms that
many countries launched education reform and important trends including
diversification, privatization, and commercialization of higher education once the
funding sources were found. In fact, income generation from the importing and
exporting of education programs is expected to increase at a significant rate in the next
decade.
In the same line with Educational Reform initiatives, new public management
initiatives have also been introduced in many countries in response to Globalization. In
the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, new public management has
undoubtedly facilitated an entrepreneurial, revenue-directed approach to cross-border
relations (Marginson, 2008). Wende (2007) points out that there is more use of new
public management tools, including market forces, financial incentives, increased
autonomy and accountability, deregulation, and so on. Globalization stands in
opposition to concepts such as the public good. The worth of social and communal
goals is less important than the ability to be competitive and to capture one or another
market. The privatization of the public good seems to be the goal (Tierney, 2004).
The Korean higher education sector has followed these education reforms and
new public management trends by creating the education reform committee directly
under presidential authority in an effort to conduct education reform in an era of
globalization. The committee’s reform approach could be described as liberalization,
diversification, specialization (Kim, 2008). Over the last 20 years, since the 1990s, a
series of Korean higher education reforms has been introduced through four successive
presidents—the YS government (1992 – 1998), DJ government (1998 – 2003), Roh
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

41
Moo-hyun government (2003 -2008), and MB government (2008 – 2013)—in order to
make the nation’s higher education system more competitive within the current
knowledge-based, economic-driven world under globalization (T. Kim, 2008).
During the YS government period, Globalization policies were introduced under
the political slogan of “Correcting and rebuilding Korean history”. Globalization
policies were based on popular views such as the rise of a borderless transnational
economy, the new revolution in ICT, and lifelong learning. Shortly after Korea joined
the OECD in 1996, the nation - along with most other Asian countries - faced the Asian
economic crisis from 1997-98, which was followed by an IMF bailout of the country’s
economy (1998-2000).
DJ government (1998-2003), introduced a new political slogan to the public –
“The second nation-building” - and upgraded the Ministry of Education to the Ministry
of Education and Human Resource Development (MEHRD). During this period, the
higher education sector also followed government initiatives towards self-reform under
internationalization frameworks such as academic-level courses offered in English,
which have increased greatly in recent years, as well as international exchanges and
faculty research cooperation, which have been actively promoted. The Brain Korea 21
(BK21) project (1999-2005) has, as its stated aim, the goal of bringing selected major
university research projects to the ‘World Class’ level and increasing the
competitiveness of local universities: a total budget of about 1billion US dollars has
been allocated to 120 institutions to run 440 projects (T. Kim, 2008; Kim & Choi, 2011).
During the Roh Moo-hyun government (2003-2008), the second round of Brain
Korea 21 funding financed select university research projects, especially in the areas of
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

42
technology development in collaboration with industry. The New University for
Regional Innovation (NURI) project was also launched during this period. Only higher
education institutions located outside the capital region can be the beneficiaries of the
NURI funds, which were one and a half billion US dollars to be invested over a period
of five years (2004-2009). The neoliberal, NPM (New Public Management) principled
restructuring process was established in the Higher education sector: merger and
acquisition, and professional graduate schools in Law, Medicine, Engineering, Business
Administration, Public Administration and Education were introduced, as well as the
incorporation of national and public universities (T. Kim, 2008).
The MB government (2008-2013) restructured the Ministry of Education and
Human Resource Development to create the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology (MEST). Under the neoliberal NPM, transparency of university
management has been strongly emphasized in an effort to enhance public accountability.
The Special Act for the public disclosure of information regarding educational
institutions was enacted. The World Class University (WCU) project was launched with
allocation of government funding amounting to six hundred million US dollars. During
the MB government, internationalization of the higher education sector can be
characterized as encouraging more twinning (dual or joint-degree programs),
modularization (1+3 format) programs in the private education sector, and off-shoring
(establishing foreign university branch-campuses in the Incheon Free Economic Zone),
as well as increasing partner institutions mostly in the U.S. and China. Lastly, Korea
joined the OECD Development Aid Committee in November 2009 and chaired the G20
in 2010 (T. Kim, 2010).
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

43
Marketization/Recruitment Strategies
As Altbach (2004a) described, we are now in a new era of power and influence.
Politics and ideology have taken a subordinate role to profits and market-driven policies.
Mok (2005) has also confirmed that marketization, privatization, and corporatization
became major trends in the higher education setting in many East Asian countries
including Korea. As Altbach (2004a) and Mok (2005) highlighted, Internationalization
policies in Korea’s higher education setting have become heavily market-oriented and
promoted, due to the challenges of globalization and the worldwide reform trends based
on the NPM principles and trade negotiations in educational services, which have
further motivated the marketization of higher education in Korea (Byun & Kim, 2008).
South Korea has experienced a spectacular expansion of higher education during
the last five decades through creation of various education issues. Recognizing that
various problems in the education sector resulted from heavy regulation, the presidential
commission on education strongly recommended market-based approaches for
education policy in 1995. In short, the government tried to introduce market
competition among universities and colleges by making them more autonomous and
more competitive. The shift in the paradigm of the government’s policy created both
opportunities and challenges in the Korean higher education (Kim & Lee, 2006).
Reputation and Rankings are one aspect of the marketization of higher education
which is also very important and influential for recruitment strategies. As Beerkens
(2003) explained, more universities have recently discovered international students as
an alternative source of income. Here, the issue of state-ness becomes less important.
Students do not go to particular nations, but they follow the quality and prestige of
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

44
particular universities. Global ranking systems encourage the “reputation race” and
vertical differentiation. According to Wende (2007), OECD has developed four
different scenarios for forecasting higher education in OECD countries. Currently, the
most globally influential rankings are those prepared by the Shanghai Jiao Tong
University (introduced in 2003) and by the Times Higher Education Supplement (p. 8).
Based on Shanghai Jiatong University Rankings and the Times Higher
Education information, half of the top fifty universities are based in the U.S. As Altbach
(2004b) reported, with its approximately 600,000 international students, the United
States is currently by far the largest host country and home to more than a quarter of the
world’s foreign students. The vast majority of foreign students in the U.S. come from
developing and newly industrialized countries, with 55 percent coming from Asia (the
top five sending countries are India, China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan).
Within the Korean context, the Joongang Daily Newspaper has ranked all major
universities every year since 1996. The methodology is similar to that of the US News
& World Report’s ranking for American Universities. According to Joongang’s 2011
ranking, Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) ranked
number one, followed by Pohang University of Science and Techonology (POSTECH),
Seoul National University (SNU), Yonsei (YU), Korea (KU), Sungkyunkwan (SKKU),
Kyunghee (KHU), Hanyang (HYU), and Sogang (SGU) (Joongang Daily, September
26, 2011).
With the Korean government’s strong will to upgrade its higher education
system in the global setting, many Korean Universities have allocated budgets to
enhance their international reputations since 2005 (Kim, 2011) through international
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

45
conferences and exhibitions such as NAFSA, EAIA, APAIE, QS-APPLE, as well as
world university ranking and ratings indices such as Times Higher Education, QS-
World University rankings, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Ranking of
World Universities. In 2005, there were only five Korean universities listed in the Top
five hundred universities, but as of 2010 there are twelve Korean universities listed
(Kim & Choi, 2011).
Due to these efforts as the part of the government, the number of International
students in Korea has increased from about 4,000 students in 2000 to 50,000 as of 2011.
However, most inbound international students are from neighboring countries in Asia.
While the number of inbound from Asia has increased by 900%, from 3,000 in 2000 to
38,000 in 2010, non-Asia has increased 400% from 500 students in 2000 to 2,000 in
2010. The number of international students has increased dramatically with both
government and university strategies.
However, it is worth closely reviewing the underlying rationale for
internationalizing a campus according to different institutional types. Douglass (2005)
makes the point that all globalization is “local” in that global convergences are subject
to local, sub-national and national influences, and countervailing forces including
governmental regulation and academic culture. Hence the effects of globalization are
also differentiated by institutional type. Marginson (2008) also described that there is
considerable variation by nation and institutional type. Research-intensive universities
and private institutions normally enjoy the most global autonomy.
Additionally, in the Korean setting, the difficulty that many regional institutions,
in particular, are experiencing in meeting their enrollment target unpacks the reasons
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

46
behind the correlation between universities of lower academic status and the survey
item “to increase student enrollment” by recruiting international students (Kim & Choi,
2011). Furthermore, Kim and Choi (2011) described that:
during our interview with a faculty member from one of these universities
located in regional areas, we heard that his and other universities of lower
academic status were endeavoring to fill seats by recruiting students from China,
where soaring demand for higher education exceeds the capacity of the higher
education system in that country to meet the demand. (p. 12)

Institutional Level
As it is described above, many scholars and authors argued some similar
patterns and trends of globalization influenced higher educational settings worldwide as
a form of neoliberal economics. This globalization force also impacted the national
level, so countries where they perceive this globalization as threats or opportunities,
efficiently respond to it by adopting New Public Management to restructure the higher
education system in a more competitive global marketplace. Consequently, this section
will describe how each institution responds to this force of globalization, and what some
of the patterns and trends are at the institutional level globally, and then will highlight
the institutional aspect in the Korean higher educational setting.
By the mid-1990s, a process or organizational approach was introduced by
Knight (1994) to illustrate that internationalization was a process which needed to be
integrated and sustainable at the institutional level. Internationalization was defined as
the “process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching,
research, and service functions of the institution” (p. 7). Knight (2007) highlights it is
increasingly clear that internationalization needs to be understood both at the
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

47
national/sector level as well as at the institutional level. The national/sector level has an
important influence on the international dimension of higher education through policy,
funding, programs, and regulatory frameworks. Therefore, an analysis at the
international level uses a bottom-up (institutional) approach and a top-down
(national/sector) approach and looks at the dynamics relationship between these two
levels.
Taylor (2004) described that the wide range of activities and initiatives
undertaken by universities is examined by covering teaching and learning, research,
staffing arrangements, and institutional management, which together form a
comprehensive strategy for internationalization. For the Japanese context, Yonezawa et
al. (2009) highlights that in order to set goals and strategies when endeavoring to review
the internationalization of higher education institutions, a clear mission and concrete
goals should be stated beforehand. In the case of Japanese universities, although the
majority sets goals for internationalization, this appears to be a relatively new
phenomenon, partly pushed by governmental initiatives. The patterns and forms that
Taylor (2004) and Yonezawa et al. (2009) described were also found in the Korean
higher education setting by T. Kim (2010).
Additionally, Armstrong (2007) points out that the greatest difficulty individual
institutions face in creating strategies for globalization is in knowing why they want to
globalize. A key component of this process is developing a sharper understanding of the
institution’s mission, especially in relation to the characteristics of the students.
Armstrong (2007) further developed his first argument by adding that some institutions
will find their globalization experiences to be transformational, while others will see
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

48
only incremental change. But for almost all colleges and universities, it would be
dangerous to ignore the forces of globalization.
Furthermore, Bartell (2003) described internationalization strategies by using
Ellingboe’s (1998) findings of internationalization within institutional level. Ellingboe’s
findings spell out, more specifically, five additional components, which are integral to
more completely understanding the process applied in internationalizing a university.
These components are as follows: (1) college leadership; (2) faculty members’
international involvement in activities with colleagues, research sites, and institutions
worldwide; (3) the availability, affordability, accessibility, and transferability of study
abroad programs for students; (4) the presence and integration of international students,
scholars, and visiting faculty into campus life; and (5) international co-curricular units
(residence halls, conference planning centers, student unions, career centers, cultural
immersion and language houses, student activities, and student organizations (p. 205).

Strategic Planning and Organizational Culture
For many institutions, developing a strategic plan is very crucial for
internationalizing the campus. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Taylor (2004) described that,
toward the end of the twentieth century, strategic planning assumed new importance
within the management of higher education at the institutional level. Driven by pressure
on resources, the growth in public accountability, and the emergence of market forces
influencing teaching and research, institutional leaders have been forced to assess their
activities and priorities for the future. In general, most universities are now pursuing
more planned, selective, long-term approaches, both by subject areas and by institution,
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

49
focusing on close and productive ties with a smaller group of institutions; but
Schoorman (1999) noted that, although administrators view internationalization as a
comprehensive, university-wide undertaking—and therefore relevant to all fields—
many academic staff take a different view and see things from a departmental
perspective (Taylor, 2004).
In the Korean context, Kim (2011) found a tendency among Korea’s prestigious
universities to establish collaborations with western universities as part of a university’s
strategic purpose, and that their preference for doing so can be explained relatively
easily: elite Korean universities can afford to be selective in choosing their partner
institutions, and that choice tends to rest on what will advantage their faculties and
students. The higher numbers of education institutions in English-speaking countries,
perception of higher educational quality in such countries, and the preeminence of
English as the global language of commerce and academic collaboration, are just some
of the reasons why collaboration with Western institutions is preferred. Perceiving
exchange programs as an important part of a strategy for internationalization is not
exclusive to the Korean context, but is also common in Western-based universities such
as the University of British Columbia, according to Taylor (2004).
As stated in Chapter 1, Bartell (2003) noted that culture is viewed as the values
and beliefs of those associated with the universities (including administrators, faculty,
students, board members, and support staff), developed in a historical process and
conveyed by use of language and symbols (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). The effect of these
values and beliefs on decision making at universities is strong (Tierney, 1988). To
develop an organizational culture that can facilitate and support adaptation to
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

50
environmental change and a successful process of innovation, such as the
internationalization of the university, would require that strategic planning be guided
and supported by an acknowledgement and understanding of the existing culture, the
mission, the communication patterns, the feasible outlooks, and the world views (Bartell,
2003).
Scholars described how specific calls for the adaptation of the university
through an internationalization process come from various sources (Ellingboe, 1998;
Sporn, 1999). Sporn (1996) defined strength as the degree of “fit between cultural
values, structural arrangements, and strategic plans within the whole university” (p. 50).
The use of the strength and orientation typology of the university’s culture (Sporn, 1996)
can help to assess the extent of its congruence with the actual functioning structure and
the strategies designed to achieve the level of internationalization desired, given the
overall surrounding environment (Bartell, 2003).
Tierney (1988) studied organizational culture in higher education to define the
essentials. According to him, institutions certainly are influenced by powerful, external
factors such as demographic, economic, and political conditions; yet they are also
shaped by strong forces that emanate from within. This internal dynamic has its roots in
the history of the organization and derives its force from the values, processes, and
goals held by those most intimately involved in the organization’s workings. An
organization’s culture is reflected in what is done, how it is done, and who is involved
in doing it. It concerns decision, actions, and communication both on an instrumental
and a symbolic level. Lastly, he suggested that by advocating a broad perspective,
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

51
organizational culture encourages practitioners to consider real or potential conflicts not
in isolation, but on the broad canvas of organizational life.
While western scholars are highlighting the internal aspects of institutions
regarding the strategic planning and organizational culture, in the Korean context, it is
hard to be achieved without understanding the governance style, especially external
governance style. J. Lee (2008) stated that, while many institutions are claiming that
their governance style follows the western (specifically, the U.S.) model, the Korean
higher education sector is currently heavily influenced by Confucianism and Japanese
Shinto-Confucianism.
Yonezawa et al. (2009) described the organization behavior of Japanese
universities as being quite different depending on the type of institution. National
(public) universities, operated by public legal entities called “national university
corporations”, are heavily supported and supervised by the national government and
tend to be flagship universities at the national level. Acknowledging similarities to the
Japanese university model, Kim and Lee (2006) explained that most of the public
universities in Korea are national, and most of the national universities are under the
control of the MOE. Therefore, the key issue of external governance control of public
universities is how to allocate power between the Ministry and individual institutions.
External governance control for private universities is by nature decentralized,
since each university would be under the control of its own board of trustees. One key
problem of the Korean private university has been the conflict between the founder (and
his/her family) and the other stakeholders (particularly faculty and students). In many
cases, the founder has put substantial personal resources into the university, and, in
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

52
return, gets control of the board of trustees by nominating persons whom s/he can easily
exercise influence over. Under the current governance style of Korean private
universities, it is very crucial for presidents of the university to identify the type of
governance before developing a strategic plan for internationalization.

Presidential Leadership for Internationalization at the Institutional Level
Again, there is no one universal format for colleges and universities to
internationalize their campuses; scholars and researchers have so far described the
importance of strategic planning, organizational culture, and governance, in order to
build a global university. With having all these factors, there is one particularly crucial
factor for internationalization: presidential leadership. In order to understand the
importance of leadership, literature regarding presidential leadership and leadership for
internationalization will be explored in this section.
DeLauder (2004) pointed out that internationalizing colleges and universities
will require transforming institutions—a transformation that demands the committed
leadership of the president and chancellors. Also, it explains that creating the global
university of the future cannot be accomplished by executive fiat; yet it cannot succeed
without deep presidential commitment. DeLauder (2004) also served as a guide for the
presidents to internationalize: first, leaders should articulate a clear and compelling
vision for a global university within the unique context and heritage of each individual
institution; advocate for the importance of internationalization, on campus and off; and
lastly, act by implementing specific action strategies that will advance the vision and
hold the institution accountable for transformation (p. 26) Furthermore, it is neither the
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

53
president’s nor chancellor’s task to implement an international mission, but it
emphatically is her or his responsibility to lay out a clear picture of what the globally
competent institution looks like, and then clear the path for transformation to happen.
While DeLauder (2004) described practical guidelines for the presidents to
internationalize the university and colleges, it is worth seeing how leadership has
influenced a transformation in the culture of institutions. Neumann (1995) has studied
the question: how does a new college president experience a long-established college
culture, and to what extent does the new president change in the context of the
relationships that he forms? And how does the new president experience such a change?
This study is also focusing on how a new president at a Korean university transforms
the university culture and implements internationalization strategies.
Bolman and Deal (2003) use a four-frame model (structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic), indicating that the same situation can be viewed in at least four
different ways. College and university presidents can use these frames as a lens to
identify what may be wrong in organizations, and what can be done to correct problems.
The four frames have their own image of reality and each frame can be characterized as
follows:
• The Structural Frame (metaphors: factory or machine) emphasizes goals,
specialized roles, and formal relationships; this frame can be used to
organize and structure groups and teams to get results and fit an
organization’s environment and technology.
• The Human Resource Frame (metaphor: family) sees the organization
through the lens of human needs, emotions, skills, and relationships; the goal
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

54
is to align organizational and human needs to build positive interpersonal
and group dynamics.
• The Political Frame (metaphor: jungle) has to do with power, conflict,
competition, and organizational politics; this frame can be used to cope with
power and conflict, build suitable coalitions, hone political connections, and
deal with both internal and external politics.
• The Symbolic Frame (metaphors: carnival, temple, or theater) sees
organizations as cultures, propelled more by rituals, ceremonies, stories,
heroes, and myths than by rules, policies, and managerial authorities; the
goal of this frame is to shape a culture that gives a purpose and meaning to
workers, provides organizational drama for internal and external audiences,
and builds team spirit through ceremony and story.
What Bolman and Deal (2003) refer to as multiframe thinking is an application
of their framework which requires leaders to examine leadership challenges and
opportunities from multiple leadership perspectives based upon their lenses. Bolman
and Deal (2003) suggest that when leaders of an organization reframe, they are able to
garner clarity, create new opportunities, and locate successful strategies that apply to
any situation involving organizational leadership.
The research conducted utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2003) framework of most
relevance to the proposed case study is Bensimon’s (1989) research, which examined
college presidents. Bensimon (1989) examined the espoused leadership frame
tendencies of 32 individuals. The researcher then analyzed the tendencies for the leaders
to espouse single, paired, or multiframe approaches to leadership. Bensimon (1989)
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

55
found that individuals utilizing four-frame approaches were exceptional; furthermore
presidents leading community colleges tended toward a single frame approach, while
presidents of universities tended toward a paired or multiframe approach. Additionally,
Bensimon (1989) found that newer college and university presidents tended to utilize
fewer frames of leadership, while more experienced presidents tended to utilize paired
or multiple frames. Bensimon’s work is highly revealing and applicable to the case
study this researcher will be conducting, as his findings provide a basis for which to
examine the leadership at a Korean private university through the framework of Bolman
and Deal (2003).
In addition to Bensimon’s work, Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko (2004)
reviewed major components of both transformational and servant leadership, and
compared these two theories, specifically highlighting theoretical similarities and
differences. According to Smith et al. (2004), Transformational leadership occurs when
a leader inspires followers to share a vision, empowering them to achieve the vision and
provides the resources necessary for developing their personal potential.
Transformational leaders serve as role models, support optimism, and mobilize
commitment, as well as focus on the followers’ needs for growth. Servant leadership
views a leader as a servant of his/her followers. It places the interests of followers
before the self-interest of a leader, thereby emphasizing personal development and
empowerment of followers. The servant leader is a facilitator for followers to achieve a
shared vision.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

56
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This study examines the process of internationalization at three private
universities in Korea. First, the study explores how the president’s leadership and his or
her vision served as input based on conceptual frameworks from Bolman and Deal
(2003). Secondly, the study seeks to understand how the office of international affairs
implemented the international initiatives to create a better international learning
environment by using the frameworks of Knight (2007). Finally, the study will examine
the results that each institution gained based on the interview. To a certain extent, the
study adopted the following model to examine internationalization practices at three
Korean higher education institutions: president’s vision as an input: strategies and
activities of OIA as a process: changes after implementing the internationalization
strategies and activities as outcomes. As Chapters 1 and 2 established, the Korean
higher education sector is currently facing two big issues, which are globalization and a
drop in enrollment; considering these two factors, this study will address the following
research questions:
1. What is the perception of the internationalization and globalization in the
higher education setting?
a. What are the presidents’ thoughts on internationalization and
globalization and their impact on the universities?
b. What are the OIA deans’ thoughts on internationalization and its
purposes for the university?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

57
c. What are the OIA staff members’ thoughts on internationalization
and its purposes for the university?
2. What kinds of strategies and activities have been introduced in order to
internationalize the campus?
a. What were the motivations to initiate internationalization on campus?
b. What do the interviewees think are the basic conditions for
internationalization of the university?
c. How has internationalization at each university evolved?
3. What changes have occurred since internationalizing the university?
a. What changes did internationalization bring to the campus?
b. What is the future direction for each university’s internationalization?
c. What difficulties were encountered during the process of
internationalizing each university?

Qualitative Inquiry
So far, Korean researchers and scholars have studied general patterns and trends
of internationalization of higher education and national policy of higher education (T.
Kim, 2005, 2010; Kim & Choi, 2011; Byun & Kim, 2010). However, few studies have
been done to seek practices and strategies at the institutional level, as well as the impact
of the president’s leadership style into the internationalization initiatives. With the given
context, this study’s methodology has adopted the qualitative research approach. The
multiple case studies approach is used to gain an in-depth understanding of the
internationalization process and outcomes at the institutional level in the higher
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

58
education sector of Korea (Patton, 2002). This study’s purpose is to discover the themes,
patterns, insights, and understandings of internationalization strategies at three
universities. The qualitative approach was the most appropriate method for this study
since a quantitative approach is used to measure the reactions of a great many people to
a limited set of questions, while qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of
detailed information about a much smaller number of people and cases (Patton, 2002, p.
14).
The researcher for this study adopted Patton (2002)’s description of qualitative
findings which grow out of three kinds of data collection: in-depth, open-ended
interviews; and direct observation; and written documents. Interviews yield direct
quotations from people about their experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge. The
data from observation consists of detailed descriptions of people’s activities, behaviors,
actions, and the full range of interpersonal interaction and organizational processes.
Document analysis includes studying excerpts, quotations, or entire passages from
organizational records, official publications, and reports (p. 4).
Patton (2002) suggested qualitative inquiry is highly appropriate for studying
processes because depicting processes requires detailed descriptions of how people
engage with each other, experiences with processes typically vary for different people.
Therefore their experiences need to be captured in their own words, processes are fluid
and dynamic so they cannot be fairly summarized on a single rating scale at one point in
time, and participants’ perceptions are key process considerations. Process studies aim
at elucidating and understanding the internal dynamics of how a program, organization,
or relationship operates (p. 159).
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

59
This study is also following the logic models that were described in Patton
(2002). A logic model depicts, usually in graphic form, the connections between
program inputs, activities and processes (implementation), outputs, immediate
outcomes, and long-term impacts (p. 162). Organization theorist Argyris quoted in
Patton (2002) introduced what has become a classic distinction between “espoused
theories” and “theories-in-use.” The espoused theory is what people say they do; it is
the official version of how the program or organization operates. The theory-in-use is
what really happens. Interviewing supervisory or managerial staff and administrators,
and analyzing official documents, reveals the espoused theory. Interviewing participants
and front-line people, and directly observing the program, reveals the theory-in-use
(Patton, 2002, p. 164).
As this study adopted the descriptive qualitative methodological approach, the
rest of the chapter will introduce case study design and how the researcher chose the
samples purposefully, description of the locations, institutions, and populations as units
of analysis, what kinds of instrumentation have been used, how the data will be
analyzed, as well as validity and reliability issues.

Case Study Design
Yin (2006) described Schramm’s definition for the case study as being the most
frequently encountered definition:
The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all types of case study,
is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions; why they were taken,
how they were implemented, and with what result. (Schramm, 1971)

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

60
Following the outline established in this definition, the researcher of this study is
examining why each institution’s president view internationalizing the campus as a
crucial goals, how it has been implemented, and what the outcomes were from the
internationalization efforts at each institution.
The researcher further adopted Patton’s (2002) description of applied research
case study that limits research to a specific time, place, and condition. This study is
examining the universities’ internationalization activities from 2006 to 2011, when
there was a big push for globalization in higher education from the government level in
Korea. The places were three private universities in three different locations;
cosmopolitan, metropolitan, and local city levels. And the condition is
internationalizing the campus to respond to the force of globalization, given the
expectation of a huge drop in enrollment for Korean universities in the 2020s by as
much as 30% of current high school graduates. As has been described above, the
researcher used a multiple case design, since the evidence from multiple cases is often
considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more
robust (Yin, 2006).

Sampling and Population
Criterion sampling, critical case sampling, and theory-based sampling were used
to purposefully select three Korean private universities in the study. The criterion that
the researcher predetermined was that the universities for this sample should be 4-year
private universities with a student body of 15,000 – 20,000 in three different levels of
locations (Cosmopolitan area - population more than 10,000,000; Metropolitan area -
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

61
1,000,000 population to 5,000,000; and Local city area: population between 500,000
and 1,000,000) in Korea. Also, the universities are considered appropriate model cases
in terms of internationalization based on government and newspaper evaluations.
Critical case sampling suggested that the universities that the researcher chose can
represent general characteristics of 4-year private universities located in the three
different levels (Seoul, Metropolitan, and Local city) in the country. The researcher has
identified the university in the nation’s capital as an Innovative Research-oriented
University (IRU), the university in the metropolitan area as Quality education-oriented
Research University (QRU) and Mission-oriented Internationalized University (MIU)
was represented in the mid-sized local city.

Overview of Institutions
The IRU opened in 1946, following the nation’s independence in 1945, as a
political-science training school, and upgraded its level to that of comprehensive
university in 1959. Currently, the university has two campuses (one in the nation’s
capital and the other in a local city). The size of the main campus in the capital is
15,674 students, and the branch-campus in a local city is 7,745. The main campus
comprises 15 colleges and 11 graduate schools, while the other campus consists of
seven colleges and two graduate schools. As of 2010, there were about 1,690
international students on the main campus and 140 at the other campus. The university
established exchange-student agreements with 292 universities in 46 countries. The
rankings of IRU’s internationalization has increased markedly in a short time, from
being outside the rankings in 2008, to 22
nd
in 2009, and to 14
th
in 2010, with a dramatic
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

62
increase in the number of international students from 428 in 2008, to 1,031 in 2009, and
1,690 in 2010, after President Kim took the leadership of the university in 2006.
Like the IRU, the QRU opened in 1946 after the nation’s independence, and was
accredited as a comprehensive private university with four colleges and sixteen
departments in 1959. The university now has twelve colleges and currently operates
three campuses based on their functions (liberal arts and engineering schools at the
main campus, medical and art schools at its second campus, and business and law
schools at third campus). As of 2010, a total of 20,182 students were enrolled at the
QRU, and the university has signed exchange agreements with 98 universities and
research institutes in 20 countries. In 2009, the university was ranked 28
th
in the nation
by the Chosun newspaper (one of the major newspapers in Korea); in addition, the
university has been awarded four years in a row (2008 – 2011) for excellence in
university education by the Ministry of Education and Science Technology (MEST). As
of 2010, there are about 300 international students at QRU.
Lastly, the MIU also opened in 1995 with 400 students and 40 professors. As of
2012, a total of 4,226 students are enrolled at the MIU. In 2011, the university was
ranked 4
th
in terms of internationalization of the university by Joongang Daily (one of
the major newspaper in Korea).

Participants
While Kim and Choi (2011) gathered information from 100 staff members and
faculty/administrators from twenty three universities in Korea by using Likert scale
surveys to describe the general patterns and phenomenon of internationalization, this
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

63
research will be based on one-on-one interviews in order to capture in-depth
understanding of a specific purpose to review the presidential leadership, process of
implementation of internationalization strategies, and outcomes of the
internationalization at three universities.
Based on the researcher’s six years’ prior experience as an administrator at U.S.
higher education institutions, he conducted numerous meetings with staff,
administrators, and faculty for internationalization at more than sixty universities in
Korea. Based on his personal insight, he has identified key players for the
internationalization of a university according to four layers below:
• Presidential Leadership: President who sets up the vision and direction for
internationalization.
• Senior Leadership: Vice president or Dean of office of the international
affairs.
• Mid-level supervisor: Director and Team manager at the office of
international affairs.
• Staff: one or two staff who are the main actors in designing and
implementing various projects.
Unlike what happens in the U.S. higher education system, the average
presidential term of Korean universities is four to five years, though this depends on the
institution’s characteristics. For example, in the first type of university, a private
university’s president is the founder of the university and presidential leadership is
determined by succession through his or her family members. The second, more
common type of university practice is through nominating from the faculty and voting
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

64
by the university faculty or committee members, which is called direct president
election. Lastly, the third type is open indirect election. The indirect election system can
elect candidates either from inside or outside of the university. However, in general, a
private university’s governance is heavily dependent on the university foundation.
For the senior leadership positions, the vice president and dean of the
international affairs are usually appointed faculty members from the office of the
president, and usually the term of the position does not exceed two to three years.
However, sometimes there is a case where the dean or vice president served for longer
than two years, such as MIU.

Rationale for Selecting the Cases
As the researcher mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, overall Korean higher
education has been impacted by globalization since the late 1990s, when Korea joined
WTO and OECD. Universities in Korea have responded to the globalization forces
through a form of internationalization. Along with the globalization forces, major social
issues have included focusing more on quality assurance of higher education after
achieving universal access in the 1990s, as well as upgrading university facilities,
academic curriculum, and profiles of faculty and students to global standards. Lastly,
the current on-going demographic shift will impact the number of high school graduates,
and consequently private higher education institutions located outside of Seoul,
especially in local cities, are responding to this issue through various marketing and
recruiting strategies both domestically and internationally.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

65
In response to the globalization and social issues discussed above, most Korean
national and private universities started to develop various internationalization
initiatives depending on the institution’s mission and sense of urgency related to the
expected enrollment drop. Based on institutional strategic plans and annual reports of
the IRU, the researcher found a huge increase in the number of international students.
Under President Kim’s leadership term from 2006 - 2010, the international enrollment
has increased threefold; but at the same time funding, facilities, and partnerships have
been expanded. President Lee at QRU started his presidential term in 2008, and will end
his term in 2012. Under his leadership, the university has been awarded the “Excellence
in university education” from the Ministry of Education and Science Technology
(MEST) three years in a row, and its overall institutional ranking in Chosun Ilbo (one of
the Major newspapers in Korea) has moved up within the top twenty’s in the nation.
The researcher has noticed various internationalization initiatives at Korean
universities over the last six years, from 2006 to 2011. He has purposefully sampled two
institutions (IRU and QRU) because of their successful cases in terms of
internationalization at IRU and of qualitative enhancement of university education at
QRU. In addition, MIU has been recommended by the interviewees as a good sample in
terms of internationalization. The researcher took USC’s ED.D. Program and he became
interested in the relationship between presidential leadership and Bolman and Deal’s
four frames to analyze an organization. With his professional work experience in
international education and organizational theory, the researcher developed the inquiry
for this study. Between 2006 and 2011, the researcher made ten times official visits to
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

66
the three selected institutions as a U.S. university delegate, and he actually stayed about
a month at IRU and QRU in 2011.

Instrumentation
This study follows Patton’s (2002) discussion on four types of triangulation in
doing research: data triangulation; investigator triangulation; theory triangulation; and
methodological triangulation. The researcher conducted one-on-one interviews with key
players at each institution to examine how they implement internationalization, and did
document analysis with the universities’ strategic plan reports, and making observations
through visiting each campus. For the investigator’s triangulation, the researcher asked
for input from classmates and professors in the U.S. and Korean higher education
institutions. Thirdly, the researcher used theory triangulation by looking at three
frameworks: presidential leadership as an Input; internationalization activities and
strategies as a Process; and changes after implementing the strategies and activities, as
well as government and newspaper’s evaluations of each university’s
internationalization, as an Output. Lastly, this study followed the typical qualitative
methods strategy, consisting of three parts: qualitative data; a holistic-inductive design
of naturalistic inquiry; and content or case analysis (Patton, 2002, p. 248). The
interview protocol is designed to find out this study’s research questions designed by
the researcher. The structured interview protocol, designed as open-ended questions,
aimed to answer the research questions.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

67
Questions for President
A. Organizational Leadership and Globalization
How did leadership at your institution develop global initiatives in response to
the forces of globalization?
1. In your opinion, how would you define leadership in higher education?
2. How would you describe an effective higher education leader?
3. What are your views on globalization in general?
4. What are your views on globalization in higher education in particular?
5. How has the institutional organizational structure changed, if at all, in
response to globalization?
6. How will the global initiatives allow your institution to remain competitive
in the marketplace?
7. How are the global initiatives related to future opportunities for growth of
your institution?
8. What led the university to decide to expand itself from a focus on domestic
to international student?

B. Process
How did leadership at your institution internationalize the campus?
9. How are your institution’s global initiatives funded?
10. How did you go about selecting and attracting faculty and staff to work at
the institution on the issue of global initiatives?
11. What incentives do you provide to make this endeavor worthwhile?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

68
12. In your view, who were the key players involved in leading the institution’s
commitment to internationalize the campus? What were their roles?
13. How did you inform your constituents about your specific globalization
endeavors?
14. As a leader in changing the institution in response to the forces of
globalization, did you need to restructure your institution to achieve the
success?
15. What resources are needed to sustain your global initiatives? (ex. staff,
facilities, etc)
16. In your opinion, what are the major topics discussed on globalization in
higher education by senior administrators in higher education today?
17. What were the challenges related to the global initiatives in your institution?
18. What were the opportunities related to the global initiatives in your
institution?
19. How did you overcome challenges?
20. What are the current challenges related to the global initiatives in your
institution?
21. What are the current opportunities related to the global initiatives in your
institution?
22. Is there anything about the change process that you would like to share with
others?

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

69
C. Outcomes
How does leadership at your institution measure the outcomes of the
internationalization?
23. Are there ways in which you measure the changes made in response to
globalization?
24. What have been the greatest successes in regard to the global initiatives at
your institution?
25. How do you think the global initiatives benefit the students, faculty, and
university community at your institution?
26. How would you describe your institution’s future as a global university?

Questions for Dean and Director, Office of International Affairs
A. Globalization and Organizational Leadership
How did leadership at your institution develop the global initiatives in response
to the forces of globalization?
1. How do you define globalization as it related to higher education?
2. How do you view the impact of globalization on the Korean higher
education sector?
3. In your institution, who do you think is leading the efforts to embrace global
initiatives?
4. There are global initiatives in your institution directed to China. In your
opinion, what motivated the implementation of those initiatives?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

70
5. What were the key factors that led to the decision to implement the global
initiatives at your institution?
6. How do your institution’s global initiatives distinguish your institution from
other institutions?
7. What measurable targets or goals have been set that relate to global
initiatives?
8. How did the president prepare the community of your institution for the
implementation of global initiatives?
9. How did the president guide the members of your institution during the
process of creating the global initiatives?
10. How did the president establish the relationship between the global
initiatives and the mission of your institution?
11. How did the president explain the purpose for the creation of the global
initiatives?

B. Process
How did leadership at your institution internationalize the campus?
12. As a leader in changing the institution in response to the forces of
globalization, did you need to restructure your office to achieve success?
13. Describe your involvement in the implementation of the global initiatives.
14. What support structure is in place that promotes global initiatives in your
institution?
15. What were the challenges related to the global initiatives in your department?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

71
16. What were the opportunities related to the global initiatives in your
department?
17. How did you overcome challenges?
18. What are the current challenges related to the global initiatives in your
department?
19. What are the current opportunities related to the global initiatives in your
department?
20. Is there anything about the change process that you would like to share with
others?
21. Can you tell me about the types of changes (ex. Structural, administrative,
cultural, programmatic, curriculum) your university has implemented in
response to globalization?
22. If changes have been made, what strategies were used to implement change
related to globalization?
23. How were the changes communicated to the college community? (faculty,
staff, student)
24. From your perspective, how have your institution’s faculty, staff and
students responded to the global initiatives?

C. Outcomes
How does leadership at your institution measure the outcomes of
internationalization?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

72
25. How do you think the implementation of global initiatives has affected the
university? (What are your thoughts about the way the change process has
affected the university?)
26. What have been the greatest successes in regard to the global initiatives at
your institution?
27. How do you think the global initiatives benefit the students, faculty, and
university community at your institution?
28. Are there examples or models of international programs for other institutions?
29. Are there ways in which you measure the changes made in response to
globalization?
30. How do you measure development or outcomes related to international
programs?

Data Collection Procedures
As Patton (2002) explained, each method of observation, interview, and
documentation has limitations, so the documentation would not have made sense
without interviews, and the focus of the interviews came from field observations. Taken
all together, these diverse sources of information gave the researcher a complete picture
for the research questions. Yin (2006) discussed the six most common data sources for
doing case studies: documentation archival records; interviews; direct observations;
participant-observation; and physical artifacts.
The researcher used Patton (2002)’s triangulation and Yin (2006)’s guidelines of
six data sources in order to answer the research questions, using the methods below:
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

73
• Documents: Official documents from 2006 – 2011:
o Administrative documents: proposals, progress reports, and internal
records for Internationalization of each university.
o Organizational records:
 University’s official enrollment reports;
 University’s official self-evaluation report;
 University’s official strategic development plan.
o Government or External records:
 Korea MOE’s university evaluation report;
 Newspaper’s ranking info from QS-Chosun Newspaper and
Joongang Daily.
o Newspaper clippings and other articles in the mass media or in a
university paper.
• Interview: One-on-one interview with each participant (Time: 30 – 60 mins):
o President;
o Vice president or Dean at the Office of International Affairs (OIA);
o Director or Team manager at the OIA;
o One or Two important staff at the OIA.
• Physical artifacts: websites of institution and website of the OIA.
In data collection procedures, usually the first issue is how to get access to the
data. The researcher has built a good working relationship with the informants at each
university over the last six years from when he worked at a U.S. University. Whenever
the researcher made his official visits to each institution, he intentionally observed the
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

74
campus culture and took campus tours, spending time with the key informants and their
colleagues over lunch or dinner. Even though the researcher has an informal
relationship with the participants, he has formally sent them an official letter explaining
the purpose of the study, the reason why the researcher chose them, what the researcher
wants to find out, and their support for the study at the site.

Data Analysis
The purpose of data analysis was to bring together data and find common
patterns, themes, and interrelationships within the data collected. According to Patton
(2002), case analysis involves organizing the data by specific cases for in-depth study
and comparison (p. 447). Well-constructed case studies are holistic and sensitive. This
study consists of four different leadership layers, from president to staff at the OIA, in
three Korean private universities. As Patton (2002) described, this study also follows
the process for constructing case studies. First, the researcher collected raw data from
interviews, documents, and physical artifacts, and organized it by patterns, or
descriptive findings, and themes related to the research questions. Lastly, the researcher
used the case record to write a final case study narrative.
In order to write the final case study narrative, several frameworks were adopted
to analyze the data. First, conceptual frameworks from Bolman and Deal (2003),
Neumann (2000), and Bensimon (1987) were used to analyze the data from interviews
with presidents. Institutional documents and physical artifacts were analyzed with
lenses from the frameworks of Armstrong (2007), Knight (2007), and DeLauder (2004).
Finally, the data from the government evaluation for each university’s level of
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

75
internationalization and newspapers’ ranking information of internationalization will be
used for comparative analysis of the outcomes of the universities’ internationalization
efforts.
As Patton (2002) described, each case was compared and contrasted later, but
initially each case was represented and understood as an idiosyncratic manifestation of
the phenomenon. The researcher tried to make accessible to the reader all the
information necessary to understand the case in all its uniqueness.

Ethical Considerations
Patton (2002) argues that because qualitative methods are highly personal and
interpersonal, such a naturalistic inquiry takes the researcher into the real world where
people live and work; and because in-depth interviewing opens up what is inside people,
qualitative inquiry may be more intrusive and involve greater reactivity than surveys,
tests, and other quantitative approaches. Throughout the data collection and data
analysis process, the researcher gave great attention to preventing dissemination of
findings and protecting the privacy of individuals by using pseudonyms for
identification purposes. The name of each institution is also protected by the use of a
fictitious name.

Conclusion
This study examined the role and perspectives of the presidential leadership to
implement internationalization strategies by adopting leadership and organizational
frameworks. As well as, how the Office of International Affairs (OIA) practiced various
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

76
international education activities. Lastly, the researcher compared and contrasted the
outcomes of the internationalization practices and strategies at three private universities
in Korea. This qualitative case study chose multiple cases in different locations because
of the important meaning of the university’s location in Korea, as well as because the
evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall
study is therefore regarded as being more robust. The researcher triangulated data
sources and perspectives by adopting conceptual frameworks in order to construct the
reliability and validity. Lastly, pseudonyms were utilized for the universities and the
individuals’ names and titles in order to protect the privacy and to ensure the
confidentiality.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

77
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
This chapter is composed based on interviews that the researcher conducted for
this study with presidents, deans and vice presidents of international affairs, and
directors, section chiefs, and staff at the office of international affairs at three
universities. The researcher describes each institution, interview setting, and the
backgrounds of informants in the order of QRU, IRU, and MIU, which is followed by
the actual findings.
While the discussion section will be introduced in the next chapter, the
researcher focused on describing the findings from the interview in this chapter based
on the research questions: (1) What is the perception of the internationalization and
globalization in the higher education setting? (2) What kinds of strategies and activities
have been introduced in order to internationalize the campus? (3) What changes have
occurred since internationalizing the university? The researcher requested from 40
minutes to 1 hour for the interview session with each informant, but the interview with
the presidents had to be reduced to 20 minutes due to the busy schedule of the
presidents. Interviews with other informants lasted 60 to 70 minutes. All interviews
were conducted in Korean, transcribed in Korean and then translated into English by the
researcher for this study.
Table 4.1 below is an initial list of the informants whom the researcher was
going to interview. However, Dr. Song, Mr. Yoo, and Dr. Han were not available for
the interview during his visit to the universities. Since the former dean of international
affairs at the IRU was on sabbatical leave, the researcher could not interview him, as
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

78
well as the former director at IRU. Also, the researcher could not conduct an interview
session with the current dean of international affairs at QRU because he was on an
international business trip when the researcher visited the QRU.

Table 4.1
List of Potential Participants
University IRU QRU MIU
President Dr. Kim* Dr. Lee Dr. Park
Dean of OIA Dr. Song Dr. Han Dr. Shin
Director Mr. Yoo Mr. Yoon Mr. Lim
Section Chief Mr. Cho Ms. Koo Mr. Jung
Staff Mr. Seo Ms. Jang Ms. Oh
*Pseudonyms have been used for all participants in order to protect their identities

As the researcher mentioned earlier, he stayed about two weeks at IRU in April,
2011 and two weeks at QRU in May, 2011 in order to observe the universities’ facilities,
such as the library, student union building, dormitory, classrooms, research laboratories,
and offices; he also participated in OIA’s weekly meetings at both universities.
Interview data will be introduced in the order of QRU, IRU, and MIU, based on the
research questions.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

79
Institutions, Interview Settings, and Background Information of Informants
Quality Education-oriented Research University (QRU)
QRU, as stated earlier, is a large-size research oriented university located in one
of the metropolitan cities of Korea, and has a student body of about 20,000. The
university is recognized as the best private university in the region, and has a long
history. The researcher conducted interviews there on July 6 and July 12, 2012. The
researcher interviewed the Director, Section Chief, and Staff of Office of International
Affairs (OIA) on his first visit, and met with the president on his second visit.
The first interview with Director Yoon and Section Chief Koo was conducted
over 70 minutes in the OIA conference room. Both Mr. Yoon and Ms. Koo have
worked at QRU over 30 years and both of them were moved to OIA in 2010 for the first
time throughout their careers at the university. Since they have worked at the QRU for
over 30 years, they have worked in many other offices. The researcher conducted the
interview session utilizing the prepared interview protocols, but omitted several
interview items, which had already been answered through other interview items, since
Mr. Yoon and Ms. Koo shared plenty of their thoughts on internationalization naturally
through the course of the interview. The researcher conducted another interview session
with Ms. Jang in the afternoon after the first interview with Mr. Yoon and Ms. Koo in
the morning. Ms. Jang has worked at the OIA over the last six years. Ms. Jang also
holds an executive director of external affairs for the Korean Association of
International Educators, the professional educator’s organization which was established
by staff from Korean universities’ OIA in 1997. President Lee, who was interviewed at
the president’s office on July 12, worked over 30 years for the ministry of education in
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

80
Korea and had been president at three other universities prior to becoming the president
of the QRU.

Innovative Research-oriented University (IRU)
IRU’s main campus is located in the nation’s capital city, which has a
population around 10 million. Currently there are 15,647 students on the main campus,
and the university is categorized as a large-size research oriented university based on
the Korean MOE’s criteria. The university moved up in rankings to the top 20
universities over the four years during which Dr. Kim held the president’s office at IRU.
Also, the university’s internationalization ranking reached 14
th
over his presidency
period from 2006 to 2010.
The researcher visited on July 2 and July 3, 2012 to interview Mr. Cho and Mr.
Seo, who are the senior staff at IRU’s OIA, and visited former IRU president Kim’s
current office on July 10, 2012. The interviews with Mr. Cho and Mr. Seo lasted about
1 hour for each session at IRU OIA’s conference room. Like QRU, the researcher was
only able to interview President Kim for about 20 minutes due to his busy schedule.
Mr. Cho started working at OIA in 2009. Mr. Seo returned to OIA at IRU in
2011, after he completed a master’s program in another country. The researcher has
visited since 2006 as part of his job at an international center at a U.S. university and he
stayed about 2-weeks in April 2011 to observe the university.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

81
Mission-oriented Internationalized University (MIU)
The initial samples that had been purposefully selected for this study were QRU
and IRU. While the researcher visited both QRU and IRU to interview with the
informants, staff member Jang at QRU and staff member Cho recommended the MIU as
one of the best internationalized universities in Korea.
Staff member Jang: the secret behind [MIU] is that it was a newly founded
university begun as a mission’s school, and it had the most appropriate
chancellor for internationalization. Professors were open to such ideas, and most
of the classes are in English. [MIU]’s internationalization is probably the most
clearly defined. The size of the school is not as big, it can respond to variables
with comparatively quick decisions. The harmonious culture and well-structured
English curriculum contribute to its solid internationalization, too, and that is
why many international views prefer [MIU]. Having a culture of giving back to
the society, educating a human more than just academics, [MIU] has a strong
internal stability, even though it may not be reflected in the school ranking.
Whereas [MIU] grows through a great chancellor who has a clear vision in
internationalization, [QRU]’s internationalization support is from the foundation.

As staff members Jang and Cho described, MIU, which was established in 1995,
is located in a small city and has about 4000 students. The university is a small-sized,
instruction-oriented university. The researcher decided to contact MIU in order to
compare the three universities’ internationalization practices. MIU president’s secretary
office confirmed the researcher’s visit. The researcher visited MIU on July 9, 2012 for
the first time. Since it is located in small city, it took five hours by inter-city bus to
arrive there. The location of the university shows how isolated the university is
compared to other universities in cosmopolitan or metropolitan areas. After the long bus
trip, the researcher arrived at MIU’s well-organized and clean campus, which is
reminiscent of U.S. university campuses. Meetings with the dean of external affairs,
president, section chief of OIA, and senior assistant to the president were arranged.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

82
Each interview lasted about 40 minutes to 1 hour at the conference room, except with
the president. Due to another appointment the president had, the researcher was only
able to interview the president for about 20 minutes at his office.
The researcher tried not to use the prepared structured interview protocol at MIU
in order to create a natural setting for them to share their thoughts freely. The researcher
focused on listening to their stories, rather than asking questions. Even though the
researcher did not strictly follow the interview protocol, he has an idea of how to
uncover the purpose, goals of MIU’s internationalization, process, and outcomes, just as
he would if he had followed the questions precisely.
Since it was the researcher’s first visit to the university, MIU staff showed an
introductory video clip about the university while the researcher was waiting for the
first interview with the dean. The theme of the video, which was filmed by alumni and
current students, was of a dream. After watching the video clip, the researcher was
touched by the contents. While the researcher was watching the movie, he also thought
that the graduates from this university could change the world after being educated here.
The 10-minute video clip showed how the university was established with a strong
Christian mission, what is being taught to freshmen through seniors, and how the
university prepares its students for global society based on the team system and 100%
resident-life from freshmen to juniors. Later, the researcher realized that this vision was
possible because of MIU’s strong sense of community, visionary leadership, its
secluded location, and the small student body, among other points.
In 1995, when the university was established, President Park moved from a
university to MIU to be the president, a position that he has maintained since 1995. As
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

83
mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, most Korean university presidents’ terms are either four
or five years. His 18-year presidency is quite an unusual case in the Korean higher
education setting.

The Purpose of the Internationalization
1. What is the perception of the internationalization and globalization in the
higher education setting?
a. What are the presidents’ thoughts on internationalization and
globalization and their impact on the universities?
b. What are the OIA deans’ thoughts on internationalization and its
purposes for the university?
c. What are the OIA staff members’ thoughts on internationalization
and its purposes for the university?
The first research question that the researcher wanted to explore in the
interviews at three universities was the purpose of the internationalization at the
university and how the informants at three universities define internationalization and
globalization.
President Lee at QRU responded that, “Internationalization is to understand
different cultures and recognize the differences” which is the basic underlying purpose
of internationalization at his university. Section Chief Koo’s answer differed markedly
from the president’s response: “It is to help students find jobs and increase their foreign
language competency”. Staff member Jang said that the purpose of the
internationalization at QRU is to “foster global citizens equipped with global
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

84
competency to succeed in their lives within this global society”. As Marginson and
Wende (2007) stated that institutions revise their purpose mission in order to ensure that
their students have the “knowledge, skills, and attitude” that will position them to
become successful citizens of the world, the responses from QRU’s informant were
similar to that indicated by Marginson and Wende (2007).
President Lee: The contexts may vary, but global is about being one, one
country, language, culture, and custom. Globalization means living as if
everyone around the world is your neighbor. We ought to respect each other and
live peacefully. In the word international, national means nation, and inter
means relations between. Global means overcoming the differences rising from
races, religion, and so on to live together peacefully. I am no idealist or may not
be an internationally aware person, but internationalization is more of a
necessity and a trend that I should follow.

Section Chief Koo: The purposes of [QRU]’s internationalization are helping
students’ careers and growing various language abilities. Overseas experiences
and languages are the first steps of internationalization.

Staff member Jang: National borders already have disappeared. The higher
education that is aware of internationalization needs to raise students that
possess their own merits as leaders and as a part of the global society.

The president focused on the fundamental purpose of internationalization; the
administrators at the office weighted practical purposes and goals more importantly.
Some may say this structure of the leader focusing on fundamentals and staff who are
implementing internationalization (administrators) concentrating on practical plans is
ideal. Through the other sub-questions discussed later, “difficulties in actual
implementation process of internationalization,” however, the researcher observed that
those difficulties originate from the absence of the practical vision or direction set by
the leader.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

85
President Kim at IRU stated that globalization and internationalization are
inescapable trends worldwide, so there will be a big difference between a university
which has internationalized early and a university which has not. Also, President Kim
has a philosophy that Korea has to encourage exchanges with cultures that have more
progressive education policies in order to further develop Korea’s national education
programs, while the nation should also share its experiences and knowledge of
development with developing countries in order to encourage their growth within the
scope of globalization. With this perspective, when President Kim was inaugurated at
IRU, he noticed that IRU had not focused on internationalization based on the low
number of international students and number of partner institutions in other countries.
He articulated three goals: internationalizing the campus; capacity building for research;
and establishing an ICT-based administration system, in order to transform IRU into
one of the top-tier universities in Korea. What he did after he became the president at
IRU was based on strategies and guides to internationalize the university from
NASULGC’s white paper, “A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in
Internationalizing the University,” giving American State Universities’ perspectives on
internationalization.
In addition to President Kim’s perspective, staff member Cho has an idea of the
internationalization of higher education which should focus more on international
cooperation and development aligned with the goals from international organizations
such as UNESCO and UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), rather than
following the current practice of most Korean universities, which focus primarily on
increasing only the number of partner institutions and number of international students.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

86
Knight (2007) also described international development activities as one of the practices
in internationalization of higher education. As for the question of the rationale and
relationship between globalization and internationalization of higher education, staff
member Seo stated that, “I think globalization is broader in scope than
internationalization. Internationalization is how the universities are responding to the
forces of globalization.” After receiving their answers, the researcher found that the
ideas toward globalization and internationalization that IRU administrators had were
very similar to those of Knight (2007).
Both Mr. Cho and Mr. Seo also described that IRU’s purpose is educating
students’ global competence in order to contribute to their ability, skills, and knowledge
in global society, much like QRU administrators’ perception and rationale for
internationalization. The main difference in internationalization between QRU and IRU
was the approaches of the universities’ leaders. While QRU president highlighted the
fundamental meaning of internationalization, IRU president articulated publicly that
internationalizing the campus was one of the goals which he aimed to achieve over his
term at IRU. Dr. Kim, President at IRU, gave more weight to the internationalization of
the university, and this different approach created the gap between QRU and IRU in the
end.
Similar to the other two universities, the goal of internationalization at MIU was
focusing on education for nurturing globally competent citizens. The only difference
between MIU and other universities was that MIU stated this goal in 1995 when the
university opened. As Byun and Kim (2011) described, the internationalization
movement started in the Korean higher education setting in the late 1990s. Only a
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

87
couple of top-tier universities were able to engage in international activities during that
time. Considering MIU’s history, size, location, and the financial status of the
university’s foundation, integrating the internationalization aspect into the mission and
vision were noticeable points in the Korean higher education setting. Also, MIU has
pursued the ideal liberal-art college and residential college model since the beginning.
Apparently the higher education in Korea started to highlight these concepts after 2000
when the government introduced the “Advanced College Education,” project which
aims to upgrade the level of undergraduate education; however, the MIU has stressed
these aspects from the beginning.
President Park: The future that we prepare should be about achieving global
peace and prosperity. As time goes by, however, global peace has been
diminished to a tool that makes rich richer and the poor poorer. I did not want
[MIU] to join that trend. Instead of blindly following or spreading the examples
of developed countries, I wanted my students to be the ones who actually go and
work with developing countries.

President Park: [MIU] Global is different from [MIU] international. Instead of
just putting together different countries’ identities in one place, we want
integration, holistic unification. I wanted to more focus on the integration and
unification, so I called the school [MIU] Global, instead of international.

The researcher asked how President Park defines globalization and
internationalization, and what the reason was for changing the university’s name by
adding the global aspect. As described above, President Park’s perception toward
globalization and internationalization is similar to that of President Lee at QRU, except
that his concept was clearer. Also, he articulated it to the community and shared his
vision with community members at MIU to build the culture. This aspect was similar to
President Kim at IRU to a certain extent. While the other two universities’ informants
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

88
who shared their thoughts on globalization had opinions that differed slightly from that
of their president’s, it was surprising to notice that all informants at MIU share
President Park’s idea toward the concept of globalization and internationalization.

The Process of Internationalization
2. What kinds of strategies and activities have been introduced in order to
internationalize the campus?
a. What were the motivations to initiate internationalization on campus?
b. What do the interviewees think are the basic conditions for
internationalization of the university?
c. How has internationalization at each university evolved?
In this section, the researcher describes the incentives that urged the university
to implement internationalization strategies, how the initiatives were implemented, and
where the strategy is heading.
Based upon the prior responses of the interviewees, the researcher asked about
the initiation, process, and necessary conditions of internationalization. To collect
interview data from a more practical perspective, the questions were asked to the
administrators at the office of international affairs. Staff member Jang, who has the
most knowledge and experience in internationalization in the office, answered the
question: “After the university ranking started to reflect internationalization as one of
the factors, 7-8 years ago, many universities started to focus on internationalization.”
For the process, she gave a description, quoted below:
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

89
Staff member Jang: The initial internationalization process was done only
through exchange programs. The problem with those was that they were very
one-sided. Then the summer program for language training became popular. The
next was a program called Study Abroad, in which our students went abroad to
sister schools, and became students of the sister schools for a semester. Then,
students asked for programs with degrees, so the school developed dual/joint
degrees. The next program was for internships abroad. Now the trend of creating
overseas volunteer programs is growing. As [QRU] started to manage those
various programs, we observed the potential of successful international student
recruitment. Thus, now we have students from China, Japan, and Southeast
Asian countries. Especially, the programs that offer internships in Korea for
international students have become a profitable project. As mentioned before,
programs that start off from an academic-oriented pursuit have evolved as
commercialized educational products, according to the consumers’ needs.
Additionally, we have built a branch school in [another Korean city] to fulfill
those needs. These commercialized educational products recruit not only
international but also domestic students.

Details of the process may vary, but the two universities, QRU and IRU, had
very similar general direction and evolution of international activities (as will be seen
further in the section on IRU further below). Lastly, the three necessary conditions that
Ms. Jang named are also found in Knight (2007) and Kim (2011), and they are:
Staff member Jang: First, leadership: the care and support from the head master.
The second thing is the passion and devotion from the personnel of the
internationalization department. The third one is the roadmap developed by the
expertise of the staff within the international relations office.

At QRU, Staff member Jang answered most of the questions. This shows that
there is a lack of expertise about internationalization by mid-level managers (Director
and Section Chief), who should function as a bridge between the offices of the president
and of international affairs. The researcher recognized that QRU should resolve this
type of staff placement in order to internationalize the campus in effective ways.
First of all, President Kim announced his clear vision and the goals that he
wanted to achieve in order to transform IRU through internationalization practices, and
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

90
gave full support for those practices. According to staff member Seo from IRU’s OIA,
as quoted below:
Staff member Seo: The school changed a lot throughout the last ten years. The
initiator was Chancellor [Kim]. From the beginning, he had re-imagined the new
[IRU] through the concept of internationalization. He knew that the concept
would change the infrastructure and international awareness within the school.
His leadership was the biggest factor. The school implemented a new
organizational structure, a new budget, and new positions.

As described above, Mr. Cho said that “IRU implemented internationalization
strategies sequentially.” He also stated the process of internationalization, described
below:
Staff member Cho: Chancellor ordered me to focus on increasing the number of
students that go out to the US and creating programs for such students. Because
[IRU] did not have much advantage in partnering with schools in English
speaking countries, we switched our focus to Europe, and also developed more
fully-funded programs for US universities. Also, to assist the language barrier,
the program contained the ESL program. Students benefited significantly
through that strategy. For attracting international students to [IRU], we focused
on Chinese students, and as a result 97% of international students were from
China. Now our strategy has shifted to decreasing the reliance on Chinese
students and increasing the percentage of non-Chinese students.

Overall, QRU and IRU followed a similar model to implement
internationalization practices and international programs. However, recently QRU has
set the goal to recruit more international students, but IRU is focusing on diversifying
the profile of international students on campus after the university reached their full
capacity for international students on campus. Unlike QRU’s president, who stated the
fundamental goals and importance of internationalization, IRU’s president gave full
supports for increasing the number of staff at OIA and allocating more of the budget
toward internationalization, and also shared his clear vision with the campus community
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

91
members. The Presidents’ different strategies are clear. IRU was able to create the
international culture at IRU.
According to the administrators at IRU, President Kim’s leadership style and the
supports he offered are necessary to internationalization. They have shared specific
initiatives which have been accomplished under President Kim’s leadership, including
that the budget for the OIA has increased from USD 350,000 to USD 1.5 million, the
number of OIA staff has increased from 4 to 16 people, and the number of international
students has increased from 400 to 2,500. Staff member Cho highlighted that one of the
best things that President Kim did, unlike other universities’ presidents, was sharing his
clear vision of why IRU should internationalize, and creating a university culture, which
gives importance to internationalization.
In terms of basic conditions for internationalization, IRU administrators said that
there needs to be key players at OIA who are experienced and knowledgeable about
internationalization, and who share the leader’s vision from the president to dean, from
dean to director, and from director to staff, with a long-term strategy which can help
OIA pursue the goals no matter who becomes the dean. Additionally, hiring staff
members who have relevant international education experience and positioning OIA
under direct channel from the president’s office also enhance the effectiveness of
internationalization programs. All of these were implemented after Dr. Kim became the
president at IRU. The internationalization practices and strategies that happened at IRU
reconfirm Knight’s framework for internationalizing the university. Furthermore,
President Kim established a research laboratory after hiring Nobel-prize laureates from
Europe, and gave honorary doctorates to internationally well-known people such as the
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

92
secretary general at IAEA. Based on Bolman and Deal’s four frames, these activities
can be described as symbolic leadership, which highlights the organization culture.
IRU also faced the difficulties that QRU had in the process of
internationalization under President Lee, but the different leadership style and practices
at IRU resolved the issues that arose at QRU. During the interview, President Kim
mentioned that “If the leader sets the goals, he or she should talk more often to convince
people who have different ideas. If the leader cannot convince the community, it is hard
to lead the organization.” Again, what happened at these two universities gives a clear
picture to other universities leaders as to what they should do if there are difficulties and
issues in creating an international learning environment. The presidential leadership was
the most important influence to transform IRU into a well-internationalized campus.
Similar to what Knight (2007) mentioned, IRU practiced both organizational and
program strategies for internationalization.
The other two universities stated that their universities started to adopt the
internationalization concept because of external evaluations, such as newspaper
rankings and government evaluation, or because of the new president’s strong
leadership. However, the MIU started with the concept of internationalization.
According to Dean Shin, she stressed how important the beginning of the university was
to create an appropriate climate and culture for internationalization:
Dean Shin: Because we had good foundational work, now we can improve or
add more on top, instead of replacing everything. Unlike a profit-seeking
company, which changes its strategy and direction if it does not achieve a
desired result, schools have difficulties in measuring their results. So, the
justification for radically changing the school’s groundwork is not as clear as it
is in business. The founding culture becomes the school’s culture. [MIU]’s
culture has an ideal cycle structure, which is unprecedented in universities.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

93
She also explained that President Park strategically developed partnerships with
international organizations such as OECD, UNESCO, and UN, unlike other Korean
universities which try to increase number of overseas partner institutions. Section Chief
Lim mentioned that MIU’s internationalization is focused on assisting developing
countries, so there are many volunteer programs for the students to visit developing
countries to help build houses, improve sanitization, teach basic computer skills and
assist with other aid programs throughout their university life. This practice is what the
IRU is currently attempting to pursue, but MIU has been doing these activities over the
last 18 years, since its beginning. MIU has implemented and practiced up-to-date
internationalization activities for a long time, when other universities did not see the
values of these activities. Even though the university is located in a small city and has a
small number of students compared to most other 4-year universities in Korea, it seems
like the MIU has led the trends of internationalization initiatives in the Korean higher
education setting. Therefore, their internationalization ranking has always been within
the top 3 or 5.
As was described earlier, MIU has a short history compared to those of other
universities, and the size of the university is small. However, the university took a
unique internationalization strategy. While other universities in Korea focused on the
number of international partners, students, and courses offered in English, MIU
developed partnerships with United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) and was
designated as a hub university in Korea and selected for University Twining and
Networking by UNESCO as well as OECD. UNITWIN program is aiming to narrow
the gap between developed countries and developing ones through sharing knowledge
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

94
and assisting higher education system. Also, the university was the first among Asian
universities to become affiliated with Global Engineering Education Exchanges in
Institute of International Education. The researcher was surprised again by these unique
international activities at MIU, which does not fit the general trends in Korean higher
education sector.

The Outcomes of the Internationalization
3. What changes have occurred since internationalizing the university?
a. What changes did internationalization bring to the campus?
b. What is the future direction for each university’s internationalization?
c. What difficulties were encountered during the process of
internationalizing each university?
The researcher tried to discern what the purpose of internationalization is for the
university, and how the internationalization initiatives have been implemented at three
universities. After interviews at QRU, several areas such as professional staff placement
and goal alignment between the president and administrators were found to be issues or
areas for improvement. After these two questions, the researcher asked what has
changed within the university culture since internationalization was initiated, what the
difficulties were while the OIA implemented the international activities, and strategies
used in order to achieve the outcomes of the internationalization. Lastly, the
administrators were asked about the future direction of QRU’s internationalization
strategy.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

95
Both Director Yoon and Section Chief Koo at QRU described that there were an
increase in the number of courses offered in English, the number of foreign faculty, and
the number of outbound students to other countries as exchange students. Staff member
Jang also mentioned that, “There were only 20 courses which were offered in English,
but now it has increased to 200 courses”. Furthermore, administrators said that the QRU
recently has set the internationalization strategy’s direction to recruit international
students in order to prepare for the drop in high school graduates. Section Chief Koo
also shared her opinion that QRU could expedite the process of internationalization if
more and more experienced, knowledgeable, and professional staff like Ms. Jang
became mid-level managers.
The researcher found that, even though QRU has internationalized the campus to
a certain extent, administrators who are in charge of implementing the actual plan of
action feel that there are many difficulties that hinder the process, such as installing a
dean for OIA not based on his or her competency and knowledge in internationalization
of higher education, but based on his or her personal relationship with the president.
Furthermore, the mandatory 2-year short term of the dean position has proved
problematic. Because of this short term, the dean at OIA could not set long-term goals
in order to internationalize the university based on a long-term strategy, nor does it
promote consistency since the next dean may or may not pursue those goals.
Director Yoon: When a chancellor looks for his cabinet, the chancellor usually
looks for people who work well with him/herself, and it is pretty rare to keep the
same member throughout the chancellor’s term.

Staff Ms. Jang: We also need supports from other department heads. The core
problem seems to be the lack of expertise and passion about internationalization
among the team directors and managers. A good process of internationalization
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

96
in a university is directly linked to the term of the international relations director
in that school.

Section Chief Koo: In my perspective, my team needs a bigger budget and more
solid financial support in order to send more students abroad.

Director Yoon: If the chancellor frequently calls attention to the importance of
internationalizations in significant or big meetings within the school, the school
atmosphere may change and place more interest in internationalization.

As the responses above demonstrate, despite some increases of international
programs with various themes, the informants shared several difficulties and areas that
need to be improved before significant growth can occur.
According to Mr. Seo, IRU went through the internationalization stages
sequentially, and the perception about internationalization changed from why the
university has to internationalize the campus to how the university should
internationalize the campus. While faculty at QRU conducted international projects on
their own, IRU faculty collaborated with OIA to seek potential international projects or
international research with partner institutions’ professors.
Staff member Cho: The process of international interaction became much easier.
Instead of students or professors personally seeking for opportunities, the office
of internationalization could be a broker between the two schools. Because the
office becomes the primary contact in signing an agreement, the projects are
processed through a formal method in more official form.

Like QRU, IRU also increased the number of courses in English from 60 to 600
courses. According to Mr. Seo, initially, the internationalization policy at QRU focused
on sending students abroad, but has changed to accommodate needs and wants for
international students on campus and from partner institutions. Now, 35% of all courses
at IRU are offered in English. The researcher found that IRU has established
infrastructure to meet global standards thorough internationalizing the campus.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

97
However, both QRU and IRU should create academic courses that reflect on
international aspects such as intercultural communication, cross-cultural courses,
region-focused courses, and so forth. based on Knight’s framework.
Staff member Seo: Most noticeably, the student composition has changed;
lectures are in English, and therefore, the atmosphere has changed. Then, the
students’ perception, which is the hardest to change, reformed. Students now
feel that [IRU] can provide any programs in accordance to any student’s need.

As Mr. Cho mentioned earlier, IRU is currently focusing more on international
cooperation while continuing with the current international strategies, practices, and
activities. QRU has now set the direction to recruit a wider variety of international
students based on long-term oriented international recruitment strategies, since even
though IRU has recruited about 2,000 international students, 90% of the international
student body is from China.
On the other hand, MIU’s strong culture, which integrated internationalization
from the beginning, it was not necessary for MIU OIA to initiate strategies and put extra
effort into creating a sense of sharing the vision and achieving goals. The
internationalization of the campus at MIU has evolved naturally since the university
cultivated that vision into all aspects of campus life, including teaching, learning, and
administration. The graduates from MIU are also well recognized for their competent
foreign language and computer skills and well-rounded personalities. After having
interviewed with the informants at MIU, the researcher was continually surprised at
every aspect of MIU, including its philosophy, curriculum, culture, students, professors,
and administrators.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

98
However, section chief Lim mentioned that MIU also has areas to be improved.
According to Mr. Lim, the function of MIU OIA is rather minor compared to that of
other universities, since each division and department is capable of conducting its own
international activities; this means that internationalization has been integrated into
every unit of the organization. This aspect was also mentioned by Senior Secretary Oh
as well. Even though MIU is still considered a small-size university, it has expanded
from 400 students to 4000 and 30 faculty to about 200 faculty members over the last 18
years. Dean Shin stated:
We started very small, so it was more like a family rather than an organization;
but now it has grown up. Now MIU is facing the needs for many regulations and
a bureaucratic structure, and it takes longer than before to share the President’s
philosophy and vision among the students and faculty. MIU is currently
struggling to redirect its identity either by maintaining the family-like culture or
changing to an institution-like culture over the last five years.

It seems like MIU must decide on how to maintain its well-cultivated university
culture under the process of growing, improving, and moving in a new direction.
Throughout the interview session with all informants, they shared that many universities
visited MIU to benchmark its process of internationalization, but it is not possible to
transplant its unique culture into other university settings. The researcher also
recognized after his visit that MIU is definitely a good role model for many universities
on how to implement not only their internationalization practices and strategies but also
general education methods that the university has practiced since its establishment.
Within its 18-year short history, this small university has conducted various and
unique internationalization strategies. Founded on Christianity, the university has built a
very strong and unified culture. President Kim at IRU has also highlighted the
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

99
importance of this tight organization culture to internationalize the university. This
important element has been planted from the beginning when the university was
established, and the first president is still leading the university, which implies that there
has been consistent policy and goals over the last 18 years.
The researcher intended to uncover the in-depth knowledge of how 4-year
private universities in Korea internationalize the campus, with what purposes, how they
implement internationalization, and what the outcomes after internationalizing the
campus are, based on three sample universities. The three universities investigated in
this study show some general patterns and sequential developmental stages of
internationalization, but also marked differences. The findings of this study have been
arranged to form a sort of story: it begins with QRU, which has several issues that need
to be improved in order to achieve some success in internationalization; the analysis of
IRU then shows how those issues which arose at QRU were resolved, how IRU’s
president stressed the importance of the organization culture, and how staff shared the
IRU plan to focus more on international cooperation with developing countries. The
story concludes with MIU, which has already practiced building a strong culture and
assisting developing countries through various international programs since its
beginning, and therefore shows a university that already has this established practice.
In Chapter Five, the researcher will discuss the findings by comparing the three
universities’ internationalization purposes, practices, and outcomes. There are some
patterns that all three universities are currently engaged in with the goal to create an
international learning community, but each university seems as if it is positioned in a
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

100
different stage influenced by presidential leadership, organizational culture, and
professional staff at OIA.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

101
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Summary
In the previous section, the researcher described each university’s
internationalization case based on the interview data, focusing on motivation factors or
initial efforts to internationalize the campus, the purpose of the internationalization,
necessary conditions for the internationalization, and programs in the process of
internationalizing the campus.
The researcher conducted this study for the purpose of exploring the presidential
leadership in the process of internationalization of higher education in Korea. Knight’s
two conceptual frameworks have been used to lay out this study. First, Knight (2007)
has categorized policies and programs of internationalization in higher education into
three groups: National, Sector, and Institutional. Secondly, Knight (2007) introduced
Strategies at the institutional level, as illustrated in Table 5.1 below according to two
strategies: program strategies and organizational strategies. Following Knight’s two
conceptual frameworks, in this study the researcher presented related studies in the
order of global, regional, national, sector, and institutional to analyze current
international education activities in Korea.
Studies of Kritz (2006), Altbach (2004a, 2004b), and Armstrong (2007) were
described in Chapter 2 in order to introduce currently-practiced programs and activities
as well as general patterns and trends for internationalization of higher education at the
global level. Kritz (2006) introduced the various international programs. Altbach (2007)
described the concepts and realities in internationalization of higher education. Lastly,
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

102
Armstrong (2007) presented a new model of internationalization of higher education
such as marketization, commercialization, and privatization.
The researcher used the studies conducted by Mok (2007) and Yonezawa and
Kim (2008) to introduce what kinds of activities are conducted in the Asian region for
internationalizing universities in Asia. Mok (2007), explained why the many education
reforms are implemented in the Asia region. Huang (2007) compared the
internationalization practices in developing countries with those of developed ones.
Finally, Yonezawa et al. (2009) highlighted the importance of articulating clear goals
and missions in order to internationalize the campus in Asia.
Studies related with the Korean higher education sector were also presented
earlier in this study. Byun and Kim (2011) highlighted the nation’s education policies to
encourage internationalization of higher education that have been developed over the
last two decades in Korea. The general outline of Korean private universities has been
introduced by Kim and Lee (2006). The expected drop and demographic shift in high
school students were described by T. Kim (2008). Kim and Choi (2011) conducted a
study of current internationalization of higher education in Korea through a descriptive
quantitative study with a sample size of 100 institutions.
With these literatures regarding global, regional, national, and sector areas, the
researcher again adopted Knight’s conceptual framework of organizational and program
strategies at the institutional level described in Table 5.1. Also, Bolman and Deal’s
leadership, and Tierney’s organizational culture have been used to analyze practices
within the institutional level at three universities.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

103

Table 5.1
Jane Knight (2007), Institutional Level Strategies for Internationalization
Organizational
Strategies Activities
Governance - expressed commitment by senior
leaders
- active involvement of faculty and
staff
- articulated rationale and goals for
internationalization
- recognition of international
dimension in institutional
mission/mandate statements, and in
planning, management and evaluation
policy documents
Operations - integrated into institution-wide
and department/college level
planning, budgeting and quality
review systems
- balance between centralized and
decentralized promotion and
management of internationalization
- Appropriate organizational
structures
- systems for communication, liaison
- adequate financial support and
resource allocation systems

Services - support from institution-wide
service unites – i.e., student
housing, registrar, fundraising,
alumni, info technology
- involvement of academic support
units – i.e., library, teaching and
learning, curriculum development,
faculty and staff
- student support services for incoming and outgoing students i.e.,
orientation programs, counseling, cross-cultural training, visa advice
Human - Recruitment and selection
procedures which recognize
internationalization expertise
- reward and promotion policies to
reinforce faculty and staff
contributions
Resources - faculty and staff professional
development activities
- support for international
assignments and sabbaticals

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

104

Table 5.1, continued
Program
Strategies Activities
Academic
Programs
- student exchange program - foreign language study
- internationalized curricula - area or thematic studies
- work/study abroad - international students
- teaching/learning process - joint/double degree programs
- cross-cultural training
Research and
Scholarly
Collaboration
- visiting lectures and scholars - link between academic programs
- area and theme studies - joint research projects
- international conferences and
seminars
- published articles and papers
- international research agreements - research exchange programs
- international research partners in
academic and other sectors
- faculty/staff mobility programs
Domestic - community-based partnership
with NGO groups or public/private
sector
- community service and
intercultural project work
- customized education and training
programs for international partners
and clients

Cross-border - international development
assistance projects
- cross-border delivery of education
programs (commercial and non-
commercial)
- international linkages,
partnerships and networks
- contract based training and
research programs and services
- alumni abroad programs - student clubs and associations
- international and intercultural
campus events
- liaison with community based
cultural and ethnic groups
- peer support groups and programs

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

105
Discussion
In this section, the researcher will analyze the findings from each university
comparatively according to the themes of motivation, purpose, condition, programs, and
presidential leadership. The section will begin from a micro-level—comparative
analysis of findings from the interview data—before developing the macro-level
summary later in this section. In other words, while each university’s strategy,
conditions, and current stage of internationalization will be introduced through micro-
level comparative analysis, the macro-level summary will describe general patterns and
common themes from the process of internationalization based on the findings.
According to findings from the interview at each university, there were incidents
which motivated the universities to start focusing on internationalization within the
Korean context. These were government and newspaper university evaluations, social
issues brought about by demographic shift, and the nation’s membership within
international organizations. Until the late 1990s, government and newspaper evaluations
of universities did not reflect universities’ internationalization status. After the
internationalization became one of the criteria for evaluation, the universities started to
put greater efforts into internationalization. In terms of demographic shift, there are two
major issues which Korean society is facing today: the rapidly aging society, and the
lowest birthrate among OECD countries. The lowest birthrate impacted student
population, and consequently this will create a huge drop in the number of high school
graduates in 2020. The expected decrease in domestic high school students’ has
influenced the Korean universities to start aggressively recruiting international students.
Lastly, Korea became a member of WTO and OECD in the late 1990s. After this
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

106
incident, the concept of globalization was introduced in Korea. Globalization has
impacted not only business and industry sectors, but also the education sector. Korea’s
ministry of education stressed internationalization of universities from the late 1990s,
and consequently, the government’s policy has impacted institutions of higher
education in Korea.
In general, the three universities examined in this study started
internationalization after having been influenced by the incidents described above.
However, the researcher found that there were slight differences in the motivation
factors among the universities. While internationalization at QRU and IRU have been
influenced by evaluation and social demographic shifts, MIU introduced the concept of
internationalization and globalization from its origins when the university was
established in 1995, which sets it apart from the other two, older universities which
were established in 1946, shortly after Korea’s liberation from Japan.

Table 5.2
Motivations for Internationalization of Campus
University
Evaluation by Gov.
and Newspaper
Social issue:
Demographic shift Other
QRU Yes Yes
IRU Yes Yes
MIU Founding philosophy

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

107
Even though there were slight differences in motivational factors for
internationalizing the campuses, all three universities shared the common purposes of
internationalization. According to the findings, the common purposes are to enhance
intercultural understanding, to educate students for global citizenship, and to advance
academic quality for meeting global standards. Based on key words related to the
purpose of the internationalization from the interview data, the QRU interviewees
mentioned global citizenship and cultural understanding more often than did the
interviewees from the other two universities. The IRU interviewees commented on the
purposes of internationalization being to advance academic quality for meeting global
standards and to educate students for global citizenship. Lastly, MIU participants
mentioned all three purposes throughout the interview sessions.

Table 5.3
Purposes of Internationalization of Campus
University
To enhance cultural
understanding
To educate student
for global
citizenship
To advance academic
quality for meeting
global standards
QRU Yes Yes
IRU Yes Yes
MIU Yes Yes Yes

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

108
As for the interview questions regarding the necessary conditions for
internationalizing the campus, the findings were grouped according to three key
concepts: (1) presidential leadership and goal alignment among the president, dean, and
OIA staff; (2) elements could be added such as allocating additional budget, staff, and
organization restructuring of OIA; (3) creating a culture which is influential for
changing people’s perceptions toward internationalization within the university setting.
Based on three key words of necessary conditions from the findings, the
researcher was able to identify that QRU was lacking in all three aspects. Even though
the QRU president mentioned internationalizing the campus as an important goal, actual
support of activities such as allocating additional budget, hiring more staff for OIA, and
upgrading the OIA were very limited. Additionally, the dean displayed a lack of
understanding in internationalization of higher education, and there was low morale
among OIA staff. Furthermore, there was either a low or negative perception toward
internationalization among the university community as a whole. Consequently, it was
hard to find an affirmative culture for internationalizing the campus at QRU.
Like QRU, IRU used to have similar problems and issues for
internationalization prior to having new President Kim in 2006. After Dr. Kim took the
president’s office at IRU, the three necessary conditions were improved and resolved.
Given his 4-year presidential term, President Kim was only able to establish the nascent
stage of an affirmative university culture toward internationalization and basic
infrastructure, such as the office of international services, international guest houses,
and dormitories for the international students.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

109
As president Kim at IRU mentioned during the interview session, creating a
culture was the most important and critical factor to internationalize the campus.
According to him, if there is an affirmative culture, other conditions or elements for
internationalizing the campus would follow naturally. From this study’s findings, the
researcher was able to see this strong affirmative culture toward internationalization at
MIU, which integrated internationalization aspects into the founding philosophy when
the university was established by 40 founding members, and by Dr. Lee, who has been
the president at MIU since it was founded. The affirmative culture at MIU was made
possible because of President Lee’s long-term presidency and founding philosophy
which included internationalization.

Table 5.4
Conditions for Internationalization of Campus
University
Presidential Leadership
and Goal alignment
Organizational Strategies
(Budget, Infrastructure, etc.)
Affirmative
culture
QRU Limited Limited No
IRU Yes Yes Limited
MIU Yes Yes Yes

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

110
The researcher has analyzed the findings above according to the motivations,
purposes, and conditions for internationalization. In this section, the researcher will
conduct a comparative analysis on the process that internationalization has taken on
these three campuses chronologically from the late 1990s based on the interview data
with the informants. From the late 1990s, Korean universities started focusing on
internationalization of higher education; however, this was largely limited to signing
MOUs between Korean universities and institutions in other countries.
In early 2000, following Korea’s entrance into WTO and OECD, universities
started to increase the number of partner institutions for exchange students and faculty.
According to staff member Seo at IRU, only a few top-tier universities were engaged
heavily in developing international exchange partners in the late 1990s and early 2000.
Gradually, other institutions in Korea followed those universities’ leads by focusing on
exchange student programs and sending students to language programs at partner
institutions in English speaking countries such as the U.S., the U.K, Australia, and
Canada. From 2000 to 2005, international programs at Korean universities were
primarily focusing on out-bound programs for domestic students. The researcher
describes this period as an outbound stage (Stage 1) of internationalization in Korean
higher education. From the findings of the interviews at the three universities, the
researcher was able to observe that all three universities are currently running the
outbound stage programs.
According to the interviews conducted for this study, government and
newspaper evaluation has added internationalization status into the university
evaluation criteria since mid-2000. As a result, from 2005 to 2010 the international
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

111
programs evolved from pure exchange student programs that allowed students to attend
foreign universities while paying domestic tuition fees based on the MOU between the
schools, to full fee-paying study-abroad programs. Reflecting Korean students’ desire to
spend longer than 1-semester at partner institutions, the length of exchange and study of
program extended to 2 semesters, and universities pursued joint or dual-degree
programs with foreign partner institutions. During this period, the Korean government
announced the Study Korea Project to invite and recruit international students to Korean
higher education by giving government scholarships. Due to this government support
and projects, the number of international students in Korea has increased from about
4,000 students in 2000 to 50,000 in 2011 (Kim & Choi, 2011).
The researcher calls the period between the year of 2005 and 2010 described
above the “international students recruiting period (Stage 2).” In 2012, when the
researcher visited QRU for the interview, QRU was still focused on the outbound
programs such as exchange and study abroad programs for domestic students.
According to Section Chief Koo at QRU’s OIA, QRU is now slowly starting to recruit
international students from the South-east Asian region, since other Korean universities
are already preoccupied with recruitment in the Chinese market. Based on the findings
at QRU, the researcher was able to put QRU’s current internationalization status into
the outbound stage (Stage 1).
On the other hand, IRU’s internationalization gained momentum after Dr. Kim
took the president’s office in 2007. Taking advantage of the government’s international
education projects such as Brain Korea 21, World Class University, and Global
Research Lab project, IRU applied for and received funding from all these government
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

112
projects; as a result, IRU was able to augment its extant budget with all this
international education-focused government funding. President Kim increased the
international program budget size from about USD 350,000 to 1.5 million, and the
number of staff at IRU OIA expanded from 4 to 16 staff members.
In addition to this, IRU has established eight Korean language preparation
schools in China, and the number of Chinese students increased tenfold during
President Kim’s term, from about 180 in 2006 to approximately 1,800 students by 2010.
According to staff member Cho at IRU OIA, IRU is now looking into diversifying the
profiles of international students as well as assisting developing countries through
educational partnerships and projects as part of the Korean government’s Official
Development Assistance (ODA) policy. From the findings, the researcher put IRU’s
current status of internationalization into stage 2 as described above. IRU’s process of
internationalization can further be described as massive and aggressive, based on
allocating immense budget and expanded human resources towards the recruitment
strategy for internationalization.
Based on the interview data with MIU’s participants, the researcher was able to
establish that MIU has a very limited university operating budget and is disadvantaged
by the school’s location in a rural area, unlike IRU where the university foundation
confers a substantial operating budget and its main campus is located in the nation’s
capital. Despite having these apparent disadvantages, the university was built on a
founding philosophy which includes internationalization, focusing particularly on
assisting developing countries. President Lee also strategically targeted developing
partnerships with international organizations as well as higher education institutions in
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

113
other countries. Still, it is a unique internationalization approach in the Korean higher
education setting because of its focus on developing partnerships with international
organizations. Because of the drive to assist developing countries, there are very diverse
international students on the MIU campus. The researcher found the analysis comparing
IRU and MIU to be interesting. While IRU has now started looking into assisting
developing countries and diversifying the countries of origin of international students,
MIU has already been doing these activities from the beginning of the university’s
establishment without allocating additional budget, increasing human resources for OIA
through the strong culture and sense of community among faculty, staff, and students.
In 2010, Korea became a member of Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
in OECD. Currently, Korea is the very first and only country in the world to change its
status from aid recipient to donor country. In the Korean higher education sector, this
significant status shift had a somewhat different effect on universities and their efforts
towards internationalization than becoming a member of WTO and OECD in the late
1990s had. After becoming a member of OECD DAC countries in 2010, the greatest
impact was found in the growing number of international volunteer programs at many
universities in Korea. This led to the next step in internationalization of Korean
universities, from international student recruitment (stage 2) to advanced
internationalization (stage 3). The advanced internationalization stage highlights more
assistance for developing countries through educational partnership, establishing branch
campuses and offices in other countries, and diversifying the profile of international
students to include more from developing nations.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

114
With consideration for the activities and programs of internationalization at
stage 3, QRU has just started planning to recruit international students more
aggressively from the South-east Asian region. IRU is slightly ahead of current trends
of internationalization of higher education by incorporating their branch campus in the
U.S. as part of the university, developing programs for sending students to developing
countries as part of an international volunteer program, and assisting developing
countries through sharing science and technologies as well as inviting more
international students from those countries. As for the MIU, the university has already
engaged in all of these activities since the university’s establishment, though on a small
scale due to the limited budget and infrastructure.

Table 5.5
Stages of Internationalization of Campus

Stage 1
(Outbound-oriented)
- Exchange student
- Language program
- Study Abroad
- Courses in English
Stage 2
(Intl. Student Recruitment)
Outbound: Joint & Dual Degree
Inbound:
- Increased number of Intl. Students
- Summer program for Intl. Students
- International Student dormitory
- Increased number of courses in Eng
- China-focused recruitment
Stage 3
(Advanced)
Outbound:
- Volunteer programs
- ODA
Inbound:
- Branch office
- Branch campus
- Diversifying profile
QRU Yes Limited
IRU Yes Yes Limited
MIU Yes Yes Yes

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

115
To sum the discussion above, internationalization of higher education in Korea
has been ignited and gained momentum since Korea became a member of WTO and
OECD. With the expected demographic shift due to a decline in the number of high
school graduates, universities feel a greater sense of urgency, especially among small
and mid-size universities, to recruit students from China and other countries, though this
recruitment is limited to developing countries. The purposes of internationalization may
vary slightly at each university but could be grouped into fundamental concepts—
understanding different cultures, educating students for global citizenship, meeting
global standards in education, assisting students’ career development, and improving
students’ foreign language skills (especially English). Necessary conditions for
internationalization were presidential leadership, amenable university culture, and
organizational strategies such as an increased budget and human resources for
international programs. As Knight (2007) described, internationalization is an on-going
phenomenon; the process of internationalization, including programs and strategies,
continues to evolve from outbound-oriented exchange student programs to assisting
developing countries, which has been influenced by external incidents such as Korea
becoming an OECD DAC member.

Conclusion
The researcher used Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames to explore the role
of presidential leadership in the process of internationalization at three campuses. Based
on the findings from IRU, the researcher noticed how important presidential leadership
is for internationalizing a campus. President Kim, a new president at IRU in 2006, was
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

116
very influential, based on Knight’s (2007) organizational and program strategies at IRU.
Under President Kim’s leadership, issues and challenges related to the strategies were
quickly improved and resolved. While Knight (2007) only described the presidential
leadership as one of the factors under governance within the organizational strategy, the
researcher suggests adding presidential leadership as a separate strategy from the
organizational one based on findings from IRU case in this study.
Presidents at the three universities are considered great university leaders based
on their background information. President Lee at QRU spent over 30 years at the
Korea Ministry of Education and achieved the level of vice minister before he retired
and took four different universities’ president offices prior to becoming president at
QRU. Considering Korean organizational culture of government divisions, his 30-year
work experience in MOE influenced him to have a structural leadership frame.
According to Bolman and Deal (2003), a leader with the structural frame considers the
organization as a factory or machine and emphasizes goals, specialized roles and formal
relationships. The researcher also noted, through the interview sessions with QRU
administrators and staff, that president Kim was good at taking care of his people. This
fits the description of Bolman and Deal (2003)’s Human Resource Leadership Frame,
which is a leader who sees the organization through the lens of human needs, emotions,
skills, and relationships. From the findings of this study, President Lee seemed to be
using both structural and human resource leadership frames at QRU.
Like President Lee at QRU, President Kim at IRU also spent over 30 years in
Korean government, beginning as vice minister of telecommunication in the 1980s and
later becoming the minister. After that minister position, he took several other minister
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

117
positions in the transportation ministry, science and technology ministry, as well as
becoming vice prime minister and taking on other leadership positions before he was
invited to IRU in 2006 as the president. The researcher was able to notice the structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic leadership frames of President Kim from the
findings and researcher’s observation through his 2-week stay on the campus in April,
2011. Bolman and Deal (2003), states that the political frame has to do with power,
conflict, competition, and organizational politics. In the beginning of his presidency,
President Km had to deal with numerous conflicts with the university foundation
externally, and with faculty, administrators, and staff members of IRU since he was not
elected as a president from within the organization. As he mentioned in the interview
session with the researcher, he convinced these stakeholders of pursuing his vision
through having conversations within the political leadership frame. Examples of
President Kim’s symbolic frame were found through holding huge events and
ceremonies such as inviting world-renowned academic figures in order to award IRU’s
honorable doctorate degrees and launching the first research lab collaborating with
Nobel-laureates ever established among Korean universities. President Kim used all
four leadership frames to transform the organization.
President Park at MIU was a scientist and a researcher at NASA in the states
before he returned to Korea. He was then a professor at KAIST until he became the
president at MIU in 1995, and has remained the president there ever since. According to
the interviews with the administrators and staff members at MIU, he has been described
as a visionary leader who built a strong sense of community at MIU and established a
unique culture based on his symbolic leadership frame. He has developed many
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

118
institutional partnerships with international organizations such as OECD, UNESCO,
and UN through his political frame. Informants at MIU also shared that President Park
is respected by faculty, staff, and students since he also took care of his people at MIU,
which aligns with the human resource frame. However, Dr. Shin, Dean of External
Affairs at MIU, has described that MIU is currently struggling in order to restructure the
organization, since it has thus far been more like a community rather than an institution.
Dr. Shin’s comments revealed that President Kim is less likely to follow the idea of
structural frame than he is other frames. Still, President Kim can be categorized as a
leader who is using multiple-frames based on Bolman and Deal’s leadership frames.
Considering the university’s context: each university in this study was situated
in different settings such as location (cosmopolitan, metropolitan, and small city); size
of the university; volume of the university’s operational budget; and the university’s
culture. Even though all presidents were great leaders, their skills may not always
translate to other contexts as well; it is hard to imagine IRU achieving its current status
if President Park took the IRU president’s office, and similarly for MIU if President
Kim took the leadership there. President Lee at QRU seemed to be a good maintainer,
which can be proper if the organization has been fully developed and there are not many
areas to be improved. In sum, a university can be transformed or developed so long as
the appropriate leadership has been placed into the proper organization. Also, an
integrated leadership-oriented president, according to Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
multiple frames leader, tends to resolve many issues and conflicts for the organizational
development. In order to build a strong culture at the university, it depends on how long
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

119
the president can lead the organization and whether the president started the presidency
from the nascent stages or joined in the middle stages of the university’s history.
To sum up the discussion section, the researcher suggested adding presidential
leadership as a separate category for Knight (2007)’s governance activity within the
institutional level organizational strategies to internationalize the university. This study
reconfirms the findings of Kim and Choi (2011) study “Korea’s Internationalization of
Higher Education” using qualitative data from the interviews at three private
universities. Lastly, the researcher has adopted Bolman and Deal (2003)’s leadership
frame to analyze the leadership style of presidents in three Korean private higher
education institutions. Since there were only a couple of studies which adopted Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) frame in the Korean educational context, this study is contributing to
the current knowledge of Korean higher education academia through applying Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) leadership frames.

Implications for Practice
As mentioned above, the study focused on two areas: presidential leadership and
process of internationalization. Stakeholders in Korean higher education settings such
as the Ministry of Education, Korean Council of University Education, university
administrators, university foundation board members, and university presidents can
benefit from the findings of this study. The implications will be described in the next
session, after a brief introduction to the current issues in Korea related with this study.
Korea became a member of OECD DAC countries in 2010, and the government
has increased the allocated budget for Official Development Aid to developing
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

120
countries. As Knight (2007) described, and the findings of this study also mentioned,
the international education development sector is expected to continue growing. On the
other hand, the expected substantial drop in enrollment of university freshman in Korea
will begin from 2020. The researcher tried to connect the findings from the process of
internationalization with the current Korean government’s movement to expand the size
of international development assistance.
Additionally, Korea has been ranked as having the lowest birthrate among the
OECD countries, and this demographic shift will bring major problems not only to
Korean society in general but also to the higher education sector. Korean universities
have already recognized the potential problems associated with a 30% drop of current
high school graduates in 2020. The Ministry of Education encourages merging national
universities which are located close together within the same province and gives
assistance to universities that have decided to face financial difficulties through closing
out gradually.
With all these opportunities afforded through expanding the size of ODA as well
as challenges from the demographic shift, university foundations and universities are
desperately seeking a president who can both transform and internationalize the
university in order to respond more effectively to the current phenomena described
above. The findings of this study will prove useful for those stakeholders who want to
internationalize the campus in this globalized society, and who need to have a president
with the best profile to transform the organization for building capacity to respond to
the upcoming challenges.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

121
Areas for Future Research
This qualitative case study examined the process of internationalization and
presidential leadership at three private Korean universities. Even though the findings
from this study are not generalizable, it has described the process and the leadership at
the institutional level which have not been well-explored in Korean higher education
setting. Since this study focused on private universities, the researcher was able to
investigate how national universities and 2-year colleges can effectively internationalize
their institutions in the future. With these studies, future research could compare and
contrast how different types of institutions practice internationalization.
Additionally, an examination of effectiveness and impacts of internationalizing
the campus on university students in Korea would provide another perspective on
internationalization efforts at universities in Korea. Researchers could further expand on
this study by conducting studies to compare or contrast the international programs at the
college level, such as comparing internationalization at a school of business versus a
school of education. Following the Korean government’s movement toward expanding
ODA budget, it is also worth investigating the role of different types of institutions for
the international education development.
Due to time constraints, the researcher chose to use Bolman and Deal (2003)’s
leadership frames to study at three universities. Future research could conduct a
longitudinal study of five to seven years with larger samples in Korean higher education
in order to investigate university leaders and their understanding of the appropriate
leadership frames for different contexts.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

122
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G. (2004a). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an
unequal world. Tertiary education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.

Altbach, P. G. (2004b). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain
the top destination for foreign students? Change: the magazine of higher
learning, 36(2), 18–25.

Altbach, P. G. (2006). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world.
International Handbook of Higher Education, 121-139.

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Academic Freedom in a Global Context: 21st Century
Challenges.

Altbach, P. (2007). Twinning and branch campuses: The professorial obstacle.
International Higher Education, 48, 2–3.

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.

Andrew, C., Howe, C., Kane, J., & Mattison, R. (2007). Dynamic Korea: Education
policies and reform. Retrieved August, 25, 2008.

Armstrong, L. (2007). Competing in the global higher education marketplace:
Outsourcing, twinning, and franchising. New Directions for Higher Education,
2007(140), 131–138.

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based
framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70.

Beerkens, E. (2003). Globalisation and higher education research. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7(2), 128–148.

Bensimon, E. M. (1989). The Meaning of “Good Presidential Leadership”: A Frame
Analysis. Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 107–23.

Bensimon, E. M., Gade, M. L., Kauffman, J. F., & Education, A. A. f. H. (1989). On
assuming a college or university presidency: Lessons & advice from the field:
AAHE.

Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of
administrative leadership: The 'L' word in higher education: School of Education
and Human Development, The University (Washington, DC).
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

123
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance
theories. Higher Education, 18(2), 239–253.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and Managing: Effects of Context,
Culture, and Gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 314-329.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

Bray, M. (2002). Comparative education in East Asia: Growth, development and
contributions to the global field. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 4(2),
15–20.

Burt, M. E., & Namgi, P. (2009). Education Inequality in the Republic of Korea:
Measurement and Causes. Inequality in Education, 261-289.

Byun, K., & Kim, M. (2011). Shifting Patterns of the Government’s Policies for the
Internationalization of Korean Higher Education. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 15(5), 467–486.

Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalization mean for educational change?
A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 1–9.

Chan, W. 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.

Choi, J. G. (2003). The internationalization of higher education: The case of Korean
universities. Ed.)--Catholic University of America.

Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy. (2008). Economic and fiscal reform 2008
(“basic policies”): Summary.

Deal, E. and Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Culture: the Rites and Rituals of Corporate
Life. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

DeLauder, W. (2004). A call to leadership: The presidential role in internationalizing
the university. Nat. Assoc. State Univ. and Land Grant Colleges, 19-22.

Dessoff, A. (2007). Branching out. NAFSA–International Educator.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

124
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A
cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4),
495-533.

Dolby, N., & Rahman, A. (2008). Research in international education. Review of
Educational Research, 78(3), 676–726.

Donahue, T. (2009). The making of global citizens through education abroad programs:
Aligning missions and visions with education abroad programs. University of
Southern California Ed.D., United States -- California.

Douglass, A.J., (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their
influence on higher education markets? Higher Education Policy, Vol. 18: No. 4,
pp. 445-473.

Eddy, J. P., Murphy, S. D., Spaulding, D. J., & Chandras, K. V. (1998). 21st century
leadership practices needed for higher education. Current issues in higher
education: research and reforms, 3.

Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait:
Results, resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a US university.
Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus,
198–228.

Fielden, J. (2001). Markets for Borderless Education'. Minerva, 39(1), 49-62.

Findlay, & Knight. (2009). The Globalisation of Education: The Next Wave.

Ginkel, H. (2003). What does globalization mean for higher education. Universities and
Globalization. Private Linkages, Public Trust. UNESCO Publishing/Universite
Laval/Economica. Paris, 71–80.

Hage, J. T. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual
Review of Sociology, 597-622.

Heimovics, R. D., Herman, R. D., & Coughlin, C. L. . (1993). Executive leadership and
resource dependence in nonprofit organizations: A frame analysis. Public
Administration Review, 419–427.

Hira, A. (2003). The Brave New World of International Education. The World Economy
26(6):911-31

Huang, F. (2003). Policy and practice of the internationalization of higher education in
China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(3), 225–240.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

125
Huang, F. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the developing and
emerging countries: A focus on transnational higher education in Asia. Journal
of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 421–432.

Hyde, J. (2009). Leading while expanding: A case study examining the changing nature
of an American land grant public research university in response to the forces of
globalization. University of Southern California Ed.D., University of Southern
California, United States -- California.

Jang, S. M. (2003). Financing and Implementing National Education Plans.

Jhungsoo, P. (2004). The Governance Reform of Higher Education in Korea : Focused
on Funding, Governance, and Regulation. KOREAN SOCIETY AND PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION, 15(1), 471-491.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). The culture the learner brings: A bridge or a barrier.
Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and
ethnography, 98–118.

Jon, J.-E. (2009). The new landscape of Korean higher education: Institutional and
personal factors influencing intercultural competence. University of Minnesota
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, United States -- Minnesota.

Joongang Education Research Institute. (2012). Indexes of Korean University
Evaluation and Rankings. Retrieved from http://www.jedi.re.kr (in Korean)

KEDI. (2007). Higher Education and Lifelong Learning in Korea. Understanding
Korean Education 4.

KEDI & MOE. (2006). Brief Statistics on Korean Education.

Keller, G. (2006). Higher education management: challenges and strategies.
International Handbook of Higher Education, 229-242.

Keys, P. R. (1999). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, by Lee
G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal. ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK, 23,
101–102.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies
in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts?
Journal of Higher Education, 435–460.

Kim, E. Y., & Choi, S. (2011). Korea’s Internationalization of Higher Education:
Process, Challenge and Strategy. Crossing borders in East Asian higher
education, 211–229.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

126
Kim, G. J. (2005). Higher education reform in South Korea: policy responses to a
changing world. Higher Education Seminar, Moscow, Russia.

Kim, S. (2008). The Challenge of Rapid Ageing and Low Fertility in Korea. Beyond
Flexibility Roadmaps for Korean Labor Policy, 2018(2026), 35.

Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2006). Changing facets of Korean higher education: market
competition and the role of the state. Higher Education, 52(3), 557–587.

Kim, T. (2005). Internationalisation of higher education in South Korea: Reality,
rhetoric, and disparity in academic culture and identities. Australian journal of
education, 49(1), 89–113.

Kim, T. (2008). Higher Education Reforms in South Korea: public-private problems in
internationalising and incorporating universities. Policy Futures in Education,
6(5), 558–568.

Kim, T. (2010). Higher Education Reforms in South Korea: Towards Ethnocentric
internationalization or global commercialization of higher education? Bristol
CEAS & SRHE Seminar Presntation

Knight, J. (2003). Internationalization of higher education practices and priorities:
2003 IAU survey report. International Association of Universities.

Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges.
International handbook of higher education, 207–227.

Knight, J & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher
education.Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Knodel, K. (2009). A case study examining how a land-grant research university
integrated global initiatives into its mission and institutional program. University
of Southern California Ed.D., University of Southern California, United States --
California.

Korean Council for University Education. (2012). Act on Information Disclosure of
Educational Institutions. Retrived from
http://heik.academyinfo.go.kr/introduction/m01s01.jsp.

Kritz, M. M. (2006). Globalisation and internationalization of tertiary education.
Symposium on International Migration and Development, Turin, Italy (pp. 28–
30).

Kwon, H. K. (2005). National model under globalization: the Japanese model and its
internationalization. Politics & Society, 33(2), 234–252.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

127
Le Loup, B. (2009). The Global Citizenship initiative: A case study examining the
leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational
change in response to globalization. University of Southern California Ed.D.,
University of Southern California, United States -- California.

Lee, D. (2006). Globalization and South Korean educational reform in the mid-1990s.
The Florida State University Ph.D., The Florida State University, United States -
- Florida.

Lee, J. K. (2000). The administrative structure and systems of Korean higher education.
Higher Education Management, 12(2), 43–52.

Lee, J. K. (2004). Globalization and Higher Education: A South Korea Perspective.
Online Submission, 28.

Lee, J. K. (2006). Educational Fever and South Korean Higher Education. Revista
Electronica de Investigacion Educativa, 8(1), 2.

Lee, M. H. (2005). "Country Paper on the Republic of Korea Cross-border higher
education in the Republic of Korea: from challenge to opportunity". in
Implications of WTO/GATS on higher education in Asia and the Pacific region.
UNESCO Forum Occasional Paper Series Paper, No. 8(April ).

Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher
Education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1-39.

Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision.
Higher Education, 53(3), 307-333.

Marginson, S., & Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education., Education
Working Paper No. 8. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development

Mazzarol, T. W., & Soutar, G. N. (2008). Australian educational institutions'
international markets: A correspondence analysis. International Journal of
Educational Management, 22(3), 229-238.

Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. N., & Seng, M. S. (2003). The third wave: future trends in
international education. International Journal of Educational Management,
17(3), 90–99.

McCabe, L. T. (2001). Globalization and Internationalization: The Impact on Education
Abroad Programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 138-145.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

128
McCormack, E. (2007). Number of Foreign Students Bounces Back to Near-Record
High. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(12), 1.

Mcneill, D. (2008). South Korea seeks a new role as a higher-education hub. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, International, March, 21, 2008.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
Revised and Expanded from“ Case Study Research in Education.”.

Michael, S. O., Schwartz, M., & Balraj, L. (2001). Indicators of presidential
effectiveness: A study of trustees of higher education institutions. International
Journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 332–346.

Middlehurst, R. (2001). University challenges: Borderless higher education, today and
tomorrow. Minerva, 39(1), 3–26.

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2005a). Policies and
Strategies to Meet the Challenges of Internationalization of Higher Education.

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2005b). Higher Education
PolicyDevelopments (HEdPD).

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Education. (2007). Outline of the
student exchange system in Japan 2007.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2008). Annual statistics on student
mobility: The number of Korean students studying abroad and foreign students
in Korean higher education institutions. Unpublished government document. (In
Korean)

Mok, K. (2005). Globalization and educational restructuring: University merging and
changing governance in China. Higher Education, 50(1), 57–88.

Mok, K. H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical
reflections. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 433–454.

Moon, M., & Kim, K. S. (2001). A case of Korean higher education reform: The Brain
Korea 21 project. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2(2), 96–105.

Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of
rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 456-471.

Neumann, A. (1995). Context, cognition, and culture: A case analysis of collegiate
leadership and cultural change. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2),
251–279.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

129
Neumann, A., & Bensimon, E. M. (1990). Constructing the presidency: College
presidents’ images of their leadership roles, a comparative study. The Journal of
Higher Education, 678–701.

Neumann, Y., & Neumann, E. F. (1999). The president and the college bottom line: the
role of strategic leadership styles. International Journal of Educational
Management, 13(2), 73–81.

Ninomiya, A., Knight, J., & Watanabe, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of
internationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(2), 117–124.

Oba, Jun (2007) ‘Incorporation of national universities in Japan and its impact upon
institutional governance’, in Changing Governance in Higher Education:
Incorporation, Marketization, and Other Reforms – A Comparative Study,
Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University (COE
Publication Series 29), pp. 15–36.

OECD. (2004). Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and
Challenges. Paris: OECD.
http://new.sourceoecd.org/vl=475271/cl=13/nw=1/rpsv/~6678/v2004n13/s1/p1l.

OECD. (2006). Thematic Review of Tertiary Education - Korea Country Note.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

Olds, K. (2007). Global Assemblage: Singapore, Foreign Universities, and the
Construction of a. World Development, 35(6), 959–975.

Park, E. L. (2004). Presidential evaluation in Korean universities: A comparison of
American patterns and Korean attitudes. Boston College Dissertations and
Theses, AAI3126391.

Park, S. (1998). Globalization in Korea: dream and reality. GeoJournal, 45(1), 123-128.

Park, S. O. (1998). Globalization in Korea: dream and reality. GeoJournal, 45(1), 123-
128.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications,
Inc.

Rantz, R. (2002). Leading urban institutions of higher education in the new millennium.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 456–466.

Rhodes, F. H. T. (2006). After 40 Years of Growth and Change, Higher Education
Faces New Challenges. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(14), 1.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

130
Sabour, M. (2005). The impact of globalisation on the mission of the university.
International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, 189–
205.

Sburlan, A. (2009). Globalization of a teacher education program at a comprehensive
state university campus: A case study. University of Southern California Ed.D.,
University of Southern California, United States -- California.

Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern
transformations. Journal of Higher Education, 1-39.

Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21st century.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), 3–10.

Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on US campuses.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Sidhu, R. (2002). Educational Brokers in Global Education Markets. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 6(1), 16-43.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and
servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80–91.

Societies, C. K. (2002). New Challenges for Tertiary Education (2002). The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank.

Song, H. (2003). Learning Effective Organizational Strategies Across Cultures:
Leading Change in Korean Organizations. George Peabody College for
Teachers of Vanderbilt University.

Sporn, B. (1996). Managing university culture: an analysis of the relationship between
institutional culture and management approaches. Higher Education, 32(1), 41–
61.

Sporn, B. (1999). Towards more adaptive universities: Trends of institutional reform in
Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 24(1), 23–33.

Sporn, B. (2006). Governance and Administration: Organizational and Structural
Trends

Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Globalization, the I, and the Other. Current Issues in
Comparative Education, 4(2), 87–94.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

131
Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical
shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 81–105.

Tambascia, J. (2005). Internationalization of higher education: A case study of a private
United States research university. University of Southern California Ph.D.,
University of Southern California, United States -- California.

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

Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 2–21.

Tierney, W. G. (2004). Globalization and educational reform: the challenges ahead.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(1), 5–20.

Trow, M. (2006). Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access:
Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII

Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends.
The Observatory on borderless higher education, 1–48.

Waite, D., Moos, L., & Lew, C. (2005). Globalisation and its Effects on Educational
Leadership, Higher Education and Educational Policy. International Handbook
on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, 279–292.

Welch, A. (2002). Going global? Internationalizing Australian universities in a time of
global crisis. Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 433–471.

Wende, M. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the OECD countries:
Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 11(3-4), 274–289.

Yang, N. (2005). Higher education in the global economy: A study abroad comparison.
Academy of Educational Leadership (Vol. 10, p. 77).

Yin, R. (2006). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Yonezawa, A., Akiba, H., & Hirouchi, D. (2009). Japanese University Leaders’
Perceptions of Internationalization The Role of Government in Review and
Support. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 125–142.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

132
Yonezawa, A., & Kim, T. (2008). The Future of Higher Education in a Context of a
Shrinking Student Population: Policy Challenges for Japan and Korea. Higher
education to, 2030, 199–220.

Zajda, J. (2005). Globalisation, education and policy: Changing paradigms.
International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, 1–22.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

133
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Internationalization of Higher Education in Korea: A case study of three Korean
private universities

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research study is to examine goal, process, and outcomes of
internationalizing the campuses at three Korean private universities in order to seek
what the role of the president at Korean universities is in the process of
internationalizing the campuses, to understand how Korean universities implement
international initiatives, place the resources, and arrange the organizational structure for
achieving the goals.

You are invited to participate in this study because you are a president, dean of
international affairs, director of international affairs, and associate director of
international affairs. Your participation is voluntary. Your relationship with your
institution will not be affected, whether or not you decide participate in this study.

Participant Involvement

If you agree to participate, you will be asked questions which are directly related to
your job. Audio-recording will be used and the questionnaires will be provided during
the interview session. If you do not want to be audio-taped you may still participate in
this study.

Confidentiality

There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your
name, address or other identifiable information will not be collected.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

134
Investigator Contact Information

Yonghwan Bang (Principal Investigator) via email at yonghwan.bang@gmail.com or
Dominic J. Brewer (Faculty Advisor) via email: dominicb@usc.edu

IRB Contact Information

University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Credit
Union Building, 3720 South Flower Street, CUB # 301 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

135
APPENDIX B
RECRUITMENT – PHONE/EMAIL DIALOGUE FOR INFORMANTS
Dear ________________________________
My name is Yonghwan Bang, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part
of my dissertation, focusing on a case study of Internationalization of Higher Education
in Korea. You are invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you will be asked to
participate in an interview.

The interview is anticipated to take no more than 60 minutes to complete and will be
audio-taped with your permission.

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your identity will remain anonymous.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at
yonghwan.bang@gmail.com

Thank you,
Yonghwan Bang
University of Southern California

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

136
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS

A. Organizational leadership and Globalization

How did leadership at your institution develop global initiatives in response to the
forces of globalization?

1. In your opinion, how would you define leadership in higher education?
2. How would you describe an effective higher education leader?
3. What are your views on globalization in general?
4. What are your views on globalization in higher education in particular?
5. How has the institutional organizational structure changed, if at all, in response
to globalization?
6. How will the global initiatives allow your institution to remain competitive in
the marketplace?
7. How are the global initiatives related to future opportunities for growth of your
institution?
8. What led the university to decide to expand itself from a focus on domestic to
international student?

B. Process

How did leadership at your institution internationalize the campus?

9. How are your institution’s global initiatives funded?
10. How did you go about selecting and attracting faculty and staff to work at the
institution on the issue of global initiatives?
11. What incentives do you provide to make this endeavor worthwhile?
12. In your view, who were the key players involved in leading the institution’s
commitment to internationalize the campus? What were their roles?
13. How did you inform your constituents about your specific globalization
endeavors?
14. As a leader in changing the institution in response to the forces of globalization,
did you need to restructure your institution to achieve the success?
15. What resources are needed to sustain your global initiatives? (ex. staff, facilities,
etc)
16. In your opinion, what are the major topics discussed on globalization in higher
education by senior administrators in higher education today?
17. What were the challenges related to the global initiatives in your institution?
18. What were the opportunities related to the global initiatives in your institution?
19. How did you overcome challenges?
20. What are the current challenges related to the global initiatives in your
institution?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

137
21. What are the current opportunities related to the global initiatives in your
institution?
22. Is there anything about the change process that you would like to share with
others?

C. Outcomes

How does leadership at your institution measure the outcomes of the
internationalization?

23. Are there ways in which you measure the changes made in response to
globalization?
24. What have been the greatest successes in regard to the global initiatives at your
institution?
25. How do you think the global initiatives benefit the students, faculty, and
university community at your institution?
26. How would you describe your institution’s future as a global university?

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

138
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR UNIVERSITY DEAN AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
A. Globalization and Organizational leadership

How did leadership at your institution develop the global initiatives in response to the
forces of globalization?

1. How do you define globalization as it related to higher education?
2. How do you view the impact of globalization on the Korean higher education
sector?
3. In your institution, who do you think is leading the efforts to embrace global
initiatives?
4. There are global initiatives in your institution directed to China. In your opinion,
what motivated the implementation of those initiatives?
5. What were the key factors that led to the decision to implement the global
initiatives at your institution?
6. How do your institution’s global initiatives distinguish your institution from
other institutions?
7. What measurable targets or goals have been set that relate to global initiatives?
8. How did the president prepare the community of your institution for the
implementation of global initiatives?
9. How did the president guide the members of your institution during the process
of creating the global initiatives?
10. How did the president establish the relationship between the global initiatives
and the mission of your institution?
11. How did the president explain the purpose for the creation of the global
initiatives?

B. Process

How did leadership at your institution internationalize the campus?

12. As a leader in changing the institution in response to the forces of globalization,
did you need to restructure your office to achieve success?
13. Describe your involvement in the implementation of the global initiatives.
14. What support structure is in place that promotes global initiatives in your
institution?
15. What were the challenges related to the global initiatives in your department?
16. What were the opportunities related to the global initiatives in your department?
17. How did you overcome challenges?
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

139
18. What are the current challenges related to the global initiatives in your
department?
19. What are the current opportunities related to the global initiatives in your
department?
20. Is there anything about the change process that you would like to share with
others?
21. Can you tell me about the types of changes (ex. Structural, administrative,
cultural, programmatic, curriculum) your university has implemented in
response to globalization?
22. If changes have been made, what strategies were used to implement change
related to globalization?
23. How were the changes communicated to the college community? (faculty, staff,
student)
24. From your perspective, how have your institution’s faculty, staff and students
responded to the global initiatives?

C. Outcomes

How does leadership at your institution measure the outcomes of internationalization?

25. How do you think the implementation of global initiatives has affected the
university? (What are your thoughts about the way the change process has
affected the university?)
26. What have been the greatest successes in regard to the global initiatives at your
institution?
27. How do you think the global initiatives benefit the students, faculty, and
university community at your institution?
28. Are there examples or models of international programs for other institutions?
29. Are there ways in which you measure the changes made in response to
globalization?
30. How do you measure development or outcomes related to international
programs?

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

140
APPENDIX E
DOCUMENTS TO BE ANALYZED
Official documents from 2008 – 2012

 Administrative documents:
- proposals, progress reports, and internal records for Internationalization of each
university

 Organizational records:
- University’s official enrollment reports
- University’s official self-evaluation report
- University’s official strategic development plan

 Government or External records:
- Korea MOE’s university evaluation report
- Newspaper’s ranking info from QS-Chosun Newspaper and Joongang Daily
- Newspaper clippings and other articles in the mass media or in a university
paper

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

141
APPENDIX F
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
Introduction
In earlier sections, the researcher summarized the findings from the interviews,
which regarded the purpose, process, and outcomes of internationalization at three
universities, as a narrative analysis. This section introduces a comparative analysis of
three universities’ internationalization data, such as the number of out-bound and in-
bound students, international faculty, students, and partner institutions. The information
contained in this section is based on two sources: the Joongang Daily Newspaper’s
university evaluation by Joongang Education Development Institute (JEDI); and the
government’s university information disclosure system by Korean Council for
University Education (KCUE).

Background Information on JEDI Evaluation and KCUE University Information
Disclosure System
Through the interviews with Mr. Seo and Mr. Cho at IRU and Ms. Jang at QRU,
the researcher found that the JEDI evaluation and KCUE university information were
strong motivational factors for the universities to start developing internationalization
strategies based on the indexes of the JEDI evaluation and indicators of the KCUE
information systems. While the JEDI evaluation informs the university rankings among
Korean universities based on its categories, KCUE information focuses on details of the
institutions. Below is the description from KCUE’s website regarding the purpose of the
information disclosure of higher education institutions in Korea:
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

142
“Act on Information Disclosure of Educational Institutions” has obligated the
educational institutions to have thorough public disclosure of information and
regulated relevant details in order to ensure the right to be informed, promote the
academic and policy research, encourage participation in school education and
to improve the efficiency and transparency in educational administration by
disclosing the information managed by the Korean education institutions.

JEDI started conducting university evaluations in 1994. It has four categories
composed of 34 evaluation indicators: Educational setting (115 points);
Internationalization (60 points); Research capability (110 points); and Reputation of the
graduates (70 points). The university rankings are based on the total sum of each
category’s points (JEDI, 2012). Korean Ministry of Education (MOE) has introduced
the information disclosure system of educational institutions since December, 2008.
That system has 18 categories consisting of 55 institutional contents (KCUE, 2012).
JEDI evaluation requires each university to report the data two times a year:
April 1 and October 1. Based on the data reported by the universities, JEDI finalizes the
evaluation and rankings once per year. On the other hand, KCUE information is based
on data that has been reported by the universities once per year, on April 1. Because of
these differences in reporting, there are systematic and reporting time differences
between JEDI evaluation and KCUE information.
Even though JEDI evaluation has been conducting this service since 1994, the
index of internationalization was not adopted until after 2006 (Joongang Daily, 2006,
September 26). The criteria and the scale of the internationalization index have also
been modified since 2006. The most recent updated version of the criteria from 2010
evaluates each university’s main campus and branch campuses separately. Currently it
has five sections for evaluating internationalization: percentage of full-time
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

143
international faculty; degree-seeking international students; in-bound students; out-
bound students; and percentage of courses offered in English.
Among the 18 categories of KCUE’s information, the researcher only used the
following contents for this study: number of international students (degree-seeking,
language training, and exchange program student); number of in-bound and out-bound
students; and number of full-time international faculty. Since the government enforced
the information disclosure system beginning in 2008, currently only the data between
2009 and 2012 are available. The researcher combined the data from JEDI and KCUE
(see below) in order to describe the internationalization practice at three institutions.
 Full-time international faculty:
- JEDI evaluation: Changes between 2006 and 2011;
- KCUE information: Country of origin and academic fields of the faculty
placement between 2009 and 2012.
 International Students:
- JEDI evaluation: Changes between 2006 and 2011;
- KCUE information:
o Total number of international students between 2008 and 2011;
o Changes in the number of degree-seeking, language training, and
exchange students between 2008 and 2011;
o Changes of average ratio for country of origin between 2008 and
2011;
o Changes of Top 5 countries among international students between
2008 and 2011.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

144
 Students of international exchange program:
- JEDI evaluation: Changes between 2006 and 2011;
- KCUE information:
o Number of partner institutions;
o Number of in-bound and out-bound students between 2009 and 2012;
o Average of countries for in-bound and out-bound students between
2009 and 2012.
 Courses offered in English:
- JEDI evaluation: Changes between 2006 and 2011;
- KCUE information: It does not have specific information regarding the
courses offered in English.
As the researcher mentioned above, JEDI evaluation reports ranking information
and the percentage of each category for internationalization, but percentage information
only has been used for this study.

JEDI Evaluation: Internationalization Between 2006 and 2011
Based on the data from the JEDI evaluation, the researcher created the graphs
below to review the changes in internationalization at IRU, MIU, and QRU from 2006
to 2011. Each category of internationalization has been analyzed as well. Since IRU’s
percentage of courses in English and MIU’s full-time international faculty were too
high to compare with those of other institutions, the researcher has used a vertical value
from 0 to 40 rather than percentile.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

145
As Figure F.1 shows, overall values of full-time international faculty and
courses in English at the three institutions were higher than other indicators. In
particular, most indicators at IRU show an increase after 2006 (Dr. Kim’s inauguration
at IRU). Among the three institutions, IRU only reached the highest value of 6.63% in
ratio of international students. Also, full-time international faculty has increased from
3.24% to 9.51%, while there was an increase from 0.83% to 1.97% in the number of
out-bound students as well as a change from 0.05% to 2.33% in the number of in-bound
students.

Figure F.1. Summary of internationalization indexes based on JEDI evaluation

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

146
After Dr. Lee took the president office at QRU in 2008, most indexes at QRU
have also shown a general increase. As QRU is focusing on quality-education oriented
internationalization, the field of full-time international faculty and courses in English
were increased from 0.52% to 4.84% in faculty and 1.16% to 5.38% in courses offered
in English.
MIU’s internationalization indexes have increased overall, with the exception
of in-bound and out-bound student categories. Since the university began its integrated
internationalization target from the university’s inception in 1994, full-time
international faculty and courses offered in English were very high, even in 2006 when
JEDI started evaluating internationalization. This confirms the interview with Dean
Shin at QRU, when she said that MIU has focused on the educational aspect of
internationalization since its beginning, so their internationalization evaluations were
high when the JEDI adopted this aspect on their evaluation system.

Full-time International Faculty
Figure F.2 below reveals that all three institutions have shown an increase in
full-time international faculty over the period between 2006 and 2012. As of 2012, the
total number of full-time faculty (including international and Korean faculty) was 619 at
IRU – main campus, 759 at QRU, and 121 at MIU. According to the data from the
KCUE information system, the number of full-time international faculty was 55 at IRU
– main campus, 44 at QRU and 25 at MIU.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

147

Figure F.2. Percentage of foreign faculty

Regarding the number of international faculty at IRU, the increase in the
International faculty turned into a slight decrease after Dr. Kim left the university in
2010, but QRU’s number of international faculty has grown since 2008, when Dr. Lee
started his term.
After finding out from the JEDI evaluation that there was an increase in the
international faculty at three institutions, the researcher collected data of international
faculty at each institution from the KCUE information system in order to analyze each
institute more comprehensively. Based on the KCUE’s information, it has the country
of origin, academic fields, and types of professors (Full professor, Associate professor,
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
IRU 3.24 3.21 3.74 8.76 9.51 7.98
QRU 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.83 3.51 4.84
MIU 13.04 22.52 23.93 23.93 25.21 24.37
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Foreign Faculty
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

148
Assistant professor, and Full-time lecturer). The researcher analyzed only the countries
of origin and academic fields where the international faculty has been placed at the
institutions for this study.
Figure F.3 below shows the averages of international faculty based on the data
obtained from the KCUE information between 2009 and 2012. According to Figure F.3,
IRU has the most diverse country of origin for the international faculty, and the faculty
is placed in different academic fields more evenly than other two institutions.
An interesting finding from Figure F.3 was the composition of the international
faculty at each institution. According to the data, the U.S., China, and India were the top
three countries at IRU, the U.S., Canada, and China at QRU, and the U.S., and Korean
Americans at MIU. In terms of faculty placement according to the academic field, while
it was liberal arts (53%), Natural Science (19%), and Engineering (23%) at IRU, faculty
under the liberal arts at QRU and MIU reached higher than 80%. This fact confirms
information from the interview with Ms. Jang at QRU. She said that most full-time
international faculty at Korean universities was teaching foreign languages rather than
academic content. Also, IRU’s current status compared to that of the others can be
explained due to the fact that the size of its school of engineering and natural sciences
are larger than other two institutions.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

149

Figure F.3. Country of origin and academic fields for foreign faculty

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

150
Furthermore, while the average ratio of full-time international faculty at MIU
was 22%—which was quite a bit higher than that of other institutions, which averaged 6%
at IRU and 1.8% at QRU—more than 90% of international faculty at MIU was from the
U.S., or were Korean American and Korean Canadian. This fact at MIU can explain the
highest ratio of the courses in English at MIU among the three institutions.

The Number of International Students
The researcher analyzed the number of international students after reviewing the
full-time international faculty at three institutions. Figure F.4 is based on the data from
JEDI evaluation and it shows the ratio of degree-seeking international students at three
institutions between 2006 and 2011. Figure F.5 is based on KCUE information that
shows the numbers of international students by types of degree-seeking, language
training, and exchange program students.
According to Figure F.4, after Dr. Kim started his term at IRU in 2006 the ratio
of 0.93% of degree-seeking international students jumped to 6.64%, which is a 600%
increase, while QRU’s data for the same period showed the lowest ratio of 1.25% in
degree-seeking students among three institutions, which decreased slightly to 1.09% in
2012. Based on Figure F.5, only IRU has increased the number of degree-seeking
international students every year and the number has surpassed 2,000 students. The
average of degree-seeking international students at QRU and MIU was around 500
students. The researcher interpreted these figures as being due to the location, size, and
presidential leadership of the respective universities.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

151

Figure F.4. Percentage of international students

Figure F.5. Total number of international students

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

152
With the data from Figure F.5, the researcher has analyzed and compared the
composition of the international students and types of their academic fields, and the top
5 countries.

Language Training, Degree-seeking, and Exchange Students
Currently, the KCUE information system divides the international students into
three different types: language training; degree-seeking; and exchange students. Figure
F.6 below, which reveals the changes of composition of international students at three
institutions from 2009 to 2012. According to Mr. Seo at IRU, the increasing number of
South-East Asian students in the Korean language programs has been influenced by the
Korean Wave (Hallyu) as one of the motivational factors and therefore most students
were short-term language students.

Figure F.6. Types of international students between 2009 and 2012

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

153
Based on the figure above, while IRU keeps increasing the number of
international students, QRU has shown a decrease since 2010, as has MIU in 2012. The
number of language training, degree-seeking, and exchange students at IRU has
increased yearly and confirms the interview with Mr. Seo and Mr. Cho at IRU. They
described how IRU has focused internationalization of the campus under Dr. Kim’s
presidential leadership and with his supports such as increasing the budget, number of
staff at OIA, and expanding the partner schools.
On the other hand, between 2011 and 2012 the number of language training
students has decreased from 100 to 51, while exchange students increased from 48 to 72
students at QRU. At MIU, the number of degree-seeking students decreased from 103
to 85 students between 2011 and 2012. Unlike the other two institutions, MIU does not
run the Korean language program, which means that the international students at MIU
are composed of both degree-seeking and exchange program students. The researcher’s
interpretation of this phenomenon at MIU is confirmed by the MIU’s highest average
ratio of courses in English among the three universities.
Table F.1, below, shows that the international students at IRU and MIU were
from around 50 countries but only 26 countries for QRU.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

154
Table F.1
Number of International Students and Countries of Origin

No.
IRU 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Norway 0 0 2 0
2 Ghana 0 0 0 1
3 Netherlands 0 4 0 6
4 Nepal 2 0 0 0
5 Taiwan 11 20 23 18
6 Germany 3 1 4 8
7 East
Timor 1 1 1 1
8 Laos
1 1 1 1
9 Latvia 0 1 0 0
10 Russia 5 5 5 4
11 Rumania 0 1 1 1
12 Malaysia 3 1 1 2
13 Morocco 0 1 1 0
14 Mongol 14 9 6 12
15 The
US 8 6 4 15
16 Myanmar 1 1 1 1
17 Vietnam 11 10 10 12
18 Bolivia 0 1 1 0
19 Bulgaria 1 2 2 2
20 Brazil 0 2 0 0
21 Brunei 0 0 0 1
22 Sweden 0 3 3 3
23 Spain 0 0 3 3
24 Slovakia 0 0 1 0
25 Singapore 0 0 0 1
26 Armenia 0 1 1 1
27 The
UK 0 0 4 4
28 Australia 2 0 2 1
29 Uzbekistan 1 1 0 2
30 Iran 0 0 0 1
31 Italy 0 0 2 1
32 India 0 0 0 1
33 Indonesia 0 1 1 2
34 Japan 28 30 23 50
35 K.
Chinese 0 185 207 226
36 K.
Kirgizstan 0 0 1 0
37 China 1117 1497 1580 1575
38 Kazakhstan 2 1 1 1
39 Canada 2 1 1 0
40 Congo 0 0 1 0
41 Cambodia 2 1 1 0
42 Kirgizstan 0 1 0 0
43 Thailand 1 0 4 8
44 Turkey 0 0 0 1
45 Togo 0 0 1 1
46 Paraguay 1 0 0 0
47 Panama 0 1 1 1
48 France 14 20 10 18
49 Finland 0 3 6 9
50 Hong
Kong 2 0 2 6
Total 1233 1813 1919 2001
No.
QRU 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Gabon 0 1 1 1
2 Taiwan 11 25 20 18
3 Germany 0 0 1 1
4 Russia 5 7 6 5
5 Malaysia 0 0 0 1
6 Mongol 29 11 9 6
7 The
U.S. 0 2 2 3
8 Bangladesh 3 3 3 2
9 Vietnam 0 2 0 0
10 Brunei 0 0 0 1
11 Switzerland 1 0 0 0
12 Singapore 0 3 4 3
13 The
U.K. 0 2 0 1
14 Australia 1 1 1 0
15 Uganda 0 0 0 1
16 Uzbekistan 0 0 1 1
17 Indonesia 0 1 1 3
18 Japan 13 16 16 25
19 K.
Chinese 7 2 4 0
20 China 253 243 226 192
21 Canada 0 0 1 2
22 Kenya 0 1 0 0
23 Kirgizstan 0 16 10 2
24 Paraguay 1 0 0 0
25 Philippines 0 1 1 1
26 Hungary 1 1 0 0
Total 325 338 307 269
No.
MIU 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Ghana 1 0 0 0
2 Guatemala 0 1 1 1
3 Nepal 0 0 1 2
4 Nigeria 1 0 0 0
5 Russia 6 1 2 2
6 Rwanda 0 1 1 2
7 Madagascar 0 1 2 2
8 Malaysia 0 0 0 1
9 Mexico 0 2 2 1
10 Mongol 13 29 37 24
11 The
U.S. 5 2 4 7
12 Myanmar 1 3 4 3
13 Vietnam 2 1 2 0
14 Bangladesh 0 0 0 1
15 Brundi 0 2 3 3
16 Bolivia 1 0 0 0
17 Argentina 2 1 0 1
18 Haiti 1 0 1 1
19 Honduras 1 0
20 Afghanistan 2 0 0 0
21 Australia 3 0 0 0
22 Uganda 0 0 0 2
23 Uzbekistan 8 2 2 2
24 India 1 0 0 0
25 Indonesia 1 1 0 2
26 Japan 2 2 3 3
27 K.

German 0 0 0 2
28 K.
Russian 0 2 2 0
29 K.
American 6 16 17 3
30 K.
Argentinian 0 1 1 0
31 K.
Australian 1 2 2 0
32 K.
Bolivian 0 0 1 0
33 K.Swazilandian 0 0 1 0
34 K.Uzbekistan 0 5 2 0
35 K.Chinese 15 20 19 1
36 Kazahstan 0 1 1 0
37 K.Canadian 0 2 1 1
38 Swaziland 1 1 0 0
39 Canada 3 0 0 0
40 Paraguay 1 0 0 0
41 China 3 2 4 21
42 Cameroon 1 0 0 0
43 Kenya 0 0 0 2
44 Kazakhstan 1 0 0 0
45 Cambodia 3 3 6 5
46 D.R.
Congo 2 2 1 1
47 Tajikistan 1 1 0 0
48 Tanzania 2 2 2 2
49 Thailand 0 0 0 3
50 Peru 0 0 0 2
51 Phillippines 0 3 1 3
Total 90 112 127 106
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

155
The researcher also created Figure F.7, below, based on the average number of
students between 2009 and 2012 in order to describe the proportion of international
students.
As displayed in Figure F.7, IRU and MIU have diversified the international
students’ countries of origin to over 50 countries, and MIU has focused on this aspect
more than the other universities have. As confirmed in the interview with Mr. Seo at
IRU, there are more European students at IRU than in the other universities since IRU
expanded its partner universities to not only American universities but also European
institutions. Ms. Oh and Mr. Jung at MIU described how MIU is focusing on bringing
international students from developing countries; this is confirmed based on the number
of international students’ from developing countries. Another interesting point about
MIU’s international student population is that they have a high number of students from
overseas Korean communities.
According to the interview with Mr. Cho and Mr. Seo at IRU as well as with Ms.
Jang at QRU, the number of international students at Korean universities has increased
dramatically since 2005, but the population is heavily dependent on China and other
neighboring countries in the Asia region. Therefore, the universities have tried to
diversify the countries from which the international students come since 2010.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

156

Figure F.7. Country of origins based on the average number of students between 2009
and 2012

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

157
Top 5 Countries Among International Students
The researcher analyzed the top 5 countries at the three institutions to see how
many students came from those top 5 countries and the portion these make of the total
international student population at each institution. According to the data from the
KCUE information system, the average number of international students at IRU
between 2009 and 2012 was 1,741, and the average number of students from the top 5
countries was 1,657 (95% of total international students). QRU’s average number of the
total international students was 309 students with 281 (90%) students from the top 5
countries, and 108 the average numbers of total international students at MIU with
61(55%) students from the top 5 countries. Figure F.8, below, includes details for the
top 5 countries at each university.

Figure F.8. Top 5 countries of international students

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

158
Based on Figure F.8, the top 5 ethnic backgrounds at IRU and QRU were the
same (Chinese, Korean Chinese, Taiwanese, Mongolian, and Japanese) but MIU’s top 5
ethnic backgrounds (Chinese, Korean Chinese, Korean American, Cambodian, and
Mongolian) were slightly different from other those of the other two institutions.
However, the top 5 countries at all three institutions were countries in the Asia region.
This fact also confirmed Kritz (2006)’s report that student mobility is very high among
neighbor countries around the globe. Below, the researcher also analyzed the academic
fields where the international students are enrolled based on the KCUE information
between 2009 and 2012.
As Figure F.9 shows, about 70 – 80% of international students are enrolled in
the field of liberal arts, which correlates with the largest portion of full-time
international faculty placement described earlier. At IRU, liberal arts contained the
largest number of international students, followed by the fields of fine arts and
engineering. Liberal arts, natural science, and engineering were the order in which the
most international students were enrolled at QRU. Lastly, liberal arts and engineering
were the only two academic fields where the most international students were taking
their courses.
As the researcher described above, most international students at the three
institutions were enrolled in the field of liberal arts. While the countries of origin at IRU
were very diverse, it was heavily dependent on Chinese and Korean Chinese students,
while the composition of international students at MIU was more evenly distributed as
well as being diverse.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

159

Figure F.9. Academic fields for the international students

International Programs
Based on the interviews with the informants at the three institutions, the
universities have expanded the number of their partner institutions since the initial
phase of the internationalization in the 1990s. From the KCUE information, the number
of partner universities is 324 schools in 51 countries at IRU, 141 institutions in 23
countries at QRU, and 105 universities in 36 countries at MIU.
As Table F.2 shows, the number of active partner institutions was almost half
that of the partners where the institutions have only established relationships. While the
majority of partners at IRU and QRU were in the U.S., Japan, and China, most of
MIU’s partners were in the U.S. only. The researcher created Figure F.10, below, to
describe the changes of in-bound and out-bound programs at the three universities.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

160
Table F.2
Number of Active Partner Institutions Between 2008 and 2011

No.
IRU 2008 2009 2010 2011
1 Netherland 1 5 4 4
2 Norway 1 1 1 1
3 Taiwan 1 1 1 1
4 Denmark 0 1 1 1
5 Germany 3 3 3 4
6 Malaysia 0 0 0 2
7 Mexico 0 1 1 1
8 Mongol 0 1 1 0
9 the
U.S. 21 13 24 27
10 Vietnam 1 1 1 0
11 Belgium 0 0 1 0
12 Sweden 1 2 2 2
13 Switzerland 2 2 1 1
14 Spain 0 1 2 2
15 Iceland 0 0 1 0
16 Equardor 0 0 0 1
17 The
U.K.
2 0 3 4
18 Austrailia 4 1 4 6
19 Austria 1 1 1 1
20 Uzbekistan 1 1 1 0
21 Italy 0 0 1 1
22 Japan 10 10 17 17
23 China 16 18 38 50
24 Qatar 0 0 0 1
25 Cambodia 0 0 0 1
26 Canada 3 3 3 5
27 Thailands 0 0 0 1
28 Turkey 0 1 2 2
29 Poland 0 0 1 1
30 France 3 2 5 7
31 Finland 0 2 3 4
Total 71 71 123 148
No.
MIU 2008 2009 2010 2011
1 Netherlands 0 0 1 2
2 Taiwan 0 0 2 0
3 Mongolia 2 2 2 2
4 The
U.S. 6 11 16 16
5 The
U.K.
0 1 1 0
6 Austrailia 0 0 0 1
7 Indonesia 0 0 0 2
8 Japan 0 0 0 2
9 China 2 3 2 2
10 Kenya 0 0 0 1
11 Palestine 0 0 0 1
12 Philippines 0 0 1 0
13 Hong
Kong 0 0 0 1
Total 10 17 25 30
No.
QRU 2008 2009 2010 2011
1 Taiwan 3 4 4 5
2 Germany 1 1 1 1
3 Russia 1 1 1 1
4 Macao 1 1 1 1
5 Mongol 0 0 0 1
6 The
U.S. 3 5 5 8
7 Vietnam 0 0 0 1
8 Singapore 1 1 1 1
9 Ireland 1 1 1 1
10 The
U.K.
0 3 3 2
11 Austrailia 1 4 5 4
12 India 0 0 0 1
13 Indonesia 0 0 0 1
14 Japan 15 15 16 17
15 China 5 9 15 15
16 Canada 0 1 1 2
17 Turkey 0 1 1 1
18 Philippines 0 0 0 1
Total 32 47 55 64
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

161

Figure F.10. Changes of out-bound and in-bound between 2008 and 2011

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

162
After analyzing the data of in-bound and out-bound students over the last 4
years (2008-2011), IRU sent an average number of 517 IRU students annually to their
partners and received 390 students from partner institutions. QRU sent an average of
366 students and received 85 students annually. Lastly, MIU sent 77 students and
received 55.
Overall the number of out-bound students at the three institutions has increased.
IRU’s especially significant increase in the number of out-bound students in 2010 was
influenced by presidential support through allocating additional funds into the programs.
According to Mr. Cho at IRU, he described that IRU’s internationalization capacity has
been improved a lot during Dr. Kim’s presidential term from 2006 to 2010.
QRU and IRU have increased the number of international program-participating
students in order to assist students’ globalization competency through offering
opportunities for in-bound and out-bound programs. However, the researcher was able
to find the reason for the MIU’s low number of in-bound and out-bound students
through the interview with Ms. Oh. She mentioned that MIU is actually focusing more
on international volunteer programs since the university is a mission-based institution,
so the students visited developing countries less than a semester to help people in those
countries through various development projects and activities.
According to the data above, IRU also received the largest number of in-bound
students among the three institutions. Mr. Seo at IRU said that IRU has invested a huge
amount of the budget to build facilities such as international dormitory, recruit world
renowned professors, and increase the number of courses offered in English during Dr.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

163
Kim’s presidential term. He described that IRU was able to receive more international
students with the established infrastructure and facilities.
Through the interview with Mr. Seo and Mr. Cho at IRU and Ms. Jang at QRU,
it was revealed that there was always an imbalance between in-bound and out-bound
students with certain countries like the U.S. and China. Based on the informant’s input,
the researcher has reviewed what the imbalance issues are in exchange programs at the
three universities. Based on KCUE information, the researcher summarized data of in-
bound and out-bound students over the last four years between 2009 and 2011. Based
on the average number of international exchange students, Figure F.11 has been created
below.
According to Figure F.11, number of international program student at all three
universities is heavily dependent on several countries. Especially, most international
exchange activities came from three countries, namely the U.S., China, and Japan.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

164

Figure F.11. Average number of out-bound and in-bound students between 2008 and
2011

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

165
Over the last four years, IRU has sent the largest number of out-bound students
to the U.S., with an annual average of 201 students, and has received 13 students from
the U.S. IRU has sent annual average of 200 students to China and has received about
98 students as an annual average from China. Also, IRU has sent an average of 32
students to Japan and has received 67 students annually from Japan. The researcher
found out that the largest number of out-bound students is composed of those going to
English-speaking countries like the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Unlike other
institutions, the balanced international programs were operated with France and
Germany. As Mr. Seo mentioned earlier, the data showed that there are many European
students, including those from Scandinavian countries like Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Finland, and Denmark.
QRU’s in-bound numbers seem to be heavily focused on Taiwan and China. The
countries where QRU sent their students the most were China, Taiwan, and Japan, as
well as English-speaking countries like Australia, the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and
Ireland. The average number of out-bound students to China was 120, and the average
number of 49 Chinese students came to QRU through their international programs.
While QRU sent a total average number of 140 students to English speaking countries
like the U.S., Australia, and Canada, it was hard to find any students from those English
countries coming to QRU.
Lastly, MIU has sent an average of 59 students to the U.S. and 26 from the
States visited MIU annually. Actually, the number of 26 students from the U.S. was
double the size of IRU’s annual average number of students from the States. Unlike
IRU and QRU, MIU has only sent an average of 13 students to China and received 17
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

166
Chinese students annually. While QRU and IRU’s in-bound students were heavily
dependent on Chinese students, MIU’s largest number of in-bound students was from
the States. Table F.3, below, shows more details of each university’s in-bound and out-
bound students.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

167
Table F.3
Number of Out-Bound and In-Bound Students Between 2008 and 2011

IRU
Country Out In Out In Out In Out In
Netherland 1 6 12 8 14 4 24 13
Norway 5 0 8 0 10 2 10 2
Taiwan 0 7 0 6 0 2 0 2
Denmark 0 0 1 0 6 0 8 3
Germany 18 21 14 18 18 13 31 13
Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Mexico 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 4
Mongol 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 0
the
U.S. 159 23 114 7 401 10 130 12
Vietnam 0 3 0 1 0 4 0
Belgium 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 7
Sweden 2 0 17 1 13 5 2 7
Switzerland 4 10 4 1 2 4 14 9
Spain 0 0 2 6 7 6 0 0
Iceland 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Equardor 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 10
The
U.K.
5 0 0 0 23 9 16 3
Austrailia 25 0 2 2 85 0 9 1
Austria 1 8 6 1 6 2 0 0
Uzbekistan 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0
Italy 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2
Japan 15 39 28 68 43 70 40 89
China 37 49 80 104 92 423 183 225
Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Cambodia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Canada 37 4 11 0 29 0 7 1
Thailands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Turkey 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 5
Poland 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2
France 4 17 26 22 49 49 48 44
Finland 0 0 6 7 21 15 28 9
Total 313 188 332 261 824 635 597 474
2008 2009 2010 2011 QRU
Country Out In Out In Out In Out In
Taiwan 17 11 20 5 23 20 23 17
Germany 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
Russia 2 4 21 0 1 7 1 7
Macao 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0
Mongol 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
The
U.S. 13 0 42 0 46 0 59 0
Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Singapore 5 1 5 3 4 9 6 11
Ireland 7 0 10 0 8 0 10 0
The
U.K.
0 0 17 0 6 2 15 1
Austrailia 6 0 100 0 118 0 62 0
India 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Indonesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Japan 32 3 70 10 59 12 67 15
China 51 30 107 26 152 71 169 67
Canada 0 0 17 0 17 0 3 1
Turkey 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 0
Philippines 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0
Total 139 50 416 45 443 123 464 120
2010 2011 2008 2009
MIU
Country Out In Out In Out In Out In
Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3
Taiwan 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Mongolia 0 8 2 9 3 8 2 11
The
U.S. 53 27 62 27 57 18 62 30
The
U.K.
0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
Austrailia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Indonesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
China 13 20 17 16 14 16 8 16
Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Palestine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Philippines 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Hong
Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Total 66 55 82 52 78 47 80 66
2008 2009 2010 2011
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

168
Conclusion
The researcher used the data from JEDI evaluation and KCUE information to
compare the internationalization status of three institutions with a focus on the number
of full-time international faculty, number of international students, and in-bound and
out-bound students in this section.
Considering the universities’ different locations, sizes, and missions, they do not
make the best samples for a direct comparison, but theses samples can be seen as
representing three different types of Korean private universities: a cosmopolitan-based
research-oriented university; a metropolitan-based research-oriented university; an
instructional-oriented mid-size university located in a small city.
From the findings of full-time international faculty, IRU has the most diverse
and largest number of international faculty among the three institutions. Most
international faculty at the three universities were placed in the liberal arts field, which
means these faculty are likely teaching foreign languages such as English, French,
German, Chinese, and Japanese. While MIU’s international faculty ratio was the highest
among the three universities, the country of origins were very limited, being mainly
from the U.S., Korean American, and Korean Canadian: the sum of these countries
consisted of 91% of the total international faculty at QRU.
As for the number of international students, all three universities showed an
increase over the last four years from 2009 to 2012. Among the three universities, IRU
has surpassed the number of 2,000 international students under Dr. Kim. MIU’s total
number of international students showed the highest ratio among the three, and their
country of origin was also very diverse, as was that of IRU. However, it was interesting
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

169
to find that MIU has students from developing countries and overseas Korean
communities which were different from other two schools.
Lastly, all three universities’ active international partners actually made up 1/3
of the listed partners from the KCUE information. After implementing strong
internationalization strategies at IRU under Dr. Kim’s presidential leadership, IRU has
sent and received the largest number of international students due to its successfully
established infrastructure such as facilities and courses in English. Because of this great
infrastructure, IRU was able to receive the largest number of in-bound students among
the three schools. Similar to the number of international students at both IRU and QRU,
their largest number of in-bound students came from China, and the largest number of
out-bound students is dependent on the English speaking countries.
There were unbalanced issues on in-bound students with countries like the U.S.,
and English speaking countries at IRU and QRU. Also, the researcher found out that the
MIU was the only institution where they received a large number of students from the
U.S.
To conclude this section, there was a big improvement in internationalization at
IRU after Dr. Kim took the president’s office in 2006, which means the president’s
commitment to internationalization is crucial for internationalizing the campus. After
Dr. Lee started his presidential term at QRU, the university also improved the
internationalization status compared to the past, but the president’s impact was not huge
like that for IRU. According to the interview with the informants at QRU, it seems that
Dr. Lee also focused on internationalizing the campus, but he focused more on the
instructional aspects of internationalization, such as recruiting more full-time
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

170
international faculty and increasing the number of courses offered in English. Unlike
IRU and QRU, according to the JEDI evaluation, MIU’s internationalization is at an
advanced state compared to that of other universities, especially considering the
university’s size and location. However, the MIU’s case is very unique, with its strong
Christian-mission orientation, secluded location, and strong sense of community among
the students, staff, and faculty.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

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

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

Google Apps: an opportunity to collaborate

PDF

Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

Proposition 209: a case study on the impact of race-based legislation on student affairs at the University of California

PDF

Professional development: a six-year data evaluation of HIDTA law enforecement task force training programs

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

Asset Metadata

Creator Bang, Yonghwan (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/04/2013

Defense Date 08/15/2012

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

Tag education policy,higher education policy,internationalization,Korean higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,presidential leadership,University

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Cho, Gukhyun (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email yonghwab@usc.edu,yonghwan.bang@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-218250

Unique identifier UC11294541

Identifier usctheses-c3-218250 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BangYonghw-1424.pdf

Dmrecord 218250

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bang, Yonghwan

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