University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A fine balance: enrollment & support of international and historically minoritized students in community colleges

(USC Thesis Other)

A fine balance: enrollment & support of international and historically minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A FINE BALANCE: ENROLLMENT & SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL AND
HISTORICALLY MINORITIZED STUDENTS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

by

Erin Mariko Tanaka

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 2022

Copyright 2022 Erin Mariko Tanaka
ii

Acknowledgments
As I look back on my educational journey and the past 5+ years, I feel overwhelmed with
gratitude to those who have supported me throughout this process. First and foremost, thank you
to my mom and dad, Reiko, and Keith, for all the countless ways they supported me throughout
my academic and personal endeavors. Mom, thank you for always being my number one source
of emotional support, advice, and unconditional love through all my ups and downs and stressful
moments. Dad, thank you for always coming to my rescue from school projects, technical issues,
and life stressors. Thank you, Mom and Dad for continuing to be my saving grace even as the
first Dr. Tanaka in our family.
Thank you to my sister and friend, Lauren, for always listening to me vent and reassuring
me I could do this even when I felt like I could not see a light at the end of the tunnel. To my
Reedy, your hugs, love, and playfulness helped melt away my stress more than you will ever
know. To my Auntie, thank you for always being an inspiring role model throughout my life and
teaching me so many things from random science facts to invaluable life lessons.
To my amazing friends, Jeana, Amy, Drea, Nicole, and Nafessa, from our UCI days,
travel adventures, and everything in between, thank you for all your love and motivation through
my ups and downs along this journey. Anna, from elementary school to doctoral programs, thank
you for being a constant in my life and understanding my pain through this process while
motivating me to cross the finish line. Erica, from getting our master’s at the rival school to
crazy teaching days and New York, thank you for continuing to make me laugh and cheer me on
across the country. Karina, thank you for being a true amiga and reminding me of how much I’ve
grown and persevered through this process. Dara, my Pisces, and parallel lives sister, thank you
for always being my biggest cheerleader and boosting my confidence when I needed it the most.
iii

Cheers and congratulations to all my fellow USC Rossier EDD and dissertation mates
who are the only ones who can truly understand what we have been through these last few years.
Special thank you to Kristi, Melissa, Liliana, Jason, and Jenn for being the best dissertation
mates and friends I could have asked for through this process. I am grateful for our weekday and
weekend writing sessions that allowed me to vent, cry, celebrate, and gain more than great
dissertation mates but lifelong friends – I am so proud of us!
Thank you to Dr. Cynthia Olivo for being a fantastic role model to me as one of your first
EDD students, watching you in action at your campus, and being an incredibly supportive
committee member amidst the many other commitments on your plate. Your relentless passion
for student equity will continue to inspire me as a social justice leader in higher education. Thank
you to Dr. Rob Filback for being a positive and inspiring committee member. I am honored to
have an international education expert on my committee and appreciate all your support.
Last but certainly not least, thank you, Dr. Tracy Tambascia, for being an incredible
source of motivation, support, and inspiration throughout this journey. Through our Zoom
sessions amidst the pandemic, I realized how caring and amazing you truly are not only as my
dissertation chair but as someone who I look up to as a role model. I am honored to have you as
my dissertation chair – a powerful leader, teacher, mentor, and not to mention the first woman of
color to serve as the president of USC’s Academic Senate. Tracy, thank you for pushing me to
think bigger, believing in me even when I didn’t believe in myself, and inspiring me to be an
influential leader.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................ 6
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions ................................................................................. 7
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 12
International Student Mobility in Higher Education .................................................................... 13
Mobility Trends ................................................................................................................ 13
Internationalization for Revenue ....................................................................................... 14
International Student Enrollment in the United States ..................................................... 15
Global Competition ........................................................................................................... 16
Decline in International Student Enrollment .................................................................... 17
International Student Recruitment in the United States ................................................................ 18
Fostering Cultural Competencies ...................................................................................... 19
Shifting to an Economic Focus ......................................................................................... 20
Motivations for International Students to Study in the U.S. ............................................. 21
Recruitment and Admission Processes in U.S. Higher Education ................................................ 24
Recruitment & Admissions Process for Historically Minoritized Students ..................... 25
v

International Student Recruitment & Admissions Process ............................................... 27
International Student Admissions Process ........................................................................ 31
Community Colleges in the United States .................................................................................... 34
California Community Colleges ....................................................................................... 36
International Student Enrollment in Community Colleges ............................................... 37
Internationalization vs. Local Effort Tension ............................................................................... 40
Internationalization Debate in Community Colleges ........................................................ 41
Issue of Access .................................................................................................................. 42
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 44
Open Systems Theory ....................................................................................................... 44
Campus Climate - Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) ............................. 46
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 51
Qualitative Research Methods ...................................................................................................... 52
Site Selection ................................................................................................................................ 53
Population and Sample ................................................................................................................. 55
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................. 56
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 57
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 59
Trustworthiness and Ethics ........................................................................................................... 60
Positionality and Role ................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data & Findings ........................................................................... 63
Participants .................................................................................................................................... 64
Reed Community College Participant Profiles ................................................................. 64
Marina Community College Participant Profiles .............................................................. 66
vi

Themes .......................................................................................................................................... 69
Findings Related to Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 92
Build External Partnerships .............................................................................................. 93
Maximize Finite Resources ............................................................................................... 94
Responsive to External Environment................................................................................ 95
Findings Related to Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 97
Targeting Non-traditional Students ................................................................................... 97
Building Relationships Beyond Borders ........................................................................... 99
Findings Related to Research Question 3 ..................................................................................... 99
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 102
Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 104
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................................... 109
Future Research .......................................................................................................................... 114
Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 115
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 117
References ................................................................................................................................... 119
Appendix A: Interview Invitation Email .................................................................................... 134
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 135
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 138
Appendix D: Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 140

vii

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Participant Characteristics Overview...………………………………………………68
viii

List of Abbreviations
CCC California Community Colleges
DLE Model of Diverse Learning Environments
FTE Full-time Equivalent
HEI Higher Education Institution
HSI Hispanic Serving Institution
MCC Marina Community College
RCC Reed Community College
SEM Strategic Enrollment Management
US United States of America
ix

Abstract
There is a shortage of research on how community colleges develop enrollment strategies and
support services that align with the mission of open access and diversity for historically
minoritized students and international students. This study aimed to understand how student
services personnel can build a campus climate where historically minoritized and international
students mutually benefit from internationalization efforts. Data were collected using semi-
structured interviews with 13 student affairs and enrollment staff members and examining
institutional documents at two community colleges in Southern California. The first central
theme revealed in this study included a dissonance between the intentional recruitment efforts
and the challenging realities that hindered the strategic enrollment and diversification strategies
for both historically minoritized and international students. The second theme revealed tension
amongst the participants and their belief that there was an inequitable amount of support for
international or historically minoritized students. Open systems theory and Hurtado et al.’s
(2012) Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) formed the conceptual framework for
analyzing the data. Findings aligned with extant research surrounding the recruitment,
enrollment, and support of international and historically minoritized students. Recommendations
include ways community colleges can strategically recruit and support both historically
minoritized domestic and international students.

Keywords: community colleges, diversification, historically minoritized students,
internationalization, international students, enrollment, recruitment
1

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
The number of international students in the United States reached its peak in the 2018/19
academic year (IIE, 2019). The growth of international student enrollment within the U.S. is part
of the global trend towards internationalization efforts that arose in the 20th century and has
increasingly impacted society and higher education (Altbach & De Wit, 2015; Bevis & Lucas,
2007). Internationalization efforts within higher education include the programs and policies
enacted by academic institutions and systems in response to the impact of the economic and
technological trends associated with globalization (Altbach, 2006; Altbach et al., 2009).
Higher education institutions (HEIs) note that the increased focus on international
students provides cultural diversity, academic contributions, and economic benefits (Andrade,
2009; Choudaha & Chang, 2012; Knight, 2004). However, in recent decades, the targeted
recruitment of high achieving, self-funded international students have been primarily driven by
budget cuts and global competition within the larger economy (Cantwell, 2019; Ehrenberg, 2012;
West & Addington, 2014). The increasing global competition for students has led HEIs to
execute aggressive marketing strategies to recruit domestic and international students (Fiero &
Ponce, 2017; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2001; Wu & Naidoo, 2016).
International Student Enrollment in the U.S.
International student enrollment growth has been tied to the global economic, political,
and social trends throughout U.S. history, coinciding with periods of growth and decline. Since
World War II, the United States has been the top destination for international students studying
abroad (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Smith & Ota, 2013). International students are drawn to the U.S.
for various reasons, including learning English, which has become the dominant language of
scientific communication, the belief that the U.S. offers high-quality degree programs, and that
2

studying abroad in the U.S. is a valuable investment for their career (Bray, 2007; Liu & Li,
Mazzoral & Soutar, 2002; Wadhwa, 2016).
While many universities have justified international student enrollment increases to
promote cultural and ethnic diversity, the number of international students has increasingly
centered around recruiting self-funded students from China and India. They account for nearly
50% of students in higher education within the United States (IIE, 2019). Although many HEIs
have welcomed international students for the diverse global perspectives they bring, others view
international students as “cash cows” whose tuition payments offset declining domestic
enrollments or other financial burdens (Cantwell, 2019; Dunnett, 2009). According to IIE’s 2019
Enrollment Survey, 80% of participating institutions indicated that they were somewhat or very
worried about the continued recruitment of Chinese students (IIE, 2019). Recent articles have
warned colleges of the risk of overreliance on international student enrollment not only due to
travel bans but political tensions, budget cuts, visa restrictions, and increasing global competition
in higher education (Dennis, 2017; Skinner, 2019).
Community Colleges - Internationalization vs. Local Tension
Community colleges in the U.S. have traditionally been non-selective, affordable higher
education institutions with a mission of providing access to students of all backgrounds
(Hagedorn, 2020; Meier, 2013). However, in the past two decades, the decline in enrollment
patterns among HEIs of all types has led many community colleges to intentionally attract
international students (Anayah & Kuk, 2015; Hagedorn, 2020). The competition from for-profit
postsecondary institutions and the pressure to increase enrollment to acquire government funding
has resulted in many community colleges shifting to a more entrepreneurial culture for the
institution’s financial viability (Levin, 2001; 2005). The shift in focus from the traditional
3

mission of serving the local community, including historically minoritized students, to the
revenue-driven emphasis on the recruitment of international students has been tied to tension
between the dual focuses within some community colleges (Smith & Ota, 2013; Viggiano et al.,
2018).
Community colleges’ rationale for recruiting international students focus on the benefits
they provide to domestic students, such as building their cultural competence (Raby & Valeau,
2007), exposure to cultural diversity, cognitive development (Viggiano et al., 2018), and
increased persistence rates (Brennan & Dellow, 2013). Some community colleges have also
described the recruitment of international students as part of their open access mission, indicating
that the affordability of community colleges is ideal for the expanding middle class within
developing nations (Raby & Valeau, 2007; Treat & Hagedorn, 2013). However, a commonly
cited reason for focusing on international student recruitment is its revenue to community
colleges (Cantwell, 2019; Treat & Hagedorn, 2013; Viggiano et al., 2018).
Although the recruitment of international students is tied to efforts to enhance cultural
diversity and support the mission of open access, the actions of some community colleges have
contradicted their stated justifications (Levin, 2001; Viggiano et al., 2018). Targeting
international students who pay full price and come from affluent backgrounds has been
associated with limited access to international students from less affluent backgrounds (Levin,
2001; Viggiano et al., 2018). Contrary to community colleges’ historical commitment to open
access, the focus on recruiting international students who pay full tuition is believed to
potentially limit access to international students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and
lessen the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of the student population (Meier, 2013; Treat &
Hagedorn, 2013).
4

Policymakers and staff at some community colleges believe international students take
seats away from deserving domestic students (Evelyn, 2005; Ng, 2007). However, others have
argued that the recruitment of international students has become the solution to resolve the fiscal
issues that community colleges face due to state and federal budget cuts (Viggiano et al., 2018).
In this sense, rather than international students taking seats away from domestic students (Raby
& Valeau, 2007), the revenue from international students was used to save seats for future
domestic students (Viggiano et al., 2018).
In recent years, internationalization efforts in the U.S., including international student
recruitment, have faced external hindrances related to stricter visa policies, the high cost of
living, transportation issues, increased competition, and safety concerns (Baker, 2006). These
external challenges, combined with internal challenges at community colleges, such as
competition for budget allocations, funding, and politics, can hinder or eliminate
internationalization efforts (Altbach, 2004; Baker, 2006). Raby and Valeau (2007) argued that
denying historically underrepresented students the opportunity to interact with international
students and participate in study abroad programs would deprive community college students of
access to all necessary academic experiences. Therefore, removing or underfunding international
programs would create educational inequity since community colleges proportionally serve more
minoritized and low-income students than other HEIs (Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Statement of the Problem
Community colleges in the U.S. have increasingly faced the challenge of maintaining
their commitment to serving local, historically minoritized students while facing pressure to
internationalize their campuses (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Eckel, 2008; Meier, 2013). Community
colleges must compete for tuition revenue but often with limited resources and support to
5

adequately foster both endeavors (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Eckel, 2008; Meier, 2013). Despite
the growing concern about the continued focus on international student recruitment, most of the
extant literature surrounding international recruitment focuses on the importance of increasing
the recruitment of international students primarily for tuition revenue (Alberts, 2007; Andrade,
2009; Choudaha & Chang, 2012; Knight, 2004). There is a lack of research on the practices and
considerations of community colleges to develop enrollment strategies and support services that
align with the mission of open access and diversity for both historically minoritized students and
international students.
Researchers have argued that supporting students from historically minoritized
communities does not need to result in the loss of supporting international efforts (Raby, 2020;
Smith & Ota, 2013). However, extant literature related to internationalization efforts at
community colleges has primarily focused on the benefits international students provide
domestic students. International students have been commodified as tools for domestic benefits
rather than the mutual benefit of both domestic and international students (Brennan & Dellow,
2013; Hagedorn & Zhang, 2013; Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Purpose of the Study
There is a lack of research that guides how HEIs, including community colleges, can
promote a campus climate that is mutually beneficial to domestic, historically minoritized
students and international students. This study provided insight into community college staff
members' challenges, perspectives, and beliefs as they develop and implement efforts to enroll
and support historically minoritized students. The main research question that guided this study
was: How do community college enrollment and student services leaders approach strategic
6

enrollment and support of both international students and historically minoritized students, if at
all? Through this study, the following emerging questions were also explored:
● How can enrollment managers diversify their recruitment and enrollment strategies for
both international students and historically minoritized students?
● How can student services personnel foster a campus climate where historically
minoritized and international students mutually benefit from the internationalization
efforts of community colleges?
The conceptual framework for this study included the open systems theory and Hurtado
et al.’s (2012) Model of Diverse Learning Environments (DLE). The open systems theory posits
that institutional actors' thoughts, beliefs, and actions should be viewed in relation to the external
environment. Community colleges can be considered open education systems increasingly
impacted by external factors such as internationalization (Frost, 2009; Williams et al., 2005).
This study examined campus climate through the perspective of enrollment managers and
student service personnel regarding the enrollment and support of minoritized and international
students in community colleges. Hurtado et al.’s (2012) DLE model consist of five dimensions of
a campus climate that are believed to impact student outcomes: historical, compositional,
psychological, behavioral, and organizational (Hurtado et al., 2012). This study examined the
organizational and psychological dimensions of community college enrollment managers and
student service personnel.
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to provide insights and recommendations to staff members within
community colleges involved with the recruitment, admission, enrollment, and support services
for international or historically minoritized students. Institutions that view boosting international
7

student enrollment as the quick solution to budgetary challenges may overlook the dedication
required to create sustainable, effective international student programs (Hagedorn, 2020; West &
Addington, 2014). Recruiters and enrollment managers who currently engage in or are planning
to initiate international student enrollment efforts can better understand strategies and lessons
learned from the findings of this study. Beyond community colleges, other types of HEIs can
also benefit from the findings of this study as the need to diversify the international student
recruitment strategies is relevant to four-year universities as well.
Through the campus climate DLE lens, this study intended to provide insight to
community college administrators, student service personnel, and faculty regarding strategies for
fostering a more welcoming and inclusive environment for both international and historically
minoritized students. Most campus climate research focuses almost entirely on faculty and
student perceptions and beliefs about experiences with diverse student populations on campus
(i.e., Chang, 2002; Hurtado, 2001; Milem, 2001). There is a lack of empirical studies that have
examined staff members’ perceptions of the ability of their campus to foster a favorable climate
for diversity. (Mayhew et al., 2006). This study aimed to contribute valuable understanding and
inspiration for further studies on how student services personnel can build a campus climate
where historically minoritized and international students mutually benefit from
internationalization efforts.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Several of the limitations of this study were connected to the qualitative research
methodology. This study’s purposeful sampling was based on a relatively small sample of
participants within one specific geographic area. It cannot generalize to all community colleges
or other higher education institutions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The applicability to other
8

community colleges must be evaluated given the diversity in the economic, political, and cultural
climate and external influences that U.S. community colleges face as open systems. Another
limitation is researcher bias, given that my professional experience focused on domestic and
international recruitment within a graduate school predominantly consisted of international
students from China and India. I was also involved with diversity recruitment efforts of
historically minoritized populations within a 4-year predominantly white university. In addition,
since I did not have professional experience within a community college at the time of this study,
my access and first-hand experience can be viewed as a limitation. I recognize how my
positionality potentially influenced the study and used reflexivity to reflect on my professional
and personal biases (Maxwell, 2013).
In addition, this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted
the ability to conduct in-person interviews and build rapport. Given the importance of building
rapport during qualitative interviews, my ability to build rapport and trust with the participants
could have been limited (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). However, I conducted synchronous
interviews online via Zoom instead of asynchronous or text-based interviews that do not allow
visual or audio cues (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The limitation of only conducting online
interviews presented some unexpected technology-related interruptions, including poor internet
connectivity, minor audio issues, and the inability to control the environment and potential
distractions experienced by the participant. Furthermore, this study's socio-political climate and
timing are essential to note since they occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black
Lives Matter movement. This could have impacted the participants’ responses given that both
issues have directly been associated with international students and historically minoritized
students.
9

Delimitations
This study involved intentional delimitations tied to the research questions and
conceptual framework. First, the decision to only include community colleges and not 4-year
universities were intended. One of the reasons was that admissions and recruitment strategies
within 4-year universities often were not disclosed due to the high level of competition,
especially for international students and historically minoritized students. Additionally, 4-year
universities tend to be more selective, whereas community colleges are open access institutions
traditionally committed to serving their local regions due to their mission and funding base
(Cohen & Brawer, 2008). This study specifically focused on staff within community colleges,
including enrollment staff and student services personnel. Students were not included in the
study since they are typically not a central part of the decision-making process or strategy
involved with the enrollment of international students or historically minoritized students.
Assumptions
This study assumed that qualitative research was the most appropriate method for
examining the research questions. Related to this assumption was that qualitative interviews and
document analysis were sufficient means to answer the study’s research questions. The study
also assumed that enrollment managers and student services personnel have attitudes and beliefs
that shape their practices and perceptions of enrollment and support efforts of international
students and historically minoritized students. Additionally, the study assumed that community
colleges within this study intentionally recruited international students and supported historically
minoritized students.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were used throughout this study:
10

● Black or African American – a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of
Africa (U. S. Census, 2018)
● Campus Climate - focused on the current perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and
expectations of the campus (Peterson & Spencer, 1990)
● Enrollment manager - refers to staff members involved with the recruitment, admissions,
and enrollment of students within a higher education institution.
● Historically Minoritized - refers to individuals who have been subjected to the social
construction of underrepresentation and subordination in U.S. social institutions,
including colleges and universities, that sustain an overrepresentation of Whiteness
(Harper, 2012)
● Hispanic/Latino/LatinX - refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or
Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race (Census, 2018)
● International Students - individuals studying in the United States on a non-immigrant,
temporary visa that allows for academic study at the post-secondary level. Immigrants,
permanent residents, citizens, resident aliens ("Green Card" holders), and refugees are
excluded from this definition (IIE, 2019).
● International Student Recruitment Agent - an individual international student recruiter
who may work in a solo capacity or as an employee of an agency
● Internationalization - within the context of higher education, includes policies and
programs undertaken by academic systems and institutions, and even individual
departments, in response to the economic and technological trends that occur with
globalization (Altbach, 2006; Altbach et al., 2009)

11

Conclusion
If community colleges are intended to promote open access, equity, and inclusivity of all
students, they must foster an environment that embraces diversity for the mutual benefit of all
students. Some community colleges have focused their resources on recruiting international
students but have not developed efforts to support them once enrolled (Ng, 2007; Raby, 2020).
This study explored how community college enrollment staff and student services personnel
approach strategic enrollment and support of international and historically minoritized students.
The next chapter provides context to understand the study’s background and literature.
12

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter discusses global student mobility within higher education to provide context
for understanding the trends associated with international student recruitment in community
colleges. The literature review examines the tensions between internationalization efforts and
competing demands of serving the needs of domestic, historically minoritized students within the
context of this study’s research question: How do community college enrollment and student
services leaders approach strategic enrollment and support of both international students and
historically minoritized students, if at all?
The following chapter consists of five main sections. The first section begins with an
overview of global student mobility and the history of international student enrollment trends
within the United States. The second section discusses the critical motivations for U.S. higher
education institutions (HEIs) to recruit international students and the common factors that
influence international students’ decision to study abroad in the U.S. The third section examines
the recruitment strategies and admissions processes of two student populations that have been
increasingly recruited among several HEIs in the U.S., including international students and
domestic, historically minoritized students. The fourth section provides a brief history and
context of U.S. community colleges and California community colleges (CCCs) before
discussing the motivation for these institutions to recruit international students and why
international students are attracted to community colleges. The fifth section discusses how
community colleges face the tension between the competing demands of internationalization
efforts and the historical emphasis on local efforts. Lastly, this chapter discusses the conceptual
13

framework of this study, including the open systems theory and Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model
for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE).
International Student Mobility in Higher Education
University student mobility has always been influenced by the global environment and
affected by circumstances beyond the campus and across national borders (Altbach, 2006;
Altbach & De Wit, 2015). According to Altbach and De Wit (2015), universities have been
international institutions dating back to at least the 6
th
century AD, when universities in India
attracted students and staff from all over the Buddhist world. The same applied half a millennium
later when universities in Europe enrolled students from all over the continent. The beginning of
international student mobility to the United States has been attributed to Christian missionaries
sponsored to promote Christianity in developing countries in the 19th century (Bevis & Lucas,
2007; DuBois, 1962). The promotion of Christianity in developing countries led students from
non-Western countries to study in the U.S. (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; DuBois, 1962).
Mobility Trends
The 20
th
century marked a rise in internationalization efforts that continue to impact the
realities of contemporary society and higher education today (Altbach & De Wit, 2015; Bevis &
Lucas, 2007; DeWit, 2009). Internationalization in the context of higher education includes
policies and programs undertaken by educational systems and institutions, and even individual
departments, in response to the economic and technological trends that occur with globalization
(Altbach, 2006; Altbach et al., 2009). For example, the rise of English as the dominant language
of scientific communication and increasing global demand for scientists and technological
advances has been connected to the pattern of international student mobility (Altbach et al.,
2009). Student mobility typically flowed from the South to the North, particularly from Asia, to
14

top English-speaking host countries, including Australia, Canada, the United States, and the
United Kingdom (Altbach & DeWit, 2015; Altbach & Engberg, 2014). This South-to-North flow
is controversial among some in academia who believe that the domination of the English
language marginalizes the work of scholars in non-English speaking, developing countries
(Altbach et al., 2009). Furthermore, the trend was symbolic of the growing imbalance in the
world’s wealth and talent as HEIs within wealthy, English-speaking countries have developed
strategies to recruit international students who are primarily self-funded and pay full tuition and
fees (Altbach et al., 2009; Altbach & Engberg, 2014).
Although global student mobility remains a largely South-to-North trend, student flow
has recently become more varied and diverse in the countries that send students abroad and host
countries or those receiving students (Altbach et al., 2009; Altbach & Engberg, 2014). One of the
reasons for this change has been the establishment of government-funded, outward mobility
scholarships by the sending countries, including Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Indonesia
(Altbach & Engberg, 2014). The main areas of national priority are science and technology-
related, whereby countries have provided scholarships abroad for their most promising students
to improve their country’s economic growth and global competitiveness (Alberts, 2007; Altbach
et al., 2009). To reduce the chances of “brain drain,” or the loss of knowledge from their country
to the receiving country, many nations such as Vietnam, China, Kazakhstan, and Russia, require
that students who receive their outward mobility scholarships return home after earning their
degree (Altbach & Engberg, 2014, p. 13).
Internationalization for Revenue
A current global trend is the commercialization of international mobility. Host countries
have increasingly used international student enrollment as a primary tuition revenue generator,
15

often charging higher fees for non-domestic students (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009;
Haigh, 2008). As a result of declines in government funding for higher education and
simultaneous policies expanding the higher education participation rates, several universities
worldwide, and particularly in Australia, the U.K., and the U.S., have come to rely on
international student revenue for financial survival (Fiero & Ponce, 2017; Haigh, 2008).
International Student Enrollment in the United States
The international student mobility and enrollment trends in the United States are tied to
the economic and political impact of global events, including World War I and II, the Cold War,
and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in 2001 (Altbach et al., 2009; Bevis & Lucas, 2007; DeWit,
2009; Fiero & Ponce, 2017). After World War I, organized efforts to bring international students
to the U.S. began in response to the belief that academia could help build international peace.
The establishment of the Institute of International Education (IIE) in 1919 was an example of an
intentional effort to promote peace and understanding. IIE was founded on the premise that
international exchange programs between the U.S. and other nations could foster a more
interconnected world (Altbach & De Wit, 2015; Davis, 1997; IIE, 2019).
Post-World War II marked a turning point for international education when intensified
efforts to promote peace and mutual understanding resulted in establishing the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1944 and the Fulbright Act by
the United States in 1945. Both organizations aided cultural exchange and education (Altbach &
De Wit, 2015). In 1948, IIE published its first international student census for the 1948/49
academic year when 25,464 international students represented 1.1% of the total enrollment at
higher education institutions in the United States. At that time, Canada was the top sending
country, with 4,197 students studying in the U.S. (Chow & Chambers, 2010; IIE, 2019). Since
16

then, the top countries of origin have changed significantly due to shifting economic and political
factors, and Canada and India are the only two countries who have remained on the top ten list of
countries that send their students abroad since 1948/49 (Chow & Chambers, 2010; IIE 2019).
Global Competition
The early 21
st
century marked a shift in higher education to an increasingly competitive
enterprise. Students competed for seats at top-ranked institutions and universities vied for top
rankings, status, and funding (Altbach et al., 2009). Researchers have pointed to the
commercialization of international mobility as a significant motivation by host countries that
increasingly sought out international students for revenue generation (Altbach, 2002; Altbach &
Engberg, 2014; Altbach & Reisberg, 2013).
The rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era brought
attention to the fact that the U.S. was falling behind in technological development and graduating
fewer students in science and engineering programs than the Soviet Union (Alberts, 2007). The
need to compete in the technological race sparked a dedicated effort to recruit scientists and
engineers from other countries, mainly Europe and Asia (Alberts, 2007; Bevis & Lucas, 2007).
Since then, the United States has been highly motivated to recruit students and scientists from
other countries (Alberts, 2007).
After World War II, the United States became the top destination for international
students studying abroad (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Smith & Ota, 2013). During the 1960s, higher
education was impacted more heavily by internationalization and the knowledge revolution,
pushing developing countries and policymakers to focus on higher education (Fiero & Ponce,
2017). Since the 1970s, the expansion of higher education in terms of student enrollments abroad
has seen exponential growth, particularly among regions such as Africa. The U.S. experienced
17

significant enrollment increases from Nigeria during the oil boom years. Students from Africa
who studied abroad in the United States accounted for about 13% of the world total at its peak in
1982/83 (Altbach et al., 2009). While the countries of origin of incoming international students
within the U.S. were relatively diverse in 1949/50, the percentage of students from Asian
countries increased over the subsequent decades. Between 1950-2010, the number of
international students from Asia increased 60-fold, representing 54% of the total international
student enrollments in the U.S., and outnumbered the number of international students from all
other world regions combined (Chow & Chambers, 2010; Davis, 2000).
Decline in International Student Enrollment
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (referred to as 9/11) impacted college
enrollment shifts in the United States (Altbach & Engberg, 2014; Altbach & Knight, 2007;
Altbach & Reisberg, 2013; Lee, 2010). In 2004, IIE reported a decrease of 2.4% in international
student enrollment in the U.S., and many concluded that the first decline in international student
enrollment since 1971 was a result of 9/11 (IIE, 2019; Lee, 2010). However, there is evidence
that patterns of international student enrollments were changing due to the impact of 9/11 and in
the context of global economic and educational changes (Alberts, 2007; Naidoo, 2007).
According to IIE’s 2019 Open Doors Report, the number of international students
studying in the U.S. reached an all-time high of 1,095,299 and marked the fourth consecutive
year of more than one million students (IIE, 2019). Even though the U.S. enrolled a record
number of international students, there are warning signs of the shrinking growth in international
students, particularly from China, who make up one-third of all international students in the U.S.
(Alberts, 2007; Naidoo, 2007). The concern was expressed by leaders such as NAFSA’s CEO,
Dr. Brimmer, who said, “This latest analysis showing the third consecutive year of declining new
18

international enrollment reinforces our concern that the United States is losing talented
international students and scholars…” (NAFSA, 2019, p.1). In addition, countries such as
Canada and Australia simultaneously experienced double-digit growth in international
enrollments, with increases by 16% and 15%, respectively, added to the growing concern of
losing students to competitor countries (NAFSA, 2019).
The decline in enrollment of international students is part of a more significant issue
within U.S. higher education. The total number of students enrolled at post-secondary
institutions in the U.S. has declined every academic year since 2010-11. In the 2017-18 academic
year, 3 million fewer students enrolled than in 2010-11 (U.S. Department of Education, NCES
IPEDS, 2020).
International Student Recruitment in the United States
Managing student enrollment has long been a concern for higher education institutions
(Bontrager, 2004; Dunnett, 2009). In the 1950s and 1960s, the expansion in community colleges
and 4-year public institutions forced smaller private institutions to actively recruit students as the
threat of declining enrollment due to competition intensified (Bontrager, 2004; Dunnett, 2009).
The beginning of dedicated international student recruitment in the 1970s was primarily due to
enrollment pressures and the anticipated decline in traditional-aged, domestic students (Dunnett,
2009; Wu & Naidoo, 2016).
Motivations to Recruit International Students
The motivation to recruit students from overseas in the U.S. has been associated with the
internationalization of higher education and has shifted over time (Altbach & Knight, 2007;
Qiang, 2013). Critical factors related to the recruitment of international students have been
academic, economic, cultural, and political (Altbach et al., 2009; Bevis & Lucas, 2007; DeWit,
19

2009; Fiero & Ponce, 2017). In the aftermath of WWII, internationalization was focused on
humanitarian efforts and developing intercultural skills to enhance peaceful relations and cross-
cultural understanding (Altbach & De Wit, 2015; Qiang, 2013). Altbach and Knight (2007) noted
that the “traditional internationalization” that existed for over a century was not profit-driven,
whereby prestigious colleges in the U.S. viewed international students as a means to enhance
cross-cultural perspectives among their students (p. 293). A similar motivation to attract
international students in the 1980s was part of a more significant push by some educators within
higher education to foster global perspectives among their students, establish cross-national
partnerships, and promote mutually beneficial exchanges (Dunnett, 2009).
Many colleges and universities in the U.S. attribute their motivation to attract
international students first and foremost to the cultural diversity international students provide
(Alberts, 2007; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Andrade, 2009). In today’s increasingly diverse and
globally interdependent world, the need to produce culturally competent citizens capable of
engaging in well-informed, ethical decision-making is a top educational priority (American
Council on Education, 2002; Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2006; King &
Baxter Magolda, 2005).
Fostering Cultural Competencies
A primary goal of higher education is to develop the whole student, enhancing their
intellectual, social, moral, intercultural, and global learning skills (American Council on
Education, 2002; Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2006). The intercultural
benefits of enrolling international students in American campuses include exposing domestic
students to different perspectives and enhancing critical thinking skills necessary for a globalized
economy and world (Andrade, 2009; Choudaha & Chang, 2012; Luo & Jameson-Drake, 2013).
20

International students contribute academic and cultural wealth to college campuses and often
provide essential scientific or technical skills needed for the global economy (Andrade, 2009;
Choudaha & Chang, 2012). In this sense, international students' educational and economic
benefits are closely related (Li & Bray, 2007; Qiang, 2013).
Shifting to an Economic Focus
Recognizing the benefits of international student enrollment for several reasons, public
and private institutions throughout the U.S. have increased efforts to recruit, market to, and meet
the demands of international students (Dunnett, 2009; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). In the 1970s, the
number of self-funded international students expanded worldwide, mainly due to improvements
in developing countries' economies and education systems that turned to higher education to
raise living standards and reduce poverty (Dunnett, 2009; Ponce & Fiero, 2017). At the same
time, the anticipated decline in domestic, traditional-aged college students and the increasing
pressure to boost tuition revenue led leaders within HEIs in the U.S. to seek alternative solutions
(Bontrager, 2004; Dunnett, 2009; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). More recently, motivation to recruit
international students to the U.S. has become less centered on cultural exchange and more
focused on economic benefits (Dunnett, 2009; Li & Bray, 2007; Quiang, 2013; Wu & Naidoo,
2016).
While some HEIs continue to cite international students' diversity and cultural benefits as
justification for their focus on international recruitment, the underlying economic motives are
undeniable (Dunnett, 2009; Li & Bray, 2007; Wu & Naidoo). On a national level, international
students contributed nearly $41 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2018-19 academic year
(NAFSA, 2019). Over the past decade, international recruitment efforts have been intensified by
the global financial crisis, which started in the U.S. in December 2007 and resulted in decreases
21

in state support for higher education for several subsequent years (Choudaha, 2017; Choudaha et
al., 2013; Delaney & Doyle, 2011). According to Delany and Doyle (2011), in poor economic
times, higher education is often among the first state budgets to be cut, partly because of the
possibility of falling back on raising external revenue by charging or increasing tuition. As a
result of the government funding cuts, public HEIs sought alternative revenue streams to offset
the budgetary losses (Choudaha, 2017; Choudaha et al., 2013; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). For many
public HEIs, the solution to the problem was to expand efforts to recruit international students
who are charged out-of-state tuition and often pay three times the annual tuition of in-state,
domestic students (Altbach et al., 2009; Choudaha, 2017; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). The motivation
to recruit students from specific countries such as China and Saudi Arabia intensified because
over 95% of Chinese students studying abroad were self-funded, and two-thirds of Saudi
students were funded by their government (Choudaha, Chang & Kono, 2013; Saudi Gazette,
2012).
Motivations for International Students to Study in the U.S.
The expansion of international recruitment was a case of supply and demand within the
U.S. and overseas, which resulted in the global marketization of higher education (Mazzarol &
Soutar, 2002; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). On the demand side, international students have been
motivated by push and pull factors, including academic, economic, social, cultural, personal, and
political (Altbach, 1998; Li & Bray, 2007; Mazzoral & Soutar, 2002; Wadhwa, 2016). Altbach
(1998) introduced the push-pull model for international student mobility. Push factors refer to
element(s) within a student’s home country that push them to study abroad, such as unfavorable
economic and political conditions and a lack of strong academic degree programs (Altbach,
1998; Fiero & Ponce, 2017; Li & Bray, 2007). Pull factors within the host country can attract
22

students to study there (Altbach, 1998; Fiero & Ponce, 2017). Several common pull factors
include learning English, scholarships, and international students’ perception that earning a
degree from a Western country would be a valuable investment to enhance their career and
employability (Bray, 2007; Liu & Li, Mazzoral & Soutar, 2002; Wadhwa, 2016).
International student recruitment is an interplay between the demands of international
students and HEI’s motivation to be critical suppliers of their requests (Li & Bray, 2007; Zheng,
2013). Economic and academic or educational factors are top motivators, particularly among
students from top sending countries such as China and India, who account for over 50% of all
international students in the U.S. (Li & Bray, 2007; Liu & Li, Mazzoral & Soutar, 2002;
Wadhwa, 2016; Zheng, 2003). Li and Bray’s (2007) empirical study found that the top two pull
factors for Chinese students who studied abroad included scholarships (73.4%) and “good
quality and reputation of institution” (55.9%) (p. 808).
Another pull factor of studying in the U.S. and why it is a destination of choice for many
sending countries is the solid research base and university funding opportunities, particularly in
science and technology at the graduate level (Choudaha, 2017; National Research Council 2005).
Business degrees were a top academic pull factor at the undergraduate level, with the number of
international students pursuing a business degree growing by approximately 60% in the U.S.
between 2003 and 2011 (Choudaha et al., 2013). On the supply side, HEIs in the U.S. have
focused on promoting academic programs, such as business at the undergraduate level and
engineering at the graduate level, on meeting the demand from self-funded, full fee-paying
international students (Choudaha, 2017; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). In addition, there is a high level
of interest in STEM majors among international students; over 50% (51.6%) were enrolled in
23

STEM degree programs and outnumbered domestic students enrolled in electrical engineering
and computer science (IIE, 2019).
The factors that deter students from other countries from studying in the U.S. have been
tied to the political and economic climate within the U.S. and can help explain the declining
international student enrollment (Choudaha et al., 2013; Dunnett, 2009; Li & Bray, 2007). Forces
that repel international students include increasing tuition and fees, challenges obtaining a visa,
more restrictive immigration policies, and negative perceptions of the host countries based on
feedback from peers (Li & Bray, 2007; Dennis, 2017; Reisberg, 2004). For example, the election
of Donald Trump as the president of the U.S., the travel ban prohibiting the entry of individuals
from certain countries, tightening of visa and immigration policies, and perceptions that the U.S.
is no longer a welcoming host country are tied to recent international student enrollment declines
(Choudaha, 2017; Dennis, 2017).
The hostile economic forces of the U.S. have been another significant detractor, such as
the rising cost of tuition and fees, as well as the top concern in recent years of the lack of
internship and job opportunities available (Choudaha et al., 2013; Choudaha, 2017). Most
recently, the impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak and travel restrictions are associated
with the 16% decrease in the number of international students studying in the U.S. and online
(IIE, 2020). To continue to maintain and boost enrollment amidst the hostile forces of the U.S.,
institutions must have effective strategic recruitment and retention plans that respond to the
opposing forces that concern international students and appeal to their positive pull motivations
(Choudaha, 2017, Li & Bray. 2007).

24

Recruitment and Admission Processes in U.S. Higher Education
The global competition for students has resulted in higher education institutions (HEIs)
implementing aggressive marketing and recruitment strategies to recruit domestic and
international students (Fiero & Ponce, 2017; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2001; Wu & Naidoo, 2016).
Several recruitment techniques and trends are used to attract domestic and international students,
such as campus visits, college fairs, partnerships with schools, online advertising, social media,
and direct mail (Choudaha et al., 2012; Clinedist & Patel, 2018; Dunnett, 2009). However, in a
2017-18 survey conducted by the National Association for College Admissions Counseling
(NACAC), secondary school counselors and admissions officers in the U.S. reported that email
and the institution’s website were the essential recruitment strategies for first-time freshmen,
international, and transfer students (Clinedist & Patel, 2018).
In a national survey conducted by the American Council on Education (ACE) in 2014-15,
undergraduate admissions and enrollment management leaders at 4-year, non-profit institutions
indicated that aside from enrolling students with high grades and test scores, the racial or ethnic
diversity of its student population was the second-highest institutional priority, followed closely
by international and U.S. geographic diversity (Espinosa et al., 2015). A review of the literature
on recruitment and enrollment efforts in the U.S. indicated trends and specific strategies aimed at
fulfilling the institutional priorities of increasing enrollment of historically underrepresented
students (Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Espinosa et al., 2015; Hakola & Smith, 2013; Pippert), and
international students (Choudaha et al., 2012; Dunnett, 2009).
The college choice and the application process itself can be stressful for applicants who
must take college entrance exams, write application essays, navigate websites, and visit
campuses, while balancing coursework, extracurricular activities, and, for many, full- or part-
25

time jobs (Cabrera & LaNasa, 2001; Palmer et al., 2004). Pippert et al. (2013) suggested that
current admissions strategies do not adequately address the needs and backgrounds of all
students because they were initially intended for traditional students. To promote and support the
diversity of the applicant pool, college recruiters must adapt their recruitment and
communication methods to address the diverse needs and backgrounds of students (Choudaha et
al., 2012; Hossler, 1999; Pippert et al., 2013).
Recruitment & Admissions Process for Historically Minoritized Students
As the number of international students has increased in the United States, so too has the
number of domestic, racial, or ethnic minorities projected to outnumber White (non-Hispanic)
Americans by 2044, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (Colby & Ortman, 2015). The
domestic growth of ethnic and racial minoritized students has emphasized the critical need to
ensure equitable access to an increasingly diverse student population and meet the workforce
demands necessary to America’s economic and global competitiveness (Espinosa, Gaertner, &
Orfield, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). However, despite overall increases in U.S.
college enrollment rates from 2000 to 2018, including a rise of 148% amongst Hispanic students,
historically minoritized racial minority groups, including Black, Hispanic, and American
Indian/Alaska Natives, continue to have lower enrollment and completion rates than their White
(non-Hispanic) and Asian American counterparts (NCES, 2020). In 2018, the percentage of 18–
24-year-old U.S. residents who enrolled in college by the racial group were Black (37%),
Hispanic (36%), American Indian/Alaska Natives (24%), and Pacific Islander (24%), compared
to Asian American (59%), White (42%), and two or more races (44%) (NCES, 2020). From
2000 to 2018, the percentage of Black students enrolled in undergraduate institutions decreased
26

by 24%, and American Indian/Alaska Natives decreased by 33%. In comparison, the enrollment
of nonresident aliens increased by 42% during the same 2000-2018 period (NCES, 2020).
While the college choice and application process can be challenging for all applicants,
historically underrepresented students often face hurdles well examined in the literature (Cabrera
& La Nasa, 2001; Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Espinosa et al., 2015; Perna, 2002). Commonly
cited barriers included navigating the complicated financial aid application and preparing for
standardized college entrance exams.
Pre-College Programs
Through the Higher Education Act of 1965, the U.S. Department of Education
established the first federally supported programs to increase college readiness, enrollment, and
degree completion rates of students from first-generation college, low-income, and ethnic/racial
minority backgrounds (Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Perna, 2002). The first three educational
opportunities programs often referred to as TRIO, include Educational Talent Search, Student
Support Services, and Upward Bound (Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Perna, 2002). Aside from
financial aid programs, Upward Bound is the most extensive U.S. federal government program to
increase the enrollment and completion rates of underrepresented ethnic minority, low-income,
and first-generation college high school students in grades 9-12 (Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009). The
program is multi-year and includes various college preparation services, including assistance
with the college application process, test preparation for admission exams, tutoring, counseling,
and residential summer experiences on college campuses (Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009).
Since the establishment of the TRIO programs, several outreach programs focusing on
college readiness have been sponsored by the U.S. federal government and by state governments,
HEIs, foundations, and private industries (Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Perna, 2002). Despite the
27

range of pre-college outreach programs enacted by public and private organizations, there is
limited data about how these programs impact historically underrepresented students in higher
education (Perna, 2002). The U.S. Department of Education’s publication, Advancing Diversity,
and Inclusion in Higher Education, offered several recruitment strategies to legally promote
student body diversity on campuses (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Consistent with
literature supporting historically underrepresented students, plans included developing
relationships with local high schools, financial aid assistance programs, college preparatory
classes, after-school summer programs, and holistic admission reviews (Cabrera & La Nasa,
2001; Cowan Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Espinosa et al., 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
According to ACE’s 2014-15 national survey, 72% of institutions believed targeted yield
recruitment initiatives to convert admitted students into enrolled students was the most effective
strategy (Espinosa et al., 2015). While diversity recruitment strategies vary by institution,
admissions counselors are often in the field visiting high school campuses, building relationships
with students, families, and school counselors, and hosting campus and community gatherings to
assist with the application process, particularly during the fall (Espinosa et al., 2015). Examples
of such activities included campus visit days for admitted students, calls from faculty members,
and receptions in students’ local areas (Espinosa et al., 2015).
International Student Recruitment & Admissions Process
While recruitment of historically underrepresented students was once the primary focus
of HEIs in the 1990s and early 2000s, recent recruitment efforts in the United States have shifted
their focus to international students (Smith & Ota, 2013). As competition for international
students heightened in the 1980s, more admissions offices within HEIs started utilizing
recruitment techniques initially intended to recruit domestic students (Dunnett, 2009; Hossler,
28

1999). Several admissions officers from HEIs participated in university fairs and college tours at
schools overseas, enabling them to establish relationships with local schools and educational
advisors in other countries (Choudaha et al., 2012; Dunnett, 2009). By the 1990s, international
recruitment became a big business with customized strategies to target international students,
ranging from international marketing and enrollment management consulting to agent-based
recruitment and the development of for-profit English pathway programs, often housed on
university campuses (Choudaha et al., 2012; Dunnett, 2009; Wu & Naidoo, 2016).
In the past two decades, HEIs in the U.S. have moved away from ad-hoc international
recruitment practices to dedicated efforts to develop strategic, market-driven plans incorporating
a variety of tactics (Dunnett, 2009; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). In Özturgut’s (2013) study of the top
40 U.S. universities with the largest number of international students, “Findings further indicate
that institutions are spending more time and effort in recruiting international students than they
do for American students” (p. 8). The extent to which an institution used strategies varied by
type. For example, two and four-year institutions reported attending international education fairs
and recruitment events, providing academic support, utilizing campus resources, and “passive
marketing” such as online brochures, as their top recruitment methods employed (Özturgut,
2013, p. 6).
In a study involving international enrollment managers across the U.S., Choudaha et al.
(2013) found three categories of international recruitment practices, including research to
prioritize efforts and measure return on investment (ROI), technology to expand HEI’s brand
awareness cost-effectively, and partnerships for creating pathways and visibility.

29

Research & Market Segmentation
International student recruitment is an increasingly competitive, time, and budget-
consuming effort that demands HEIs to plan and develop proactive strategically, sustainable
enrollment strategies (Fiero & Ponce, 2017; Choudaha et al., 2012). According to Choudaha et
al. (2012), international students are highly heterogeneous with different academic and financial
needs. For HEIs to understand the diverse populations and manage their conflicting needs, a
market segmentation approach can help institutions effectively target specific students.
Institutions should consider the demographics (i.e., home country, socioeconomic status, age),
academic ability, and academic aspirations of international applicants to recruit them (Choudaha
et al., 2012) effectively. Using Hossler & Gallagher’s (1989) college choice framework, the
information search portion of the three-stage process is particularly significant in the digitally
connected world when students can be accessed, informed, and recruited in an expanding
number of ways (Choudaha et al., 2012).
Technology-based Marketing
Online marketing has become the most common method of outreach that is a relatively
low-cost strategy and can yield significant results (Choudaha et al., 2013; Özturgut, 2013).
Online marketing strategies have gained prominence for international recruitment, such as
webinars, virtual college fairs, social media, videos, and webchats (Choudaha et al., 2013;
MacEachern, 2017; Wu & Naidoo, 2016). Advertising has also seen a shift from predominantly
print-based publications to digital marketing, including electronic publications, website ads, pay-
per-click marketing (Choudaha et al., 2013; MacEachern, 2017). However, according to a World
Education Services (WES) report that surveyed 1,600 prospective international students likely to
study in the U.S., an institution’s website (90%) is a top marketing tool ranking ahead of agents,
30

education fairs, family and friends, and social media (Choudaha et al., 2012; Choudaha et al.,
2013).
An increasingly popular method of targeting undergraduate, younger audiences has been
social media, which has become a staple for recruiting international students (Choudaha, 2013).
However, social media varies depending on the targeted students, like other recruitment
methods. For example, 88% of social media users from India visited U.S.-based social media
platforms, compared to only 22% of Chinese social media users (Choudaha et al., 2012). Social
media can give HEIs a competitive advantage if institutions are well-informed, entrepreneurial,
and utilize the tool in a practical, engaging manner (Choudaha, 2013).
Technology has increasingly influenced admission offices’ communication strategies
from recruitment to conversion, enabling HEIs to reduce conversion time and personalize
communication, particularly to undergraduate students who expect fast responses (Choudaha,
2013). The ability to break down geographic and time barriers will inevitably continue to play an
increasingly influential role in international recruitment in the future (Choudaha, 2013).
Partnerships and Relationship-Building
Another major trend in international recruitment is to create partnerships to connect with
international students and increase brand awareness abroad (Choudaha et al., 2013). HEIs engage
in various partnerships, including agreements with foreign educational institutions, government
agencies, and other organizations, primarily to create sustainable student pipelines and enhance
the institution’s credibility (Choudaha et al., 2013). In addition, several HEIs in the U.S. partner
with third-party organizations, such as EducationUSA and other government agencies, which
help create a bridge to foreign institutions and prospective international students (Choudaha et
al., 2013; Dunnett, 2009). Universities have also increasingly turned to their alumni overseas to
31

help advocate and serve as ambassadors to increase brand awareness and reputation (Choudaha
& Kono, 2012; Choudaha et al., 2013; Dunnett, 2009).
International Student Admissions Process
To effectively recruit and enroll international students, HEIs must understand their
specific needs, unique decision-making processes, and challenges throughout the admissions
process (Choudaha et al., 2013; Lee, 2008). Understanding the U.S. college application
procedures, choosing an institution and a program, and preparing their college application
documents and visa interviews are the most substantial barriers international students face during
the admissions process (Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011). The college application process in the U.S. is
complicated for many students, especially for students from other countries unfamiliar with U.S.
higher education systems (Dunnett, 2009; Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011). The multiple components
required to apply for admission, including personal statements, standardized tests, transcripts,
and even the application itself, have been perceived to be a daunting task (Zhang & Hagedorn,
2011). Additionally, international students are often required to take English-language
proficiency exams, including the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and provide
proof of financial support documentation (Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011).
Once an international student is admitted into a U.S. post-secondary institution, obtaining
a student visa (F-1) is another obstacle to enrolling (Lee & Becskehazy, 2005; Zhang &
Hagedorn, 2011). To receive an F-1 student visa, an international student must first obtain an I-
20 form from their institution and then wait for an interview by consular offices in their home
country (Alberts, 2007). International students in the U.S. have referred to the visa process as
debilitating, complicated, and lengthy, deterring some from pursuing a degree in the U.S.
(Alberts, 2007; Lee, 2008).
32

The process of obtaining a visa became particularly burdensome after the terrorist attacks
of 9/11 when fear and rhetoric among the American public led to the impression that
international students posed a potential threat to the nation’s security (Alberts, 2007; NAFSA,
2003). Students from 26 countries from the Middle East and predominantly Muslim countries
encountered more challenges obtaining student visas. They faced mandatory increased security
checks because of the United States’ belief that their countries were associated with or sponsored
terrorism (Alberts, 2007). The idea that Immigration & Naturalization Services (INS) lacked the
resources to prevent abuse of visa issuance led to the U.S. government imposing strict
international student visa restrictions and policy regulations (Alberts, 2007; NAFSA, 2003). The
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was developed to enforce tighter
restrictions and electronically track international students from when they first apply for a visa to
when they return to their country of origin (Alberts, 2007; Lee & Becskehazy, 2005).
International students expressed further frustration and resentment toward SEVIS, which caused
delays, technical issues, and other U.S. government regulations (Lee & Becskehazy, 2005;
NAFSA, 2003). These additional deterrents to international students’ access contributed to
concerns about safety and being unwelcome, causing some international students to choose not
to study in the United States (Lee, 2008; Lee & Becskehazy, 2005).
International Recruitment Agents
The unique challenges international students face, and the marketization of international
recruitment have prompted commission-based international recruitment agencies to arise
(Dunnett, 2009; Engberg, 2013; Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011). Although commission-based
international recruitment agents have been a traditional recruitment practice in Australia and the
UK, it was a relatively new and controversial practice in the United States (Dunnett, 2009;
33

Engberg, 2013). While the use of international student recruitment agencies is less common in
the U.S., approximately one-quarter of U.S. institutions or specific programs hold contracts with
agencies (Dunnett, 2009; West & Addington, 2014).
Proponents of the practice argue that for many HEIs to be competitive in the global
market for international students, overseas agents are necessary for institutions that do not have
the resources to recruit international students directly (Dunnett, 2009; Özturgut, 2013). Agents
are often local experts in specific countries who provide quick and direct access to student
markets, are more cost-effective than sending recruiters abroad, and less risky than managing
international recruitment on their own (Engberg, 2013; Özturgut, 2013). Those who defend
international student recruitment agencies argue that agents can be regulated through
certification and due diligence (Engberg, 2013). The American International Recruitment
Council (AIRC) is a non-profit organization established in 2008 to establish quality standards
and certification of international student recruitment agencies to protect international students
and enrolling institutions (Dunnett, 2009; West & Addington, 2014). However, AIRC does not
have enforcement capabilities, and its ability to regulate member agencies has been questioned
(Dunnett, 2009).
One study found that 80% of Chinese students use international recruitment agencies
(Dunnett, 2009). According to a study consisting of Chinese undergraduate students in the U.S.,
little knowledge of the college application process was the top reason (72%) that motivated
students to use an agent during the application process (Zhang & Hagedorn, 2011). In addition, a
lack of knowledge in the perceived complex visa application process and limited knowledge of
HEIs in the U.S. were the second and third top reasons for using an agent (Zhang & Hagedorn,
2011).
34

Opponents of commission-based agents contend that the practice is unethical because it
incentivizes agents who may not have the institutions’ best interest in mind, especially when
their pay is commission-based (Dunnett, 2009; Engberg, 2013). Some argue that the practice
goes against traditional domestic student recruitment practices, can cause application fraud, and
tarnishes the American HEI’s brand (Dunnett, 2009; Engberg, 2013). Critics of commission-
based agents have even advocated for a ban on the use of agents for the recruitment of
international students, like the ban that the U.S. federal law and NACAC had on commission-
based recruitment of domestic students in the U.S. (Dunnett, 2009). While NACAC does not
endorse the practice of commission-based international recruitment, it modified its Statement of
Principles of Good Practice (SPGP) in 2013 to allow member institutions to utilize agencies
(Dunnett, 2009; West & Addington, 2014). However, NACAC’s SPGP and its guide on
international student recruitment agencies specifically detail standards for ethical recruitment to
ensure institution members’ accountability, transparency, and integrity (West & Addington,
2014).
Community Colleges in the United States
The establishment of community colleges in the United States dated to the early

20th
century and was tied to the need to fulfill the workforce demands of emerging industries and the
drive for social equality through access to higher education (Cohen & Brawer, 1989; Phillippe &
Sullivan, 2005). Two-year colleges, including community colleges, were initially referred to as
junior colleges and were later renamed community colleges in the 1960s and 1970s (Beach,
2012; Cohen & Brawer, 1989). The growth of community colleges was part of greater demand
for access to higher education as secondary school enrollments began to increase in the early
1900s and expanded when the percentage of eighteen-year-olds who started college grew from
35

5% in 1910 to 45% by 1960 (Cohen & Brawer, 1989; Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005). While
community colleges provide access to those who could not afford or be admitted into
competitive universities, others viewed them to limit access to higher education for social
efficiency (Beach, 2012; Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005).
During the Post-World War II years, community colleges expanded vocational program
offerings to support soldiers returning home, who used their government-issued GI Bill funding
to transition into civilian life (Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005). The 1960s marked the expansion of
community colleges during an era when the so-called Baby Boomer generation enrolled in
college, the post-war economy was strong, and parents began to see college as a necessity. Many
took advantage of military draft deferments for full-time students (Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005).
As a result, more than one million students enrolled in the 700 community colleges in the 1960s
(Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005). During this time, the notion of the
community college as a comprehensive college came to fruition when local sponsors prompted
them to offer a wide range of offerings, from transfer education, non-credit courses, and
vocational training, to customized training for businesses (Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005).
While many community colleges started with the mission to provide a bridge for students
to transfer to a 4-year college, the mission statements have greatly expanded to include
occupational education, workforce development, career technical education, and technology
transfer, among others (Beach, 2012; Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Today, community colleges are
expected to maintain the programs developed in the past while adapting to the multiple, often
competing demands of today’s increasingly diverse student population (Beach, 2012; Cohen &
Brawer, 2003).
36

Enrollment within U.S. community colleges expanded rapidly in the early 21st century,
accounting for about 50% of the 2.8 million-student increase in total undergraduate enrollment
from 2006 to 2011 (American Association of Community Colleges, 2019; Schmidt, 2018). The
increase was primarily attributed to the impact of the Great Recession of 2008 when the labor
market suffered, and many Americans turned to community colleges as a quick and affordable
way to enhance their training (Schmidt, 2018). Between 2006-2010, overall community college
enrollment increased by 20.3% and hit an all-time high, with over 8 million students enrolled in
2010 (AACC, 2019). Hispanic students nearly doubled between 2001-2017 and comprised over
one-quarter of the total community college student population (AACC, 2019; Schmidt, 2018).
African American students formed the next largest minority group at community colleges,
representing 14.6% (1.17 million students) of the total community college population at its peak
in 2011 (AACC, 2019; Schmidt, 2018).
California Community Colleges
In 1930, there were 450 junior colleges spanning across the nation in all but five states
(Cohen & Brawer, 2003). California was the leading state by 1930, accounting for 20% of public
community colleges and one-third of all community college students in the U.S. (Cohen &
Brawer, 2003). In the 1960s, California’s Master Plan for Higher Education established a
framework for California’s postsecondary institutions, stating that the primary mission of
California Community Colleges (CCC) is to provide vocational and academic programs for the
first two years of undergraduate education for both traditional-aged and older students (Chapa &
Schink, 2006). CCC play a significant role within the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education
because of its open access and pathway for economically and socially minoritized students to
obtain a degree. CCC admits and enrolls any student able and willing to benefit from the
37

instructional program(s) offered (Chapa & Schink, 2006). The master plan also expressed the
goal of enrolling at least one community college transfer student for every two freshmen enrolled
into a California State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) institution. All eligible
community college transfer students would be given priority over freshmen in the admission
process (Chapa & Schink, 2006).
Today, California Community Colleges represent the nation's most extensive higher
education system, serving 2.2 million students and accounting for one out of every four
community college students in the United States (California Community Colleges, 2020;
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2020). The CCC system is an open-access
system that serves a diversity of students in terms of race, ethnicity, age, and levels of
educational attainment. (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2020). However,
student success has been a challenge among CCC, whereby only 48% of students earn a degree,
certificate, or transfer to a 4-year institution within six years (California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2020). The challenge disproportionately affects students who are considered
underrepresented or minoritized (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2020).
International Student Enrollment in Community Colleges
While community colleges were established for American students living in local
districts and were intended to provide low-cost, workforce, and technical education primarily for
its residents, community colleges are not immune to the impact of internationalization
(Hagedorn, 2020; Raby, 2020). Between 1969 and 1974, several initiatives supported
international education within community colleges, such as the emergence of the first
international student support systems and the establishment of the American Council on
38

International Intercultural Education (ACIIE) in 1974 as well as the creation of the Community
Colleges for International Development (CCID) consortium (Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Publications dating back to the 1980s cited political, humanistic, cultural, and economic
rationales for internationalization within community colleges (Anayah & Kuk, 2015; Hagedorn,
2020; Raby & Valeau, 2007). Political motives for international education efforts in the US have
been tied to in its early days of the Cold War and later reiterated in the post 9/11 era to enhance
national security, build diplomatic relations, and remain a world power (Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Humanistic motivations are tied to the importance of understanding multiple cultures, building
empathy, and becoming culturally competent citizens able to respect and appreciate differences
(Raby & Valeau, 2007). For example, publications and conferences from the ACIIE emphasized
the need to develop globally competent students and the importance of international education to
the community college mission in an increasingly competitive global environment (ACIIE, 1996;
Brennen & Dellow, 2013; Raby et al., 2016).
The economic rationale for internationalization in community colleges that became
prominent in the 1980s was tied to the need to train the local workforce to thrive and maintain a
competitive edge in an increasingly global society (Hagedorn, 2020; Levin et al., 2017; Raby &
Valeau, 2007). During the 1990s, community colleges started to shift their missions to meet the
demands of business and industry (Levin, 2001). In the past couple of decades, there has been an
explicit push to include international education within community colleges’ institutional mission
statements as well as state and national policies (Raby & Valeau, 2007). Additionally, the
economic benefits of internationalization have increasingly focused on the enrollment of
international students as more administrators and enrollment managers of community colleges
39

recognized the financial advantage international students provide their institution and the local
economy (Anayah & Kuk, 2015; Hagedorn, 2020; Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Despite an increase in U.S. community college student enrollment during the first decade
of the 21
st
century, the total enrollment declined by more than one million students (14.4%)
between 2010 and 2017 (American Association of Community Colleges, 2019). The decline in
enrollment has led several community colleges to turn to alternative sources of income (Anayah
& Kuk, 2015). For many community colleges, the financial benefits of enrolling international
students relieve some of the pressure to generate revenue amidst declining domestic student
enrollment and state budget cuts (Anayah & Kuk, 2015; Brennen & Dellow, 2013; Hagedorn,
2020). For example, fees for out-of-state, non-California resident students, including
international students, are approximately eight times the rate paid by California resident students
at Santa Monica College (Hagedorn, 2020). In addition, international students have high
retention rates, and many can attend school full-time since their families may finance their
education (Brennan & Dellow, 2015; Evelyn, 2005).
International students are drawn to American community colleges for many reasons,
including affordable courses, the opportunity to transfer to a competitive 4-year university,
vocational courses, and credit fulfillment (Anayah & Kuk, 2015; Hagedorn, 2020). International
students and their parents often have unique motivations, including the belief that an American
college is more valuable than a degree from their home country, whether due to perception or the
position of power that the US exerts globally (Bohman, 2010). For others, community colleges
offer a diverse range of vocational courses and the opportunity to take English preparatory
courses (Bohman, 2010). From 1999/2000 to 2016/17, the number of international students
enrolled within associate’s granting institutions increased 37% from 70,616 to 96,472 (Open
40

Doors, 2019). The growth in the number of international students at community colleges has
resulted from intentional recruitment and enrollment efforts for some schools and the growing
popularity of community colleges both nationally and internationally (Anayah & Kuk, 2015).
Some community colleges have developed strategic enrollment plans targeting
international students, including recruitment, retention, and various student services (Hagedorn,
2020). Community colleges have used similar recruitment strategies as 4-year universities, such
as online marketing, recruitment fairs, including those sponsored by EducationUSA, engaging
alumni who have connections to critical areas, and the use of international recruitment agencies
(Choudaha et al., 2013; Hagedorn, 2020). Although commission-based agents remain
controversial, some community colleges have justified the necessity of working with agents due
to their constrained resources and financial limitations that often prohibit enrollment managers
from engaging in expensive recruitment strategies such as traveling abroad (Choudaha et al.,
2013; Hagedorn, 2020). However, the internationalization of community colleges and the focus
on recruiting international students has become a contested topic. Some believe that focusing
efforts and resources on international students turns the focus away from local students,
including those from historically minoritized populations (Smith & Ota, 2013).
Internationalization vs. Local Effort Tension
Community colleges face a conflict in identity between their historical purpose of serving
the local community and its contemporary expectation of adapting and responding to global
changes and external stakeholders (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Levin, 2010). Historically,
community colleges were nonselective institutions with a mission of open access and focused on
underserved local populations (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Meier, 2013). However, community
colleges are not immune to the external impact of globalization and pressure to internationalize
41

their campuses to meet the educational needs of students (Ng, 2007; Viggiano et al., 2018).
Community colleges face market-based forces often with fewer resources and strategies to
effectively respond to competing pressures of internationalization and localized efforts (Eckel,
2008; Viggiano, 2018).
According to the ACE’s Center for International and Global Engagement (CIGE), over
40% of community college administrators throughout the U.S. reported that their school had a
dedicated task force for campus-wide internationalization efforts (CIGE, 2017). However, only
about 20% of community colleges reported having a separate strategic plan that specifically
addressed campus-wide internationalization efforts (CIGE, 2017). According to Raby and
Valeau (2007), a dichotomy exists between community college leaders’ promotion of
internationalization in terms of what they verbally say and the practices and programs they
implement.
Internationalization Debate in Community Colleges
While there has been support for internationalization among community colleges, not all
stakeholders believe internationalization should hold a prominent role in the mission of
community colleges (Evelyn, 2005; Raby & Valeau, 2007). About half (49%) of administrators
within postsecondary institutions reported that their mission statements specifically mentioned
internationalization (CIGE, 2017). However, an examination of community college mission
statements by Hagedorn (2020) indicated that while a handful mention developing globally
competent citizens, not even one specifically mentions international students.
There is also a debate about what “community” refers to for community colleges in the
geographical sense (Raby & Valeau, 2007). In this context, internationalization directly
competes with local efforts to serve the people and economy of the community that
42

geographically surrounds the community colleges (Levin, 2010; Raby & Valeau, 2007). Those
who support efforts only to serve the local economy, including local politicians, argue that
international students take seats away from local students (Evelyn, 2005; Raby & Valeau, 2007).
This point of contention was brought up in boards of California community colleges that engage
in recruitment efforts targeting international students yet turned away thousands of local students
due to budget constraints (Evelyn, 2005). However, those in support of internationalization argue
that the term “community” should extend its meaning to the global community and welcome
international students (Raby & Valeau, 2007; Raby, 2020).
While economic reasons have been a critical motivator for community colleges to recruit
international students, financial barriers have also hindered the advancement of
internationalization efforts on campus (Anayah & Kuh, 2015; Raby & Valeau, 2007). Economic
concerns have included chronic underfunding, elimination of programs, and focusing too much
on economic trends such as emphasizing vocational education at the expense of other aspects of
the community college mission (Anayah & Kuh, 2015; Evelyn, 2005; Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Issue of Access
The internationalization of community colleges has created concern for some
stakeholders who fear that efforts to recruit and support international students shift focus away
from local, historically minoritized students (Anayah & Kuh, 2015; Smith & Ota, 2013). Central
to the tension surrounding internationalization, including the enrollment of international students,
is the issue of access (Falcetta, 2005; Raby & Valeau, 2007; Smith & Ota, 2015). Another
argument is that international study abroad experiences are a luxury that historically minoritized
students often cannot afford due to financial constraints and competing priorities, such as the
need to work while going to school (Falcetta, 2005; Raby & Valeau, 2007). Therefore, unless
43

community colleges intentionally develop programs such as shorter, academically enriching
study abroad opportunities that serve the needs of its students, access would not be equitable
(Falcetta, 2005).
A few researchers have argued that supporting students from historically minoritized
communities does not have to result in the loss of supporting international efforts (Raby, 2020;
Smith & Ota, 2013). Raby and Valeau (2007) argued that denying historically underrepresented
students the opportunity to interact with international students and participate in study abroad
programs would deprive community college students of access to all necessary academic
experiences. Furthermore, since the choice for some students is not between community college
and a four-year university but rather a community college or nothing, international education at
community college is often the only opportunity for students to expand their global perceptions
and understanding (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Therefore, removing or underfunding international
programs would create educational inequity as community colleges proportionally provide
access to international education to more minoritized and low-income students than any other
higher education institution (Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Raby (2020) stressed that to continue to push internationalization efforts within
community colleges, they must emphasize that international is not the opposite of local (Raby &
Valeau, 2007). Leaders must prioritize and lead internationalization efforts that are sustainable
and not impacted by changing times and institutional circumstances (Raby, 2018, p. 17).
Institutions must avoid “haphazard implementation of services that reinforce hegemonic patterns
whereby some students are given access to life-altering experiences while others are denied those
experiences'' (Raby, 2020, p. 4). Raby (2020) further argued that the limits of student success are
connected more to a lack of concerted efforts than a lack of student interest.
44

Conceptual Framework
This study utilized open systems theory as the theoretical lens to examine how the
community college environment is impacted by globalization and external pressures to meet
demands and seek resources from its external environment (Frost, 2009; Williams et al., 2005).
Community college enrollment and student services personnel were the focus of this study to
understand how they approach the challenge of the commitments to serving the local community
while advancing internationalization efforts.
Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) was utilized as
part of a conceptual framework to address the increasing need to build inclusive, diverse
environments that mutually benefit historically minoritized domestic students and international
students. While the DLE recognizes multiple dimensions and contexts as vital to creating diverse
learning environments, this study focuses on the organizational and psychological dimensions of
staff members within community colleges.
Open Systems Theory
The notion of systems theory was first conceptualized in the 1930s and appeared in
publications after World War II when researchers applied its concepts across several academic
disciplines (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Katz & Khan, 1966). Systems theory was initially
developed by biologist von Bertalanffy who examined how “open systems” exchanged matter
with the environment (von Bertalanffy, 1956, 1972). Since systems theory deals with the
structure, relationships, and interdependence issues, the open systems concept makes it highly
applicable to social organizations (Katz & Khan, 1966; Kessel & Mink, 1971). The term General
Systems Theory was used to recognize that the theory could be applied more broadly to other
academic disciplines (von Bertalanffy, 1972, p. 414).
45

The open systems theory became an accepted model for organization theory decades later
when Scott (1961) highlighted how modern organization theory and general systems theory both
view organizations as an integrated whole (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). The theory was used to
analyze the relationships among multiple subsystems within an organization and studies how
organizations are interconnected (Birnbaum, 1988; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Organizations
are influenced by their environments that include not only other organizations and groups but
also by social activities (Frost, 2009). An organization’s openness to the external environment
enacts a process whereby the members of the organization make meaning of the events that
occur and identify new resources (Weick, 1969).
As an organization, higher education institutions are open systems, constantly influenced
by and interacting with their external environment in exchange for its limited resources
(Williams et al., 2005, p. 5). Inputs for colleges and universities can consist of financial
resources, students, faculty, state legislatures, and laws that interact with the campus’s processes
and structure to produce outputs (Frost, 2009; Williams et al., 2005). According to systems
theory, universities, like other organizations, are constrained by external factors such as financial
resources and external rules and regulations (Kessel & Mink, 1971). Higher education
institutions face a challenge to maintain an equilibrium or balance between the external and
internal forces (Frost, 2009; Kessel & Mink, 1971). Systems theory applies to the decision-
making process as it attempts to identify alternatives and evaluate consequences to make a
decision that is most likely to result in the most preferred outcomes (Kessel & Mink, 1971;
Lyden & Miller, 1967).
Community colleges are open systems, impacted by globalization, and increasingly
receive inputs and seek resources from their external environments (Frost, 2009; Williams et al.,
46

2005). Traditionally, college campuses have been viewed as closed systems where organizational
change, strategy, and adaptations are predominantly issues of internal structures and decision-
making (Williams et al., 2005). By instead viewing campuses through a systems lens,
institutional actors can realize how one’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions, like the DLE’s
psychological and behavioral dimensions, are impacted by the relationship with the external
environment (Hurtado et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2005).
The future of community colleges depends on how they interpret and apply the inputs to
their mission (Frost, 2009). Community colleges face the challenge of managing the diverse
local needs and inputs while navigating a global higher education environment (Frost, 2009;
Levin, 2001). Furthermore, Levin (2001) explains that a college’s global context not only
impacts colleges via external pressure, but that globalization has already become internalized,
which is reflected in the emphasis on economic productivity and the commodification of
education (p. 13).
Campus Climate - Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE)
Researchers such as Peterson and Spencer (1990) have defined campus climate in various
ways. They described the climate as a reflection of the environment's common attitudes,
perceptions, or observations. However, there is not a consensus on the definition of campus
climate across the field of higher education. Hurtado (1994) developed one of the first theoretical
models of a campus climate that transformed campus climate from intangible concepts to
specific components that could be documented and measured to demonstrate consequences for
students (Hurtado, 1998; Hurtado et al., 2012). This study also considered the role of campus
climate and its influence on minoritized and international students in community colleges. The
original research-based model by Hurtado et al. (1998) consisted of four dimensions that defined
47

campus diversity climate and provided tools for higher education practitioners to improve
campus climate. The four dimensions of an institution’s context include an institution’s
historical legacy of inclusion or exclusion of certain racial/ethnic groups; structural diversity,
including the numerical representation of racial/ethnic groups; psychological climate, which
includes perceptions and attitudes among groups; and behavioral which include relations among
groups on campus (Hurtado et al. 1999, p. 5-6).
According to Hurtado et al. (2012), while most broad access institutions acknowledge the
importance of educating diverse students, they may not be aware that they reproduce inequity
amongst their campuses. The need for educating diverse students is often most apparent within
broader access institutions such as community colleges, which admit most students and often
enroll more historically minoritized groups of students than other higher education institutions
(Hurtado et al., 2012). While broad access institutions recognize that their success is mainly
dependent on the success of their diverse students, all institutions must develop an awareness of
the role they may play in reproducing inequality that exists on their campus (Hurtado et al.,
2012).
Institutions must develop inclusive definitions of diversity responsive to historical and
broader contemporary issues (Hurtado et al., 2012; Williams, 2007). While the campus climate
framework has predominantly been focused on minoritized groups of American students and
race relations amongst domestic students, Yakaboski et al. (2018) argued that it should also
include international students who are impacted by and influence the climate. Although the DLE
model was intended to be inclusive of diverse populations of students, there is a lack of empirical
studies that apply the DLE model to international students, specifically within community
48

colleges. Faculty and staff should utilize the campus climate framework to evaluate its co-
curricular inclusiveness and its ability to promote intercultural learning (Yakaboski et al., 2018).
Within the institutional context, the DLE presents a multidimensional framework that
consists of five dimensions of campus climate that are believed to impact student outcomes,
including historical, compositional, psychological, behavioral, and organizational (Hurtado et al.,
2012). The institution consists of institutional and individual-level dimensions that influence and
are influenced by the campus climate (Hurtado et al., 2012; Peterson & Spencer, 1990). At the
institutional level, historical, compositional, and organizational dimensions (Milem et al., 2005)
impact the campus climate. While the DLE recognizes the multiple dimensions and contexts as
vital to creating diverse learning environments, this study focuses on the organizational and
psychological dimensions of staff within community colleges.
Organizational Dimension
The organizational dimension was added as a “fifth dimension” of the DLE model by
Milem et al. (2005), who argued that the original model (Hurtado et al., 1998,1999) did not
adequately address institutional policies and practices. The organizational dimension is intended
to represent structures that support the institutionalization of diversity amongst campuses,
including administrative decision-making processes, budget, diversity in the curriculum,
allocations, and institutional policies (Hurtado et al., 2012; Milem et al., 2005). The
organizational dimension represents the structure and practices of institutions that may oppress
or serve groups of students (Hurtado et al., 2012; Milem et al., 2005). There is limited research
connecting the organizational structures with the campus climate. Yet, the organizational
dimension is a crucial modification to the DLE because institutional entities can have the power
to reinforce inequalities and diversity on campuses (Hurtado et al., 2012; Milem et al., 2005).
49

Psychological Dimension
At the individual level, institutional actors' psychological and behavioral dimensions
impact the campus climate (Hurtado et al., 2012). The psychological dimension represents
students, faculty, and staff's attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding intergroup relations or
conflict. In examining the tension surrounding multicultural versus global learning, Charles et al.
(2013) utilized the psychological dimension to focus on how groups perceive one another. They
also used the behavioral dimension to understand how groups relate or do not relate to one
another. Ultimately, the tension between advocates of multicultural education and global
learning can be limited and hindered by psychological and behavioral climates (Charles et al.,
2013).
Campus climate assessment should be inclusive of multiple perspectives and include not
only faculty and students but also staff who have their own diverse identities and beliefs that
impact the campus climate (Hurtado & Dey, 1997; Hurtado et al., 2012; Mayhew et al., 2006).
From a theoretical perspective, staff members can serve as institutional agents who have the
ability and dedication to impart knowledge and influence on students directly and indirectly
(Stanton-Salazar, 2004, 2010). The impact on staff is often not studied but should not be
undermined in the institutional context whereby staff members’ perceptions directly impact the
organizational decisions that then affect students and the campus climate (Mayhew et al., 2006).
Furthermore, recognizing that community colleges are institutions that broadly impact and are
influenced by their external community and environment, the DLE provides a framework for
better understanding the interplay of these contexts.

50

Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the enrollment trends, motivations, and admissions
processes involved with international student recruitment within HEIs and, specifically,
community colleges. Each section discussed provided a context to understand the tension and
perspectives surrounding internationalization versus efforts to serve the local historically
minoritized student community. The conceptual framework of this study combined the open
systems theory and the Model of Diverse Learning Environments (DLE). The framework was
utilized to examine enrollment managers’ perspectives within community colleges and how (if at
all) they can balance the focus on international student recruitment efforts with the recruitment of
domestic historically minoritized students. The next chapter discusses the methodology used to
examine this study’s research question.

51

Chapter 3: Methodology
This study examined how community college staff members internationalize their
campuses while enrolling and supporting local, historically minoritized students. The study
focused on community college student services and enrollment staff to understand the
perceptions and challenges surrounding the enrollment and support provided to both
international students and historically minoritized students.
The conceptual framework of this study utilized the open systems theory and Hurtado et
al.’s (2012) Model of Diverse Learning Environments (DLE). Through an open systems theory
lens, institutional actors such as community college staff members’ thoughts, beliefs, and
actions, can be viewed in relation to the external environment. The open systems theory connects
with the DLE model, which explores how multiple individual-level and institutional-level
dimensions are influenced by the relationship with the external environment (Hurtado et al.,
2012; Williams et al., 2005). While there are multiple dimensions of Hurtado et al.’s (2012)
Model of Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) model, this study focused on the individual-
level psychological dimension of staff members and the institutional-level
organizational/structural dimension of community colleges.
To gain an understanding of the perspectives and challenges of community college staff
members, the following research question guided this study:
● How do community college enrollment and student services leaders approach
strategic enrollment and support of both international students and historically
minoritized students, if at all?

52

Two emerging questions for this study included:
● How can enrollment managers diversify their recruitment and enrollment
strategies for both international students and historically minoritized students?
● How can student services personnel foster a campus climate where historically
minoritized and international students mutually benefit from internationalization
efforts of community colleges?
Qualitative Research Methods
There were several elements of this study that warranted qualitative methods. According
to Maxwell (2013), the benefits of using qualitative research methods include the ability to
understand and make sense of a participants’ perspective of experiences, events, and situations.
Given the focus on staff members' perspectives at community colleges, this study used
qualitative interviews to make sense of the practices, beliefs, and interpretations surrounding the
enrollment and support of both international and historically minoritized students. Second,
qualitative research enables the researcher to understand the specific context and the impact that
the unique situation or context has on a participant’s actions (Maxwell, 2004; Maxwell, 2013).
This study recognized that staff perspectives were impacted by the context of the community
college and the external demands of the local community and larger international context. Third,
it is necessary to understand the process rather than just the outcomes of actions (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 1998). Additionally, qualitative research allows the flexibility to explore and discover
relationships that quantitative research does not allow (Maxwell, 2013). Since the research
questions of this study were not previously studied, it was necessary to explore relationships and
influences rather than comparison and generalizations.
53

Through interviews, this study aimed to obtain a deeper understanding of staff’s
perceptions of balancing the needs of domestic and international students. As Patton (2015)
explained, interviews allow a researcher to access another individual’s perspective to understand
elements we cannot observe, such as feelings, intentions, beliefs, and thoughts. In addition,
interviews allowed for the possibility to ask probing or clarifying questions that would not be
possible via quantitative methods such as surveys or questionnaires. Additionally, this study
conducted one-on-one interviews instead of focus groups because it was important for the
participants to be candid about their experiences without being negatively influenced, holding
back in their responses, or feeling judged by other participants.
Site Selection
According to Merriam & Tisdell (2016), purposeful selection of the site(s) was necessary
to collect appropriate data for the study. Since this study focused on community colleges’
enrollment and support for international students and historically minoritized students, it was
necessary to include institutions with significant enrollment numbers of both groups of students.
Given that California enrolls more international students than any other state in the U.S., this
study included community colleges in suburban and urban areas within California (Hagedorn,
2020; IIE, 2020). On a national scale, the institutions within this study are among the top 25
community colleges with the largest international student populations. For this study,
pseudonyms were utilized to protect the confidentiality of the participants and the institutions.
The first site, Reed Community College (RCC) (a pseudonym), was a large, two-year,
public, high transfer, Associate’s degree-granting institution. RCC was in a mid-size city of
Southern California and is one of the oldest junior colleges in the southwest United States. Since
its establishment in the 1920s, RCC’s student enrollment has grown from less than 300 students
54

to more than 35,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) enrolled students in 2018. RCC enrolls
approximately 1,000 non-resident alien international students representing over 70 countries and
accounts for 3% of the student population. RCC was designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution
(HSI), with 50% of its students classified as Hispanic. In 2018, the remaining student population
comprised 24% Asian, 15% White, 4% Black or African American, 4% two or more races, and
1% race/ethnicity unknown.
The second site, Marina Community College (MCC) (a pseudonym), was a large,
primarily non-residential public, associate’s degree-dominant granting institution. The college
was also established in the 1920s and serves approximately 30,000 students. MCC serves over
3,000 international students from over 100 different countries and has one of the largest
international student populations in the U.S. In 2018, students classified as nonresident aliens
within MCC represented approximately 10% of the overall student population, the third-largest
group of enrolled students by race/ethnicity after Hispanic (40%) and White (26%) students. The
percentage of nonresident alien students outnumber the percentage of students classified as
Black/African American (9%), Asian (9%), and two or more races (5%).
The two community colleges included in this study were classified as Hispanic Serving
Institutions (HSIs). The majority of the historically minoritized student population consists of
Hispanic or Latino students. Comparatively, Black, or African American students account for 2-
9% of the overall student population, and American Indian or Alaska Native accounted for 0% at
each school. Both campuses indicated a commitment to diversity and inclusion based on their
institutional mission statements. While similar in several characteristics, the community colleges
had different organizational structures to examine staff members' different decision-making
processes and perspectives.
55

Population and Sample
Patton (2002; 2015) asserted that the power of purposeful sampling is the focus on an in-
depth understanding of specific cases to maximize the effective use of limited resources. This
study used network sampling, a common type of purposeful sampling which involves finding a
few targeted participants who meet the criteria established for participation in the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This strategy was used given the limited availability and researchers’
access to the targeted population's participants. The population of this study included student
affairs staff members in community colleges who directly support international students or
historically minoritized students in varying capacities, including recruitment, enrollment, and
student support. The student affairs staff members’ direct involvement with international or
historically minoritized students was critical to understanding the perspectives on the campus
climate that exists regarding the support of both groups of students. The participants in the study
had at least two years of experience at their institution to have a sense of the campus culture.
Additionally, the participants’ race or ethnicity and national origins were also considered, given
the potential influence on their responses to the research questions. However, other background
criteria such as gender and age were not considered since they were not directly tied to the
research questions.
The number of participants selected in this study was based on having an adequate
number of participants who could answer the research questions posed (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). To maximize information when purposefully sampling, the researcher should reach a
point of redundancy or saturation in the responses, whereby no new information is being
obtained (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Guest et al. (2006) operationalized the concept of saturation
and found that saturation occurred through the perception and experiences of the first twelve
56

participants of most research studies. This study included a total of 13 participants to reach the
point of saturation in the information gathered through the perceptions and experiences of the
participants (Guest et al., 2006).
Researchers must strategically navigate relationships with gatekeepers to access the
targeted population (Maxwell, 2013). Since I had limited access to the community college staff
members, gaining access to individuals who met the criteria of this study was crucial. I utilized
relationships with key administrators who had access to and understood staff members’ roles and
responsibilities to help determine who would meet the study's criteria. An introductory email
from a critical administrator was sent out as an initial introduction to potential participants. I then
followed up with my recruitment email to each of the potential participants separately to avoid
the risk of having the potential participant feel coerced to participate. Additionally, I asked
participants involved in the study for access to any relevant institutional documents or data that
would help aid in the document analysis.
Instrumentation
The primary instruments utilized in this study were semi-structured interviews with
members within community colleges. As Merriam & Tisdell (2016) indicated, semi-structured
interviews allow questions to be used more flexibly and enable the researcher to capture the
emerging perspective of the participant to bring new ideas to the surface. The semi-structured
interview questions were structured to answer the research questions and utilize the open systems
theory and Hurtado et al. 's (2012) Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) as a
conceptual framework lens. According to Patton (2002), semi-structured interviews, provide the
researcher with flexibility to probe participants as needed to obtain more in-depth details,
57

increase the richness of the response, and gain clarification to help answer the study’s main
research question while also allowing emerging themes to surface.
The interview protocol could be classified as an interview guide (Patton, 2002) which
included the same fundamental questions to focus on predetermined subjects aligned with the
research questions. The protocol also offered the flexibility to use a conversational style to probe
and ask clarifying questions. The interview protocol began with an introduction to the study,
including the researcher’s role, the intention of the study, a confidentiality statement, and a
request for permission to record their voice to receive the participants’ consent. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the semi-structured interviews were conducted live and recorded online
via the Zoom communication platform. Each interview consisted of 12 main questions and lasted
approximately one hour.
In addition to semi-structured interviews, the researcher analyzed documents from the
community colleges to gain further insight and serve as a triangulation method. According to
Merriam & Tisdell (2015), documents can be the best data source, are often easily accessible,
provide descriptive and historical information, confirm emerging hypotheses, and track changes
and development. Another benefit of documents is that they are relatively stable, and objective
compared to other tools such as observations and interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This
study incorporated a variety of written, visual, and digital documents, including organizational
charts, public institutional data, programmatic reviews, strategic plans, and websites.
Data Collection
The data collected for this study was intended to help answer the study’s research
questions and included semi-structured interview data with student affairs professionals and
document collection for further analysis. Together, these data collection methods were
58

triangulated to answer and examine this study's research and emerging questions. This study was
approved by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) to proceed with data collection. After
USC IRB approved the study, I received approval to conduct the study based on the individual
institutions.
After receiving IRB approval, interviews were scheduled with participants based on their
availability. Prior to each interview, I provided an Information Sheet that included an overview
of the study, how the study would be conducted, a confidentiality statement, and a note regarding
the participants’ rights. Each of the 13 semi-structured interviews was conducted online via
Zoom, a web-conferencing platform, due to the COVID-19 stay-at-home health restrictions.
Before the interview, each participant was reminded of their rights, including the ability
to choose not to answer a question and opt out of the study at any time. I shared the information
sheet and encouraged the participants to ask questions. Additionally, I asked the participant for
consent to audio record the interview to transcribe their responses digitally. Patton (2002)
indicated that using a recorder does not eliminate the need for taking notes but allows one to
focus on taking strategic notes as opposed to writing verbatim. I also asked for permission to
take notes during the interview as needed. After the interview was completed, I asked for
permission to contact the interview participant to ask any clarifying questions as needed. In
addition, I sent a follow-up to thank you email with a digital $15 Amazon gift card.
Another form of data collection utilized is an analysis of documents from the community
colleges. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) discussed that the first step to collecting documents is a
systematic process of finding relevant materials that evolve from the topic. I collected documents
relevant to the study’s research questions, including the community colleges’ strategic plans,
annual reports, websites, and organization charts. Once relevant documents were found, I
59

confirmed the documents’ authenticity and accuracy by examining the document, including its
origins, author, purpose, and the context in which it was written (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The data collected from the interviews and document collection were stored on my
password-protected laptop, and the data collected was only accessible to me. The recorded audio
and transcribed data were stored in a password-protected backup cloud file. Pseudonyms were
used to protect each of the participants’ identities. The data will be erased after three years have
passed.
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, it is recommended that data collection and data analysis are
conducted simultaneously (Bogdan & Biklen, 2011; Merriam &Tisdell, 2015). By analyzing data
during the process of data collection, tentative themes or ideas can be generated, and the
researcher can avoid becoming unfocused or overwhelmed by the data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). I analyzed the data throughout the data collection process, starting with listening to the
audio recording and taking notes after the first and subsequent interviews. The process helped
me to remain focused, avoid repetition, and note potential themes that could be used to ask
subsequent participants to determine if the theme was consistent (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015).
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), data analysis aims to make meaning out of the
data to answer the study’s research questions. The first step of the data analysis process involves
coding, which involves taking notes while reviewing the interview recording or document
relevant to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 204). I first conducted open
coding that involved taking note of anything that seemed appropriate to the research question
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 204). I then completed the second cycle of coding that involved
60

grouping the initial open codes into pattern codes to develop categories or themes (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015; Miles et al., 2014).
The records were analyzed before, during, and after the data collection process and were
simultaneously analyzed to provide supporting evidence related to answering the research
question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In terms of data analysis of the documents collected,
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) also recommended using a system for coding and categorizing the
data early on, similar to coding interviews. I followed a similar open coding process and then
pattern-coded the documents aligned with the research questions.
While analyzing the interview and document data, I utilized analytic strategies to develop
deeper analysis, minimize bias, and avoid premature conclusions. The primary analytical tool I
used to conduct a deeper analysis of the data was questioning (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I
questioned the meaning behind the participant’s responses and questioned my initial assumptions
and premature conclusions by asking questions. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008), asking
questions enables us to take the role of the other so that we can attempt to understand the issue
from the participant’s perspective. Miles and colleagues (2014) also provide several strategies
that help critically analyze whether the meaning created from qualitative data is trustworthy. To
help minimize bias, I engaged in what is referred to as seeing plausibility (Miles et al., 2014, p.
278), whereby I questioned my initial conclusion to seek out potential threats to validity, such as
researcher bias.
Trustworthiness and Ethics
To maximize the validity and trustworthiness of this study, I used reflexivity and
triangulation. This study utilized a key strategy that Merriam and Tisdell (2016) refer to as the
researcher’s position or reflexivity. I explained my positionality and purpose for conducting the
61

study to the participants during the data collection phase. Triangulation involves using multiple
data sources and reduces the risk of bias from a particular method, data source, or researcher’s
positionality (Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2002). This study used triangulation to reduce the risk of
bias and increase trustworthiness by analyzing semi-structured interviews and the data collected
from several institutional public documents. The documents found and analyzed from both
colleges included organizational charts, brochures, programmatic reviews, strategic plans, and
websites.
As Glesne (2011) noted, privacy is often a key concern among participants, and it is
crucial to protect their anonymity and confidence. Measures were taken before, during, and after
the study to help ensure the ethical nature and integrity. Prior to collecting data, the participants
were notified of their rights and the voluntary manner of the study, which gave them the option
of not responding to questions or removing themselves from the study at any point without
consequences. I also asked for permission to audio record and transcribe their responses before
beginning the interview. I also confirmed with each participant that their responses would not be
tied to their name, and pseudonyms would be incorporated to protect their identity and ensure
confidentiality. To further protect the participants’ confidentiality, the data collected was stored
securely and will be disposed of three years after the study’s completion.
Positionality and Role
According to Maxwell (2013), researcher bias and reactivity are two threats to validity
associated with the researcher. While researcher bias cannot be eliminated, it is critical for the
researcher to reveal their values and perspectives (Maxwell, 2013). I identify as a fourth-
generation Asian American who grew up surrounded by individuals from diverse ethnic and
national backgrounds throughout their education. I have also had experiences living and studying
62

abroad which can influence my worldview and positionality regarding internationalization and
access.
From a professional standpoint, I recognize that my experience within recruitment and
admissions at a 4-year, private university may influence my researcher bias. My role in student
recruitment within a school that predominantly consists of international students from China and
India may also impact my researcher bias. Additionally, I have supported the advancement of
historically minoritized students within the same school and a secondary public institution. I
acknowledge my limited understanding of community colleges as a professional who has not
held a position within a community college.
To minimize researcher bias, I remained cognizant and reflective of my positionality
throughout the study. Recognizing that my positionality may lead to the urge to react to
participants’ responses while collecting data, I practiced interviewing and focusing on
objectively listening without reacting. I also questioned my judgment and initial reactions or
thoughts, especially while collecting and analyzing the data to minimize potential threats to
validity.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the purpose, site selection, population and sample,
instrumentation, data collection and analysis, trustworthiness and ethics, and my positionality
and role. Each section explains and justifies the methods used to answer the research questions.
In addition, the contents of chapter three will help inform the reader and provide a context for the
findings discussed in Chapter Four.
63

Chapter Four: Presentation of Data & Findings
Introduction
The focus of this qualitative research study was to understand the perspectives and
challenges of student services personnel regarding their beliefs about the enrollment and support
services of both international and historically minoritized students within community colleges.
The open systems theory and Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model for Diverse Learning Environments
(DLE) were used as a lens to examine the participants’ experiences.
The main research question guiding this study is: How do community college enrollment
and student services leaders approach strategic enrollment and support of both international
students and historically minoritized students, if at all? The two emerging questions were: (1)
How can enrollment managers diversify their recruitment and enrollment strategies for both
international students and historically minoritized students? (2) How can student services
personnel foster a campus climate where historically minoritized and international students
mutually benefit from internationalization efforts of community colleges?
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews of staff members involved with
enrollment and support of international and historically minoritized students. The study focused
on two community colleges in Southern California, Reed Community College (RCC) and Marina
Community College (MCC).
The purpose of this chapter was to present the findings from this study, examining data
collected from semi-structured interviews with 13 participants and through the analysis of
institutional documents. An overview of the participants from both Reed Community College
(RCC) and Marina Community College (MCC), and a brief introduction of the participants, is
64

provided before presenting the themes found in the data and relevant direct quotes from the
interviews.
Participants
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants. Seven participants
worked at Reed Community College (RCC), and four worked for Marina Community College
(MCC). In addition, two participants split their time working at both MCC and RCC.
Pseudonyms were used to protect the identities and confidentiality of the participants and the
community colleges. General titles and departments were also used to protect the identity of the
participants and their respective institutions. A summary of all participants is provided in Figure
1.1.
Reed Community College Organization
The participants worked primarily within the larger student services department
segmented within subdivisions. The participants worked in counseling, admissions and
enrollment, student equity, and pathways programs. The counseling division included the
International Student Services subdivision, in charge of international student recruitment and
enrollment efforts.
Reed Community College Participant Profiles
The seven participants from RCC included student services personnel, administrators,
and enrollment managers with various involvement with students, whether international students
or historically minoritized students. Several participants worked mostly with either international
students or historically minoritized students. The number of years of work experience of the
participants at RCC ranged from 2 to 30 years.
65

Gloria worked for RCC for 16 years total and was initially hired as a faculty member to
teach English as a Second Language (ESL) and enjoyed working with non-native speaking and
international students. She later transitioned into her role as the Faculty Manager of the first-year
experience curriculum, which involved the development of curriculum for first-year students.
Didi worked at RCC for over six years and served all first-year students as a general
counselor. While the students she worked with were diverse, she predominantly worked with
LatinX students and marginalized student populations under an HSI grant.
Alisha worked at RCC for 20 years and had been a tenured faculty counselor for the past
four years. She served as a coordinator for a program that provides Black students with resources
and services to contribute to their success. Alisha spent about 75% of her time serving
historically minoritized students and the remaining time with the general population, including
international students. In addition, she was a leader of the Black employee resource group at
RCC.
Tommy worked at RCC for 14 years and was a former student. He was a coordinator for
a pathways program that includes international students new to the college and worked with the
director of the international student services. However, his primary role was with the LatinX and
Black and African American students.
Joshua worked at RCC for two years, where he was the international student recruitment
lead. In his role, Joshua worked with international students from the recruitment and onboarding
stage through graduation or the transfer process. He served as the lead for recruitment and
communication strategies within the international student office.
Liliana was the director of international student services and had been at RCC for over
two years. Before working at RCC, Liliana had several roles within admissions at other 4-year
66

universities, where she primarily worked in international admissions. In Liliana’s role at RCC,
she managed a team that did everything from recruiting and admitting international students to
advising students through their time at RCC to help them achieve their next goal, whether
transfer, graduation, or finding a new job.
Kami was an international educational advisor and had worked for RCC for 5 years.
Kami primarily worked with international students from admissions and the application process
to advising international students once they enrolled.
Marina Community College Organization
The MCC participants in this study worked primarily for the enrollment services
department within various subdivisions and the academic affairs department. MCC's
organizational structure consisted of a centralized enrollment services office, with divisions that
included international education, outreach, and student engagement and enrollment services.
Unlike RCC, there was a separate international education division with its own vice president,
one of the four divisions housed within the enrollment services department.
Marina Community College Participant Profiles
The four participants from MCC included student services personnel, administrators, and
enrollment managers with various involvement with students, whether international students or
historically minoritized students. The participants’ years of work experience at RCC ranged from
10 to 32 years.
Liv worked for MCC for ten years, where she served in the outreach department as the
faculty lead in enrollment services. However, due to the pandemic and the impact on enrollment,
her role shifted to general and transfer counseling and teaching. Liv worked with both
international and historically minoritized students.
67

Gavin worked at MCC for 15 years and was the program manager of enrollment of
MCC’s bachelor programs. He was also an enrollment and support counselor for domestic and
international students, assisting students interested in transferring. Gavin was involved with
recruitment specifically for their bachelor’s program.
Colleen worked at MCC for over 30 years and was the international services center's
program lead and faculty lead. Colleen oversaw the counseling services of the international
services center and coordinated with the international admissions team on programming such as
orientation for international students.
Julio had worked for MCC for 13 years and was the assistant dean of recruitment and
student engagement. Julio managed the strategy, recruitment, and onboarding of historically
minoritized students in his role. He was formerly a tenured faculty member.
Participants working for Reed Community College & Marina Community College
Two participants represented MCC and RCC, splitting their time between the two
colleges. The participants provided insight and compared their experiences at MCC and RCC.
Susan had worked for MCC for almost three years as a counselor specifically for
international students and taught counseling courses. She also worked at RCC for three years on
a half-time basis as an academic counselor and provided insight into both community colleges.
Tully had worked as an adjunct faculty at MCC for 16 years. She was an academic
counselor for international students and guided them through the American education system,
including assistance with educational goals, transferring, communication with instructors, etc.
Tully had also been a general counselor at RCC for 12 years.

68

Table 1.1: Summary of Participants
Participant
Name
(Pseudonym)
College Primary Role/Focus

Years Employed
at the College

Gloria Reed Community College Historically Minoritized students
and the general population;
Curriculum
16
Didi Reed Community College Historically Minoritized students
and the general population
6
Alisha Reed Community College Historically Minoritized students
(75%); 25% general population

20
Tommy Reed Community College Historically Minoritized students
(primary); International students
(secondary)
14
Liliana Reed Community College International Student Enrollment
& Student Services
2+
Kami Reed Community College International Student Enrollment
& Student Services
5
Joshua Reed Community College International Student Enrollment 2
Liv Marina Community
College
Historically Minoritized students
& General population, including
International Students; Enrollment
& Student Services

10
Colleen Marina Community
College
International Student Services 32
Gavin Marina Community
College
General population, Historically
Minoritized students, International
Students Enrollment & Student
Services

15
Julio Marina Community
College
Historically Minoritized students;
Recruitment & Support
13

Tully Marina Community
College & Reed
Community College
International Students at RCC;
General population at MCC;
Student Services Counselor
16 years at MCC;
12 years at RCC

Susan Marina Community
College & Reed
Community College
International Student Services 3 years at MCC; 3
years at RCC

69

Themes
The themes discussed in this section were derived by analyzing the semi-structured
interview questions and institutional documents. The one-on-one interviews shed light on how
student services personnel at community colleges approached and perceived the enrollment and
support of international students and historically minoritized students. The institutional
documents that supported the findings included organizational charts, programmatic reviews,
strategic plans, and websites.
The themes were tied to the main research question: How do community college
enrollment and student services leaders approach strategic enrollment and support of both
international students and historically minoritized students, if at all? Overall, the participants
provided their candid thoughts and insight into their experiences, challenges, and passionate
beliefs about the enrollment and support of international and historically minoritized students.
The emergent themes derived from analyzing the participants’ interviews and institutional
documents are discussed in the following sections.
Theme 1: Student Enrollment Strategy – Intentions vs. Reality
Despite their well-intentioned, often tireless efforts, the interviews revealed how the
reality of finite resources, reliance on their reputation, and external challenges hindered their
ability to strategically recruit and diversify the enrollment of both domestic and international
students. Although nearly every RCC and MCC participant discussed their college's recruitment
efforts, there was no apparent overarching strategy for recruiting domestic, historically
minoritized, and international students.
Every RCC and MCC participant acknowledged their belief that the primary benefit and
intention for recruiting both international students and historically minoritized students was for
70

the diversity benefits they provide to the campus climate. However, nearly every participant
admitted that the reality was that their institution primarily focused on the financial benefits
international students provided. The RCC and MCC participants revealed that the stated benefits
of internationalization, including diversity, global awareness, and intercultural interaction, were
not a priority. While a few participants discussed their intentions to be strategic and diversify
their enrollment, the reality of financial limitations and the continuous pattern of recruiting from
top-sending countries and feeder high schools remained the focus. Instead, the enrollment efforts
were primarily limited to a bottom-line approach focused on the most cost-effective, safest, and
efficient means to boost enrollment.
The recruitment efforts for international students were discussed as distinctly separate
from the domestic “outreach” recruitment efforts. Most of the participants discussed the efforts
and challenges faced within each college’s international education office or programmatic efforts
focusing on a particular historically minoritized group.
A Passive Recruitment Approach
Reed Community College. While there was a desire to connect with prospective
international students directly, face-to-face, RCC was limited to no-cost or cost-effective,
“armchair” recruitment efforts. Five of the seven RCC participants discussed how international
student recruitment was limited to a “word-of-mouth,” primarily passive approach due to the
lack of an international recruitment budget. Liliana, the director of RCC’s international student
center, explained that they had their “...own sort of like admissions hub” and did not have a
recruitment budget. Kami, who worked in international student admission, also indicated that
RCC was limited to mostly word-of-mouth and what they referred to as “armchair” recruitment
for the past five years. Kami explained:
71

We never really had a budget for recruitment. So being able to travel, being able to print
out flyers pre-COVID time, obviously, has been a challenge because of the low budget or
actually zero budget for it. And so, with that, we are limited to what we can do to the
armchair, right? So, we call that recruitment.
RCC participants noted engagement in passive, armchair international recruitment activities,
including phone calls, email campaigns, zoom meetings, presentations, an international student
brochure, and partnerships with language schools.
Tommy acknowledged that there had been an intentional effort between RCC’s pathways
program for first-year students and the international education team to create a brochure for
international students, particularly for their Chinese students. He acknowledged that while it was
not groundbreaking, it was an intentional effort but admitted that RCC was “very much behind.”
in their international recruitment efforts. Tommy reflected on the contrast between what his idea
of recruitment was versus the reality of RCC’s recruitment efforts:
When I think of recruitment, I think of actually going to where the students are, you
know, I think of actually engaging in conversations and having interactions. The biggest
challenge is that we don't do any of that. So, it's really on a word-of-mouth basis, right
now. But again, if there was, you know, money for recruitment, or just an actual strategy,
that I think, would be a much easier way to actually go about that.”
Tommy brought attention to the lack of funding and a strategy for recruitment that resulted in the
missed opportunity for building relationships with potential international students.
RCC’s strong reputation was used to explain RCC’s passive, indirect approach for both
international and domestic recruitment. Two RCC participants suggested that international
students were self-motivated to go to RCC due to its reputation as a top transfer school and a
72

caring campus culture. This notion helped justify RCC’s passive recruitment approach, whereby
the need to engage in active, direct outreach to international students was not as imperative. For
example, Gloria said:
And it's just known by word-of-mouth that students who come here they're treated well,
and they transfer to the institution of their choice. And so, I think that culture of transfer,
the culture of caring for our international students, has really garnered us the reputation
amongst the international student population to come to our campus. So, it's kind of like
we did not have to do much external recruitment.
Joshua confirmed that RCC did not prioritize recruitment and relied on word-of-mouth
“recruitment,” whereby international students served as informal recruiters who would refer their
friends and family to the college. Joshua said, “…for years, they've relied on word-of-mouth as
recruitment. They didn't focus on recruitment at all mainly because we provided a good
education. Like we had good services so that students would tell their family and their friends”.
Joshua and Gloria’s thoughts alluded to RCC’s indirect but necessary approach of creating an
enrollment cycle whereby the robust student services and support would ultimately become their
college’s primary form of passive “recruitment.”
While RCC’s domestic student “outreach” was more active than their international
recruitment, three RCC participants remarked how their college’s brand and reputation
particularly attracted students beyond their districts. For example, Gloria explained how RCC’s
brand was attractive to students outside their local districts, resulting in the student population
not being reflective of the surrounding districts. She suggested that students go to RCC for the
name and the legacy associated with the college.
73

Although RCC’s brand attracted international students and domestic students outside
their district, Didi suggested it did not apply to historically minoritized students. She said, “I
think [RCC] is a well-known institution - it's one of the top community colleges, and sometimes
students might not see themselves there. So, it's the complete opposite.” Didi pointed out how
RCC’s reputation could be considered a deterrent to some historically minoritized students who
may not see themselves at a top community college. This idea suggested a potential risk of
relying on the college’s reputation. Didi recognized the importance of evaluating how RCC’s
outward appearance may appear to minoritized students and questioning, “…do they see
themselves in the brochures on the website, do they see themselves in the stories that are being
told? And so, I think that's the challenge...”
RCC’s website and brochure content supported the RCC participants’ discussion of the
college’s emphasis on the college’s brand and reputation. For example, the home page of RCC’s
website highlights its top ranking in transfers. There were multiple instances on their
international student webpages and digital brochure focusing on their recognition as a top
transfer college. In terms of the images, nearly every photo included students of color whose
phenotypic appearance demonstrated representation from diverse cultures. However, an
exception was the main admissions page which consists of four students whose phenotypic
appearance were all White females.
Tommy acknowledged how the institution’s overarching “recruitment” efforts were
limited by an apparent rule that their school could not reach out to high schools outside their
district. He stated, “There's an unwritten rule or a written rule somewhere, though, we can't be
the ones who say like, hey, we want to go recruit. But if they ask us, like, hey, can you come
present this thing? Absolutely.” Tommy distinguished that while they were not supposed to
74

“recruit” students, if a high school reached out to them, they would be able to present to the
school. This restriction pointed to the passive approach that RCC was limited to regarding
domestic recruitment beyond their borders. RCC’s events calendar on their website supported the
reality that RCC could develop relationships to host information sessions for schools inside and
outside their district. A few events were listed at high schools outside RCC’s district, including a
private school.
Marina Community College. The MCC participant interviews, organizational chart, and
6-year programmatic review revealed how financial, human, and time resources were spent
recruiting international students. MCC’s organizational chart indicated a dedicated international
education department housed under a more extensive department focused on enrollment
development. Colleen explained that three administrators oversaw the international recruitment
within the international education team. Colleen, Gavin, and Liv acknowledged that their
recruitment team historically traveled abroad and attended college recruitment fairs. However,
each believed that active recruitment was less apparent due to budgetary constraints in recent
years.
While MCC had an international recruitment budget and a dedicated international
recruitment team, the reality of budget cuts also limited their efforts to a bottom-line financial
approach. Liv was the faculty lead for outreach before the COVID-19 pandemic but explained
that the outreach team had merged with the counseling team due to the pandemic. Liv explained
how their recruitment budget was cut when the college was impacted financially. She disagreed
with the decision to cut back on recruitment stating, “…one of the things that they cut was like,
recruiting efforts, which, you know, personally, I don't agree with, because I feel like that is one
thing that you want to invest in more.” She further explained that while it was expensive to send
75

personnel abroad, the return on investment would be worth it in terms of enrollment. Susan, who
worked for MCC and RCC, agreed that both colleges could invest more time and energy in
recruiting international students. She did not believe that either college connected with
international students directly to guide them through the challenging admissions process the way
they did for domestic students.
Although the MCC participants did not acknowledge the existence of a strategic plan, a
6-year programmatic review and a strategic enrollment plan that included international students
were found. An analysis of MCC’s 6-year program review of the international education team’s
efforts indicated that their primary strategy for recruitment was building relationships with
“International Education Partners” or commission-based agents rather than directly with
students. The agents were described as a “key component of the college’s successful recruitment
strategy.” The review justified paying agents a commission fee as a more cost-effective approach
than traveling abroad. It also discussed how the agents served as a bridge between MCC and
international students from essential feeder schools and targeted countries. Part of their
international recruitment strategy was to increase the commission fee paid to the agents to
incentivize them to encourage more international students to apply.
Half of the MCC participants admitted that there was a reliance on their college’s
reputation and brand for their international student recruitment efforts. Gavin discussed how
MCC “touted” and “marketed” their reputation even on buses as a top transfer college and a
leader in their international student population. Julio also reflected on how MCC relied on its
reputation as a top college for international students. He said, “I think they've always relied on
them to naturally just get students from everywhere.”
76

The reliance on the college’s brand was also relevant to the recruitment of domestic
students, including historically minoritized students. Julio attributed the lack of attention to local
students in the community to a reliance on MCC’s reputation that attracted students beyond their
district:
I feel like at [MCC], we've always kind of ignored our local student population within the
community because our brand has always recruited outside of that. And even those, even
when I've encountered some local program, people from the city, that's just a sense I got,
you know, the level of commitment just wasn't there.
Julio explained, “So we've always relied on our high school student population. Okay, I think
that's been our bread and butter. And even the brand, we never really to be honest with you, what
I've always felt is that we never really had to work with you to expect that student population.”
His commentary alluded to the passive approach that MCC historically took with domestic
student recruitment.
Barriers to Diversification Strategies
Reed Community College. All the RCC participants involved with international
recruitment recognized the need to diversify their recruitment beyond the top sending Asian
countries to avoid a continued overreliance on East Asia and China. Liliana, Joshua, and Kami’s
responses reflected on the reality that while there were emerging ideas, diversification efforts
were not the priority. Joshua’s desire to target other non-traditional markets was limited by
budgetary constraints, a sense of urgency, and external challenges. Joshua acknowledged how
community colleges could be more accessible to international students from different non-
traditional markets than elite universities. However, the desire to recruit from non-traditional
markets such as countries in Africa was challenged by his supervisor, who viewed the issue of
77

racism and visa denials as a barrier. Joshua also discussed the various international students that
RCC attracted:
I think it's a challenge because I want to like, you know, recruit everywhere and like, you
know, like, we need to do some in Latin America, we need some in Africa. But my boss
is like, we need to be realistic and look at the trends. And she's also like; it's going to take
three years for you to build relationships with people. And so, she's like, for now, we
can't like focus everywhere, you need to like focus on some places. And she was like,
realistically speaking, well, I'd love to bring students from Africa there's just, you know,
the racism, like the racism and the visa process, is that they just have like, a lot of visa
denial. So, she's like, as we're trying to build recruitment, maybe that's not like, the first
place we go. But she's like, maybe in the next phase.
There was a sense of urgency to recruit from countries that RCC already had relationships with
and focus on countries where the likelihood of building relationships would be more efficient
and less of a risk.
Similar to the tendency to rely on countries where international students typically came
from, there was a tendency for RCC to rely on familiar feeder high schools and student groups.
For example, Alisha expressed her belief that there was an underlying notion at RCC that LatinX
students were more accessible to recruit than Black students. Alisha specifically discussed the
challenge of recruiting Black students and compared the recruitment efforts of Black students
with that of LatinX students:
As far as recruiting Black students, the only area that has been recruiting specifically, I'll
just say for Black students, would be [Illumina]. Now, other students like LatinX students
hate to say this, but I don't know if you know, [RCC] is 51%. LatinX, right. So, I will say
78

this; there hasn't been a program that says we're recruiting LatinX students. However,
because of the representation, right, the outreach staff. The outreach, you know,
programmers and who's picking what and whatnot, I've seen a lean towards them,
bringing in more Latino students. I would say we always say it's low-hanging fruit to get
LatinX students. But to get Black students, it's like pulling teeth. Because of all of the
dynamics, right, everything. All the noncognitive that’s involved with going to college.
Alisha alluded to the idea that because LatinX students comprised over half of RCC’s student
population, efforts tended to focus more on the LatinX students.
Nearly every RCC participant acknowledged intentional efforts through programmatic
activities to enroll historically minoritized students, especially LatinX and Black students. Most
of the participants discussed the efforts of federally funded programs specifically for LatinX
students or Black students who engaged in application days, family nights, information sessions
at high schools, and phone call campaigns. However, none of the RCC participants mentioned an
institution-wide strategic plan for the outreach of historically minoritized students. Tommy
pointed out how he had discussed with his colleagues how RCC had many programs intended to
support Black students but were duplicative efforts. He stated, “I strongly do feel that we do have
the resources to accurately support them; we just don't do it efficiently.” He further explained:
But when those same students have a variety of conflicting programs that are supposed to
help the student, but in reality, they're competing against each other for six students, it
doesn't really help the students in that respect. I, as somebody who's again been at a
college for almost 20 years now, I do think we do enough for our students, or actually, we
do more than enough, but we just don't manage it or really work together enough to make
79

it as efficient as it should be. I think that's where our students don't feel that sometimes
we support them enough.
Tommy’s discussion highlighted the need for RCC to utilize its resources strategically and
collaborate to avoid duplicative efforts.
Marina Community College. The MCC interviews, institutional website, and international
education’s programmatic review mentioned that the college was focused on global citizenship
and understood the benefit of global diversity. Despite MCC participants’ acknowledgment of
the value of diversifying their college’s student population and the institution’s mission to
promote global citizenship, participants admitted that affluent countries were the focus. Gavin
pointed to the reality of how the bottom-line approach to international recruitment was to target
financially affluent countries or continue to focus on their existing top feeder countries. In
discussing who MCC targeted, Gavin affirmed, “I would say that it's definitely related to
affluence. You know, like, depending on what country is the most affluent, or where they
historically see students who can afford to come from international countries, they will definitely
put more effort into it.” Gavin further explained how MCC would spend time and financial
resources to target familiar, top sending countries. There was a belief that less affluent countries
typically were overlooked.
Colleen explained how MCC’s diversification strategy for recruiting international
students did not intentionally target international students of color. Colleen admitted that MCC’s
international recruitment “does not follow the going after the Black and Brown students. You
know, we don't consciously recruit for that. We are trying to, but it's very difficult.” Colleen
further explained the challenge:
80

So not only are we looking for diversity, but we're looking for diversity who can afford to
live [here], which is, you know, one of the most, I hear, expensive places for international
students to live. So, I know our recruitment team, our administrators, they, they really try
hard to I don't know how they kind of sorted out, you know, by income by
socioeconomic status, you know, but they take all that into consideration because there's
no sense for us to recruit students who cannot afford to pay the prices. And that's just the
reality, because we have no scholarships for them really, you know, other than a yearly,
maybe two or $300.
Although MCC participants discussed intentional efforts to understand the needs of
historically minoritized students, the MCC participants were also not aware of a clear, strategic
enrollment plan. Gavin noted that there was no existing strategy to recruit historically
marginalized students. He had to take the initiative to reach out to his colleagues on campus and
at other community colleges to hold an information session. He also admitted, “…on the
counseling side, there's not really a strategy, to be honest.”
Julio admitted that MCC historically did not have a strategy for diversifying their
domestic student population, including historically minoritized students. However, he viewed his
position as an indicator of MCC’s emerging strategic efforts to analyze data to develop a strategy
to target diverse student populations, including non-traditional students.
I noticed that there was a lot of reporting out of enrollment numbers, but there was never
really a conversation about it; it got actually broken up by ethnicities, but there was never
really any conversation about enrollment strategies for different groups or processes, real
outcomes, it was really interesting to see that there was (sic) no set objectives, no set
outcomes, no set really strategies for how to engage the student population.
81

Due to the declining high school population, Julio recognized the need to diversify its outreach
efforts. He stated, “But now that their population is shrinking, I'm also noticing that we need to
do more work in other areas, such as community organizations, or even now we're starting a new
program on campus for our formerly incarcerated or system impacted students.” He recognized
the key to collaboration stating, “I’m really trying to leverage how we can collaborate more
efficiently and figure out how we can support students from non-credit to credit.”
Summary of Theme 1
The RCC and MCC participants repeatedly discussed well-intentioned activities to recruit
or provide “outreach” to domestic, historically minoritized, and international students. However,
the limited financial resources, reliance on their college’s reputation, and a lack of awareness of
a strategic plan pointed to the reality that the recruitment efforts were more passive. While there
were emerging ideas of ways to be strategic and to diversify their student enrollment, there was
not a clear, strategic enrollment plan acknowledged or implemented by staff members to enroll
both international students and historically minoritized students.
Theme 2: Inequitable Student Support - Tensions Revealed
Most of the participants felt that their students did not receive equitable support. The
participants from RCC and MCC revealed an underlying tension and differences in belief
regarding who received and needed more support, whether international students, historically
minoritized students, or a specific group of students. Regardless of whether one worked with a
particular group of students, nearly all the participants expressed their understanding of why
historically minoritized, particularly domestic Black and LatinX students, were considered a
priority compared to international students.

82

Conflicting Priorities
Reed Community College. Six of the seven RCC participants indicated that there was
tension surrounding the recruitment and support of international students and domestic students,
including historically minoritized students. While most expressed the desire and need to support
all students, the interviews revealed how the tension was tied to competing priorities and which
students needed more support amidst limited resources. Didi and Joshua discussed their struggle,
which became more apparent during the Black Lives Matter movement. Didi expressed how
finite resources were a significant struggle that forced the question of who they should serve
amongst all the different student populations. She stated:
There's a lot of different populations in which we serve. And there's always that
conversation of who needs more resources and who should be at the forefront. And, you
know, especially with the Black Lives Matter movement, it's like, there's always that
question of who should we serve? Right? First, you know, and it's like, I wish we can
serve all but with limited resources. There is this, you know, struggle. That's like, a big
struggle.
The RCC participants’ perspectives differed regarding which historically minoritized
students were prioritized at their college. For example, Joshua stated, “I do feel the tension
sometimes, especially since our school is really heavily focusing on Black students.” While he
expressed the tension he felt between the competing demands of international and historically
minoritized students, Joshua acknowledged they were not in competition since most of the
programs for Black students were grant-funded and applauded the efforts of his colleagues to
support Black students.
83

Disagreement regarding who should be the focus in terms of recruitment and support also
existed between staff members who primarily supported different groups of historically
minoritized students. Despite other participants’ belief that RCC’s focus was on Black students,
Alisha asserted that the focus was on LatinX students who received resources easier than Black
students:
So marginalized programs are not created equal on campus, not on our campus; Latino
groups, LatinX groups get things a lot easier. I'll just be honest, Black groups have to
scrape and beg or side. And again, I can speak for this because I worked there. I told you
how long I worked there.
Alisha also recounted how she had previously asked to have more hours to work with a Black
student empowerment group on campus but that the response from the administration was that
they would need to determine if there was a “perceived need.” She said, “…up until the
murdering of George Floyd, I'll just be honest...there wasn't a perceived need.” She asserted that
LatinX students and STEM groups received the most money and support while Black students
were limited to “leftovers.”
Alisha further expressed her frustration with the reasoning for why Black students
historically did not receive as much support based on their low numbers. Alisha revealed the
tension she felt between her views and that of her colleagues, asserting:
The mentality, and it was mentioned by two people in a meeting I was in yesterday, the
thinking behind that is cyclical or catch 22…why should we bring more Black students in
if they're not succeeding? One person said that, and the other person said, “Why should
we bring more Black students in if we don't have enough services for them?” I say, we
84

don't have enough services for them, because there's not enough Black students you
know, I just like went in a cycle.
Alisha further contrasted between the recruitment of international students versus Black students
stating, “We don't have that ‘we want you’ [Black students] for them. Okay. Um, as opposed to
international students, the ‘I want’ is huge.” She explained how this was particularly an issue,
noting, “in that sense, it's not equitable.” Alisha’s perspective uncovered the tension and
conflicting priorities of recruitment, enrollment, equity, and retention.
While there was disagreement regarding who needed more support, all the RCC
participants rejected the notion that international students take seats away from domestic
students. Most of the RCC participants also disagreed with the idea that international students
shift focus away from historically minoritized students. Joshua rejected the “false dichotomy” of
international students versus domestic students and said:
And the reality is, yeah, there are a finite amount of like resources. But just because we
support our BIPOC students well, that doesn't mean we can't also support international
students. Well, that doesn't mean we can't recruit international students. That doesn't also
mean we can't recruit minoritized students, you know, it's not an either or, and so I think
that's like a false mindset. And if anything, we need both of these groups in the classroom
together, you know, a lot of our marginalized students are immigrants, you know, a lot of
our marginalized students also, they may not have the resources to, like, you know, go
study abroad someday.
Joshua’s discussion highlighted the importance of recruiting international and historically
minoritized students for intercultural interaction. He shined a light on the need to bring both
85

groups of students together especially given that many historically minoritized students did not
have the ability to study abroad.
Marina Community College. All the MCC participants believed there was tension
regarding the enrollment and support of historically minoritized and international students. Gavin
and Julio felt that international recruitment shifted focus from the outreach efforts of historically
minoritized students. Gavin expressed the assumption that there was a lot of money being spent
on international student recruitment that he felt could be used to recruit historically minoritized
students:
…the amount of recruitment and money they're probably putting into international
students, they could also be using that to recruit historically marginalized students as
well. And, you know, shifting that away from the local, you know, population. So, I think
there is, you know, both sides of the coin like they’re, you know, I do see the benefit of
what, you know, the administration is saying, like, well, because international funds pay
more, and we keep a portion of it, then we can use this to help fund this.
While Gavin understood the administration’s mentality, he further questioned why the sizeable
international recruitment trips and extra resources didn’t go to the surrounding local cities where
he believed historically minoritized students needed their help the most.
Julio reflected on his past experiences as a counselor and expressed that he leaned toward
the belief that the focus on international recruitment took away from efforts to support
historically minoritized students. He explained how the focus on international students took
away from staffing and support of specific events for historically minoritized students. Yet, there
was specific international support staff, including a dean for international students. He stated,
“There is a targeted approach with our international [students] in the number of resources that
86

were available to engage those students, and processes that were put in place to help those
students onboard. Right. And so, let's just call it as it is, that's bread and butter coming in that
way.” Julio alluded to a focus on international recruitment and support that was not in place for
domestic students.
The MCC participants had varying views regarding whether students at their college
received an equitable amount of support. Tully and Liv did not believe that MCC provided
equitable support to students. However, Tully distinguished her belief that community colleges,
in general, were not equitable and that international students specifically needed more support. In
contrast, Liv focused on whether historically minoritized students were treated equitably. She
brought up the tension that arose during COVID-19 whereby an online proctoring software
called Proctorio created problems for students of color, especially African American students
because it did not recognize them or took significantly longer to validate their faces. She
expressed her belief that using the software provided inequitable access for students of color. Liv
explained how some instructional faculty still felt the pros outweighed the cons of the software.
However, Liv said, “And, you know, for me, it's like, well, if it's, you know, being a
disadvantage to even one student of color, it's like, it's something that we got to get rid of.”
Liv acknowledged how MCC tried to support historically minoritized students but
admitted that MCC was ultimately not equitable.
Again, like, could we be doing more? Yes, of course, I wish we could do more, and
maybe it's not for I don't know if it's for lack of will or just the lack of knowledge, but
there's a lot of things that we have to face like institutionally that are just barriers for our
students. So, are we equitable? No. Are we trying to get there? Is there an effort? I do feel
87

that there's a general genuine effort and desire, but it's not there. And I don't know when
we will get there, unfortunately.
Liv’s discussion further emphasized a genuine desire to support students equitably but that
institutional challenges prevented MCC from providing equitable support to students.
International Students Overlooked
Most of the participants revealed their belief that international students did not receive
equitable support. Additionally, half of the participants acknowledged that international students
were isolated or othered to varying extents. Nearly all the RCC and MCC participants who
worked within their college’s international education team acknowledged to some degree that
they operated in a silo and separated their efforts from the rest of the campus. For example, three
participants (Colleen, Kami, & Susan) referred to the international “bubble” that existed and
dealt with its enrollment efforts.
Reed Community College. Six of the RCC participants acknowledged that the needs of
international students were not a priority and did not receive equal support as domestic students.
Liliana asserted that international students do not receive the same support but expressed her
understanding of why historically minoritized students were the “worthy” priority of the
institution:
They don't receive the same amount of support. It's pretty clear. And again, I'm not
saying that it's a bad thing, but I think it's pretty clear where the worthy priorities are for
our institution. And I understand completely why it is that way. And again, I'm not saying
that it's not, it's it, it's just the nature of it. It's not fair. But that's just how it is for our
historically minority students, probably because I think we are a Title V school. I think
we have a pretty sizable grant, where we support a lot of our LatinX students.
88

Liliana further justified the focus on LatinX students since they were the largest student
population on campus and expressed that they were “…obviously deserving of it, and they need
the help.”
A couple of the RCC participants expressed differences between the participants’ beliefs
versus the “higher-ups” regarding student enrollment and support. Gloria, who primarily worked
with historically minoritized students, expressed a concern that the needs of international
students were often overshadowed. She asserted:
I think as a campus, our higher-ups, right our executive leadership really should
prioritize; I shouldn’t say prioritize but should look very carefully at the treatment of our
international students because I do feel that they are oftentimes overlooked.
Gloria recognized that the executive leadership within RCC needed to exercise caution regarding
their priorities and their treatment of international students.
Three of the RCC participants discussed an incident during the pandemic whereby RCC’s
administration announced that non-resident students, including all international students, were
required to pay for their tuition before the start of the term or they would be dropped from their
classes. The participants explained how RCC usually doesn’t penalize students for not paying
their tuition until the middle of the semester, but out-of-state students were given about a week to
settle their tuition. Susan expressed her dismay on behalf of her international students yet
understanding of the decision:
A lot of them suffered because they were given very short notice to start paying for their
classes. I understand where the college is coming from. I'm sure it was hard for our
administration to make that decision. But it just was just heartbreaking to see some
89

students, you know, especially if they didn't have the funds right then and there to pay for
their classes.
Joshua expressed his frustration about this decision, explaining how the administration's
reasoning was “because there's like $2 million in unpaid fees from your students.” He expressed
his interpretation of the decision saying, “And so, to me, that tells me like, you're only dropping
my students. So that means that you see my students as dollar signs.” Joshua’s comment
reflected the belief also expressed by every single RCC participant that the institution’s primary
motivation for recruiting international students was for the financial benefits they provided.
Two of the interview participants alluded to how the needs of international students were
muted by the higher priorities of the institution and the lack of an executive voice to represent
international students. Joshua pointed out that there was no executive-level advocate to voice
international students' concerns. He said, “We're not having those conversations with them
[higher ups].” This discussion pointed to the limitation of not having an executive voice to
advocate for international students.
There was also tension regarding physical space and the symbolic representation of how
much support or lack thereof it represented for a particular group of students. For example,
Gloria reflected on how a dedicated space for international students was taken away and
expressed how the decision was reflective of the college’s values.
But I think you know, space on our campus is something that people cause wars because
of space on campus. So, something happens, and that space is no longer there. And I
think just the fact that it was taken away really spoke to how the institution values or, you
know, does not value, creating a safe space for international students.
90

Gloria’s discussion of space was a symbolic representation of how international students were
not prioritized and valued and a point of tension that existed on campus.
Six of the seven RCC participants, including Alisha, acknowledged that international
students were often not prioritized and frequently overlooked. Gloria remarked, “I feel like our
international students are oftentimes they're, you know, they're kind of put into like a separate
category.” She explained how she recognized this when she taught several international students
in an ESL course and the frustrations other faculty members had with international students.
Gloria concluded, “So I would say international students are looked over even more than our
Black and Latino students.”
Marina Community College. The MCC participants who worked with international
students each believed that the focus of their institution was on domestic student recruitment.
Susan, who worked for both MCC and RCC, acknowledged that both colleges wanted
international enrollment yet lacked sufficient support for international students saying, “Yeah, so
we want the enrollment, but in terms of supporting students in a way that, that students want to
be supported, I feel like we lack.”
Susan felt that both colleges were primarily focused on domestic student recruitment. She
discussed how community colleges invested much energy and time in recruiting at local high
schools, which she believed was logical, saying, “I don't expect the same level of recruitment
and attention to international students. I mean, because there's, it's just outside of the United
States.” Despite acknowledging that it made sense that both colleges focused on domestic
students, Susan felt that there should be more of a balance. She felt that international students
should receive the same amount of support with the admission process:
91

I definitely feel that we're focusing more on our domestic student recruitment, and so it
would be truly helpful and beneficial if our international students can get that much
attention where we go out and reach out. I don't know, possibly travel, and meet with
them, do a presentation, help them go through the application process to workshops,
because these are all the things that we do with our domestic high school students.
Susan assumed that more international recruitment efforts were taking place at MCC versus RCC
based on the higher number of international students at MCC but still did not believe either
college was taking an active approach.
All the MCC participants rejected the notion that international students take away seats
from domestic students. Instead, most participants believed international student enrollment
allowed more course sections to be opened. For example, in response to being asked her opinion
about the notion that international students take seats away from domestic students, Colleen said:
You know, we've heard of that line so many times before too on our campus. And I
personally do not buy it. Because whenever, in fact, we feel that with the international
population, we are able to open more classes.
Colleen distinguished that while she personally rejected the idea that international students take
seats away from domestic students, some people on campus did have that mentality. Colleen
suggested that the campus culture was varied, but tension existed since she had been at MCC for
over three decades. She concluded, “So I don't see it as international students taking seats, just
yeah, culture on campus, I guess it's all over, and that's the way it was 30 years ago.”
Gavin also acknowledged that the tension between internationalization and
focusing on local, domestic students was primarily external and came from parents. He
explained, “…there is that, that stigma from for international students that they that somehow
92

they shouldn't be here, right.” Gavin gave an example of when he would go and give
presentations to high school students how parents would ask, “Who's getting the seat first? Is it
going to be an international student? Or is it going to be my student? Because I'm a local tax-
paying community member.” Colleen and Gavin’s discussion provided insight into the external
tension between internationalization and the focus on local, domestic students.
Summary of Theme 2
Most of the participants from both RCC and MCC believed that there was an inequitable
amount of student support. Although there was disagreement regarding which students were
prioritized, most participants agreed that international students were often overlooked or siloed.
While those who specifically worked within international education consistently revealed their
frustration over how international students were overlooked, they also expressed an
understanding of why historically minoritized students were a priority. Regardless of whether the
participant agreed with their institution’s priorities, most recognized why their college focused
on supporting historically minoritized students.
Findings Related to Research Question 1
The following section aligns the findings from the participants’ interviews and
institutional documents concerning Research Question 1: How do community college enrollment
and student services leaders approach strategic enrollment and support of both international
students and historically minoritized students, if at all?
There was no overarching strategic plan discussed by the RCC and MCC participants that
encompassed the recruitment and support of historically minoritized and international students.
Instead, the recruitment efforts at RCC and MCC were primarily decentralized, often embedded
93

within a programmatic effort that had its specific recruitment activities to support a particular
group of students.
Though the approaches for domestic and international student recruitment were unique,
the enrollment and support strategies for both international students and historically minoritized
students involved: (1) building external partnerships, (2) maximization of finite resources, and
(3) responsiveness to external challenges.
Build External Partnerships
Both MCC and RCC engaged in external partnerships to recruit international students and
historically minoritized students. The partnerships were considered necessary for international
recruitment to maximize their ability to connect with international students efficiently, even if
indirectly, while minimizing their cost and time efforts. Four of the participants from MCC and
RCC noted that they partnered with third-party organizations, such as EducationUSA,
international education partners or agents, and local language schools.
According to MCC’s international education program review and strategic enrollment
plan (SEM), building partnerships with international recruitment agents was a key component of
their recruitment strategy. By building relationships with the agents, it was believed that the
chances of those agents referring international students to their college would be higher. MCC
justified their use of commission-based agents by noting how these “partners” represented their
college abroad at college fairs, seminars, high school visits with students and their families, and
in-person meetings.
The recruitment of historically minoritized students also involved external partnerships
that extended beyond their local districts. Nearly half of the participants discussed how they
conducted outreach outside of their local area to assist primarily first-generation students,
94

historically minoritized students who needed additional support. Another strategy for recruiting
high school students was building relationships with counselors. For example, MCC’s strategic
enrollment plan (SEM) indicated that one of their outreach events was a high school counselor
appreciation day to build relationships and showcase MCC’s offerings. In addition, RCC and
MCC participants recognized the importance of building relationships with high school students’
parents and held events such as family nights to connect with parents of historically minoritized
students. MCC’s SEM noted a parent outreach committee with whom they built relationships to
further enhance the possibility of creating connections for enrolling high school students in the
local area.
Although none of the RCC participants discussed a specific strategic plan, an executive
summary for student equity for 2019-22 was found online. The document positioned RCC as an
“equity-minded,” “race-conscious” institute that serves a student body that is majority “Students
of Color.” The document acknowledged equity gaps for African American/Black students in five
key metric areas, including enrollment in the same community college. The admissions and
enrollment component were embedded in the support strategies, including developing more
personalized engagement starting with the application and enrollment stage, strengthening
relationships with local institutions and community partners, and providing equity-minded
training for staff members engaging in community-specific outreach and recruitment. The
document supported the finding from the interviews that the outreach efforts of historically
minoritized students were closely tied and embedded with the support and retention efforts.
Maximize Finite Resources
The high cost of international student recruitment prevents many institutions from
actively pursuing the student population (Choudaha & Chang, 2012; Kotler & Fox, 1995). The
95

financial limitations expressed by RCC participants pushed them to maximize their finite
resources by engaging in cost-friendly, passive, “armchair” recruitment techniques, including
email campaigns, virtual presentations, brochures, and phone calls. Another form of passive
recruitment used by both MCC and RCC was the reliance on their college’s brand and
reputation.
Partnering with international recruitment agents served as a strategy that MCC and RCC
used to maximize their ability to recruit from various countries that they otherwise would be
unable to reach given their limited budget. Both colleges also utilized their existing students as
domestic and international student ambassadors who served as volunteers to be advocates for
their college and assist with outreach and recruitment efforts. RCC’s executive summary for
equity indicated that they had student ambassadors who engaged in outreach and recruitment.
RCC’s website also displayed several international student ambassadors from various countries
to connect with new students and highlighted a mentorship program.
Although the intentional strategies were primarily specific to the individual team or
programmatic effort, some instances discussed by the RCC participants demonstrated
collaborative, cost-efficient efforts. For example, RCC indicated how the international education
team and the pathways team worked inter-departmentally to create a brochure for international
students. The personnel within RCC and MCC also served to maximize their human capital
resources, whereby most of the participants had multiple roles that involved efforts spanning
from recruitment through retention of domestic and international students.
Responsive to External Environment
The recruitment and support of international students and historically minoritized
students were often at the mercy of external political challenges domestically and internationally.
96

Nearly every RCC and MCC participant conveyed how the external political and economic
climate exacerbated the difficulties of recruiting and supporting both international students and
historically minoritized students.
The RCC and MCC participants discussed how they shifted their approach to enrollment
and support in response to external challenges. The barriers to international recruitment were
further heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic when travel was restricted, and community
colleges were forced to provide support virtually. The time zone differences, and limited
personnel dedicated to recruitment hindered both colleges’ capacity to connect with international
students. The RCC and MCC participants discussed their tireless efforts to communicate with
international students via webinar presentations and Zoom advisement sessions. For example,
Joshua from RCC said, “I’ve done like 30 or 40 online presentations across the world. I have
been waking up at like 1’m, 4am, like, you know, doing them in the middle of the night.” Liv
also noted that they tried their best to accommodate international students at MCC by offering
video appointments and wished they offered counseling at later hours that were not realistic.
RCC and MCC participants discussed how their college was also influenced and
responsive to external policy changes within their community. For example, three of the
participants brought up the passing of AB 705, which enabled international students to enroll in a
full course load before arriving in the U.S. MCC’s programmatic review stated that the
international education center fully revamped their pre-advisement process in response to the AB
705 policy change. MCC’s review noted how the staff expanded their online counseling services
to provide pre-advisement in students’ initial course selection.
Despite the challenges of the external environment, the external global events discussed
also served as a catalyst for RCC and MCC to re-evaluate their traditional practices, develop
97

emerging strategies, and collaborate. Half of the participants provided examples of how major
external events, whether within the U.S., another sending country, or globally, shifted their
department or institution’s efforts or emerging strategies. The realization of the need to diversify
and target other non-traditional markets rather than relying on China and other East Asian
countries was recognized partially in response to Trump’s travel bans, anti-China sentiment,
strict visa restrictions, and most recently, the impact of COVID-19.
Findings Related to Research Question 2
Through one-on-one interviews, institutional documents, and extant literature, emerging
strategies were found regarding Research Question 2: How can enrollment managers diversify
their recruitment and enrollment strategies for both international students and historically
minoritized students? Three overarching emerging strategies for diversifying domestic and
international recruitment were acknowledged: (1) targeting non-traditional students from diverse
locations and backgrounds, (2) expanding relationships with educational partners from a variety
of countries, and (3) building relationships with prospective students and families beyond the
institution’s traditional boundaries.
Targeting Non-traditional Students
The participants from MCC and RCC recognized the need to diversify their student
population and discussed the desire and some efforts to target non-traditional students both
domestically and internationally. In terms of international recruitment, three of the participants
discussed how they researched national trends to inform their decisions on which countries to
target. For example, MCC’s programmatic review conducted by the international education team
provided a summary of key takeaways guided by their research on market trends and their
anecdotal recruitment experiences concerning targeted countries. One participant from RCC
98

(Joshua) recognized the potential to diversify RCC’s international student enrollment by
targeting less affluent, working-class students who would be less likely to be recruited by elite,
costly universities.
MCC’s financial capacity to travel abroad before the COVID-19 pandemic enabled them
to build a pipeline of students from certain countries that were more receptive and open to freely
discussing strategies for targeting groups of students from their country. MCC’s international
education review noted how they built strong relations with non-traditional markets such as
Turkey and Brazil by repeatedly going to the nations to engage face-to-face via school
visitations, recruitment fairs, and agent training.
In recruiting historically minoritized students, nearly half the RCC and MCC participants
discussed how they extended their outreach efforts beyond their district’s boundaries. Over half
of the participants noted establishing and maintaining relationships with students, families, and
key personnel at high schools and community outlets. Three participants acknowledged how the
declining high school population demanded the outreach to non-traditional student populations
and new strategies. For example, Julio from MCC discussed emerging efforts to target non-
traditional students such as formerly incarcerated, non-credit to credit students, and community
organization outreach. By analyzing MCC’s Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) publicly
available plan, new markets such as continuation schools, community centers, adult centers, and
low-income centers were added to the outreach team’s recruitment enrollment strategy.
An analysis of MCC’s strategic initiatives for equity planning document noted that their
ability to achieve recognition as a top school in terms of transfer rates and international student
success could also enable them to achieve their student equity goals. The document alluded to
recognizing that MCC was not as strong in its student equity efforts compared to its focus on
99

transfer rates and international student success. The plan listed several objectives, including
developing an effective enrollment management plan. Additionally, an extensive strategic
planning report that incorporated feedback from staff indicated the need for clear, transparent
goals and objectives. There was also the suggestion to “Bring all of the scattered planning
processes into a coherent whole,” which alluded to the overarching need to have a strategic plan
encompassing the larger diversification, equity, and enrollment efforts.
Building Relationships Beyond Borders
MCC and RCC built relationships with external partners, including international
recruitment agents, local language schools, and third-party organizations. According to the
programmatic review, the agents recruited international students beyond traditional East Asian
countries. In some cases, international students from countries like Sweden preferred to apply
through agents. MCC’s applicant information reinforced this by indicating that more than 90% of
Swedish students applied through an agent.
Both MCC and RCC participants discussed various outreach events and activities
intended for a diverse range of students and their parents, from admission events to onboarding
and orientation programming. For example, half of the RCC participants mentioned outreach and
support efforts ranging from phone campaigns to assist Black students with completing their
application to parent nights with LatinX families to admission, onboarding, and first-year
experience events for new students.
Findings Related to Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked: How can student services personnel foster a campus climate
where historically minoritized and international students mutually benefit from
internationalization efforts of community colleges?
100

Nearly all participants questioned their college’s intentional efforts to encourage
intercultural interaction that mutually benefited domestic and international students. Half of the
participants remarked that it was something they felt their college needed to work on or had
planned to implement but were interrupted due to the impact of COVID-19. Four of the
participants recognized the need for collaboration between student programming teams to
develop cross-cultural events in the future. Half of the participants mentioned various campus
activities that could promote intercultural interaction. Still, most participants were unsure of
specific, intentional efforts for domestic and international students to mutually benefit from as an
institution. Instead, most of the examples the participants discussed left interaction between the
students to chance without intentional efforts from administrators to foster mutual benefits. Six
participants also acknowledged that most of the interaction on campus was student-initiated,
whether through clubs, student government events, or engagement during lunchtime events.
However, it was noted by a few participants that students from homogenous backgrounds tended
to isolate themselves from other groups of students and formed cliques that limited intercultural
interactions.
The intentional efforts implemented by staff members primarily were hosted by
individual program areas and first-year experience programs. A commonly cited effort
mentioned by four of the RCC participants was merging the former international student
pathways program into a general pathway for all students, which allowed for interaction between
domestic and international first-year students. Half of the RCC participants attributed their
intentional efforts to encourage interaction amongst students through their first-year experience
and pathways programs for new students, whereby Tommy indicated that they practically
“force” students to interact.
101

Conclusion
International student recruitment primarily focused on a financially driven, passive, and
indirect approach despite a desire to connect with students face-to-face. In contrast, the outreach
of historically minoritized students took an active, direct, and community-oriented approach.
Although emerging ideas and strategies were discussed, none of the participants acknowledged a
specific strategic plan for recruitment, internationalization, or diversification.
Both colleges also tended to rely on student enrollment from familiar, top sending
countries and feeder schools. While participants from both colleges recognized the importance of
targeting non-traditional markets and underrepresented students, the college’s financial
limitations, and the tendency to focus on familiar students, overshadowed efforts to diversify
student enrollment.
Most participants felt that students did not receive equitable support, whether
international students received more than historically minoritized students or between LatinX
versus Black students. Regardless of which group of students the participants believed received
more focus and support, most of the participants from RCC and MCC expressed an
understanding of why the focus was or should be on historically minoritized students.
The themes from this chapter are discussed in the next final chapter regarding the prior
research, conceptual framework, and implication gleaned from the findings.
102

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The anticipated decline in domestic, traditional-aged college students and the increasing
pressure to boost tuition revenue have resulted in higher education institutions, including
community colleges, seeking alternative enrollment solutions (Bontrager, 2004; Dunnett, 2009;
Wu & Naidoo, 2016). International student recruitment has become an avenue to address
community colleges' fiscal issues due to state and federal budget cuts (Viggiano et al., 2018).
The financial benefits of enrolling international students have alleviated some community
colleges’ pressure to generate revenue due to the decline in domestic student enrollment (Anayah
& Kuk, 2015; Brennen & Dellow, 2013; Hagedorn, 2020).
This study was conducted during the height of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which
negatively impacted the student enrollment of international students. The COVID-19 pandemic
added to the existing challenges that stemmed from policy changes instituted under former
President Trump’s administration, including travel bans, visa issues, and an unwelcome climate
for international students. Community colleges were particularly impacted by COVID-19.
International student applications reportedly declined at 58% of U.S. community colleges for the
2021/22 academic year, while 46% of higher education institutions reported an increase in
applications (Martel & Baer, 2021).
Community colleges in the U.S. face the challenge of sustaining their dedication to
supporting local, historically minoritized students, while generating tuition revenue and
internationalizing their campuses with finite resources (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Eckel, 2008;
Meier, 2013). This study also took place amidst the height of the Black Lives Matter (BLM)
when the demand for social justice, equity, and action rose to the forefront of national attention
and the large protests in California, occurred within the areas of the colleges within this study.
103

The competing demands and challenges to enroll and support historically minoritized students,
especially Black and international students, were magnified amidst the simultaneous COVID-19
pandemic and BLM movement. The importance of strategic enrollment and support efforts for
domestic historically minoritized and international students became increasingly salient during
this study.
The purpose of this study was to understand the challenges, perspectives, and beliefs of
community college staff members regarding their enrollment and support efforts for both
historically minoritized students and international students. Using the open systems theory and
Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) as a lens, the following
main research question is discussed in this chapter within the context of the study’s findings:
● Research Question 1: How do community college enrollment and student services leaders
approach strategic enrollment and support of both international students and historically
minoritized students, if at all?
In addition, this study sought to offer insight and recommendations concerning the following
emerging research questions:
● Research Question 2: How can enrollment managers diversify their recruitment and
enrollment strategies for both international students and historically minoritized students?
● Research Question 3: How can student services personnel foster a campus climate where
historically minoritized and international students mutually benefit from
internationalization efforts of community colleges?
The thirteen participants from Reed Community College (RCC) and Marina Community
College (MCC) discussed varied perspectives, challenges, and insight regarding the enrollment
and support of historically minoritized students. Through the analysis of thirteen one-on-one
104

qualitative interviews and institutional documents, two main themes emerged in relation to the
main research question. This chapter discusses the findings regarding the conceptual framework,
implications for practice, and recommendations based on the participants’ interviews and
document analysis findings.
Discussion
The following section discusses the findings and implications, using the conceptual
framework of the open systems theory and Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model for Diverse Learning
Environments (DLE) as a lens.
Open Systems Theory
Open systems theory suggests that organizations can benefit from seeking external
resources that maximize their efficiency and minimize their costs (Frost, 2009). Community
colleges such as RCC and MCC sought external resources to expand their capacity, given their
financial, personnel, and time constraints. The international recruitment strategies RCC and
MCC engaged in aligned with extant literature (i.e., Choudaha et al., 2013; Hagedorn, 2020) and
included recruitment fairs such as those sponsored by EducationUSA, connecting with alumni
who have connections to critical areas, and the use of international recruitment agents. The
domestic student recruitment efforts also aligned with the existing literature, including building
relationships with high school students, families, and school counselors as well as hosting
campus and community gatherings to assist with the application process (Espinosa et al., 2015).
Community colleges must deal with competition and market-based demands but often
with limited resources and strategies (Eckel, 2008; Viggiano, 2018). Like competitive 4-year
universities, MCC and RCC focused on their rankings and reputation to target affluent, high
achieving students. However, the risk of relying on their college’s reputation was posed by one
105

of the RCC participants (Didi), who pointed out how some historically minoritized students may
view the school’s strong reputation as a deterrent for those who may not see themselves at RCC.
This notion pointed to the necessity and challenge of differentiating the marketing strategies
based on different student audiences with various needs.
As open systems, community colleges such as RCC and MCC faced external and internal
challenges that hindered their ability to support equity initiatives for domestic students and
internationalization efforts simultaneously. A few RCC and MCC participants indicated a push
for international recruitment and internationalization by executive leaders several years ago.
However, the participants discussed external challenges, which pointed to how international
recruitment and internationalization efforts were impacted by political and federal regulations
imposed by the Trump administration, including travel bans, stricter visa policies, and student
financial requirements. While all the participants rejected the belief that international students
took seats from domestic students, a few alluded to the xenophobic mentality of others external
to their college, including parents.
The enrollment challenge was exacerbated by the protectionist mentality of the Trump
administration and the challenges faced with the COVID-19 pandemic. Several of the
participants also indicated that the recruitment of international students was also related to the
political influence and restrictions of students’ home countries. The challenges of the COVID-19
pandemic also influenced the enrollment and support efforts of historically minoritized students
who faced a conflict in priority between having to support their family by working and having to
justify going to school simultaneously.

106

Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE)
Every participant expressed the value of a diverse learning environment, and it was clear
that there was a tireless commitment to serving all students. However, through the lens of the
psychological and organizational dimension of the DLE, it became evident that there were
institutional barriers and conflicting perspectives that revealed tension amongst the campus and
limitations in fostering a mutually beneficial diverse learning environment.
Organizational Dimension. The participants were passionate about diversity and
recognized the value of internationalization but did not receive adequate institutional and
structural support to implement their desired approach strategically. Through the DLE
organizational dimension lens, an institution’s budget, budget allocations, and decision-making
processes can support or restrict recruitment efforts to create a more diverse learning
environment (Hurtado et al., 2012). The ability to foster a more diverse learning environment
mutually beneficial for both domestic and international students was limited by the college’s
budget.
The differences in organizational structures of RCC and MCC also provided insight into
how the structure of a college can influence the ability to support and restrict recruitment efforts.
For example, MCC had a dedicated enrollment management department with executive leaders
and staff members that provided human resources and agency within their college to support
international students from various countries. In contrast, RCC did not have a separate
enrollment department nor a dedicated recruitment team, which restricted their ability to recruit a
diversity of students. However, RCC’s student services team had a dedicated student equity and
Pathways team dedicated to supporting a diversity of students, especially historically minoritized
107

groups. The efforts by these dedicated groups and the leadership were RCC’s key asset to
supporting a diverse learning environment.
The decision-making process within both colleges also influenced the efforts to foster a
diverse learning environment. Several participants expressed tension between their beliefs versus
the “higher-ups” who ultimately made the decisions. According to Hurtado et al. (2012), staff
members can leave a lasting impression on the institution due to their frequent interaction with
students. However, the interviews revealed that the staff members often were not given the
agency to impact decisions that affected their students. Although the staff members expressed
empathy for the challenging decisions executive leaders had to make, some participants alluded
to the belief that some of their choices were inequitable and not inclusive of the diverse student
population.
The tendency to recruit affluent international students who pay full tuition exponentially
higher than domestic students can inadvertently limit access to international students from lower
socio-economic backgrounds (Meier, 2013; Treat & Hagedorn, 2013). This tendency was noted
by MCC participants who discussed how the high tuition that international students pay limited
their recruitment efforts to affluent countries.
Psychological Dimension. The psychological dimension of the DLE includes the
perceptions and attitudes among groups and behavior, which include relations among groups on
campus (Hurtado et al. 1999, p. 5-6). The participants revealed an underlying tension and
differences in belief related to the enrollment and support of historically minoritized and
international students.
The participants revealed a dissonance in beliefs between their executive leaders and the
interview participants. While every participant expressed their belief that the primary value of
108

international students was the diversity and intercultural opportunities they provided, nearly all
the participants felt that the “higher-ups” viewed international students as numbers for financial
and performance measures. Almost all the staff members who worked with international students
also expressed an inner tension between their understanding of the need to focus on historically
minoritized students and their belief that international students were often invisible and did not
receive equitable support.
This study also revealed the stereotypes and tension among college staff members that
could impact enrollment and support efforts. While staff members may recognize the importance
of educating students from diverse backgrounds, they may not be cognizant of how their
decisions and actions can reinforce inequity amongst their campuses (Hurtado et al., 2012). One
of the RCC participants (Alisha) revealed tension regarding the disagreement and debate on who
should be recruited based on the deficit belief that Black students are likely not to succeed.
Alisha’s discussion revealed a vicious cycle whereby staff members’ deficit thinking could deter
the recruitment of Black students and perpetuate their underrepresentation. In addition, the low
number of Black students could lead to fewer resources and inequitable support that could
negatively affect Black students’ retention and chances of success.
A couple of the participants mentioned the stereotypes of international students were the
opposite, whereby international students were assumed to be affluent and high achieving. The
mentality could potentially limit the perceived need to support international students
academically and socially. For example, while most participants agreed that equity for
historically minoritized students was the primary focus, international students were not included
in the equity equation and were othered.
109

Despite the tensions that existed, it was clear that the staff were dedicated to serving all
students and recognized the importance of fostering an intercultural environment. The RCC and
MCC participants discussed cultural events that were collaborative efforts, such as the Lunar
New Year festival and an international week. While the cultural events were well-intentioned,
the staff were largely unaware of intentional, strategic efforts to promote intercultural
collaboration. The staff members can play a significant role in fostering co-curricular programs
that encourage intergroup dialogue, integrative learning, and involvement in student activities
(Hurtado et al., 2008). Incorporating a blend of co-curricular and curricular efforts can help
foster a positive, diverse learning environment through the DLE framework.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the participants' key issues, challenges, takeaways, and institutional documents,
the following recommendations suggest ways community colleges can strategically recruit and
support both historically minoritized domestic and international students.
Recommendation #1: Implement a Strategic and Sustainable Enrollment Plan
As an enrollment management professional, I recognize how the pressure to maintain or
exceed student enrollment to avoid revenue declines can often lead staff members to fixate on
immediate, short-term needs. While the recommendation to develop a strategic enrollment plan
may seem daunting, the lack of a strategic plan can reinforce the vicious cycle of repeatedly
engaging in time-consuming, duplicative, and ineffective efforts. Suppose a community college
wants to expand and diversify its enrollment. In that case, it must break the cycle of operating in
a reactive, survival mode and develop both short and long-term enrollment plans. Enrollment
management strategies can empower higher education institutions to actively pursue their
strategic goals in intentional, informed, and integrated ways (Hossler & Kalsbeek, 2013).
110

First and foremost, community college leaders must recognize that they cannot expect
increases in enrollment or diversity without providing financial, personnel, and professional
development support. International student recruitment can be an expensive undertaking and may
not be a viable solution to solving a college’s enrollment challenges. Therefore, colleges need to
carefully consider their priorities, institutional capacity, and strategic goals before assuming
international student recruitment is their answer to enrollment problems.
Rather than adding another project to staff members’ multiple demands, it is
recommended that community colleges identify the SEM strategies and practices that may
overlap and compete with other teams’ plans or initiatives. Colleges can then determine ways to
leverage resources and collaborate more effectively (Hasson, 2019). Some of the ways colleges
can integrate their plan with little additional effort include aligning their SEM with institutional
decision-making processes, connecting with the intuitional goals, and sharing and leveraging
existing data (Hasson, 2019).
Leaders must provide the dedicated time and space to foster an open dialogue to reflect
on the performance of past strategies, analyze the return on investment of their efforts, discuss
lessons learned, and refine their enrollment practices. Often, boards of trustees and other
executive leaders are not fully aware of the complexities of the interrelated and competing
demands that must be considered regarding decision-making (Hossler & Kalsbeek, 2013).
Therefore, enrollment managers should be given a seat at the table given their valuable
perspective, experiences, and knowledge.
While it is important to be strategic, it is equally, if not more, essential to develop a
sustainable enrollment plan. All too often, community colleges are faced with the influences of
their external environment that they constantly are in a state of reactivity that disrupts sustainable
111

plans. The push for equity, including dedicated efforts to recruit and support historically
minoritized and international students, must be a core, sustainable commitment. Rather than
solely dependent on the priorities of one leader at a given time, an institutional commitment
demands staff to remain dedicated to their enrollment goals and alignment with the college’s
mission. Plans must be sustainable and flexible rather than purely reactive and focused on the
institutional agreed-upon goals while also responsive to the needs of students amidst an ever-
changing environment.
Recommendation #2: Balance the Financial Bottom-Line with Diversity & Equity Goals

Colleges must question how their pursuit of revenue outweighs their concerns for
providing access and success for all students (Hossler and Kalsbeek, 2013). Community colleges
must prioritize their diversity and equity goals rather than allow the financial bottom-line to
overshadow diversification efforts.
Colleges must diversify their strategies and targeted markets to diversify their student
population. Both colleges in the study discussed the tendency to focus on students who were
familiar, considered the easiest to recruit, and would ensure the college’s immediate financial
security. Instead, community colleges should diversify their recruitment strategy portfolio for
both the sake of long-term financial security and diversity goals. Additionally, it is recommended
that colleges avoid overreliance on international agents who run the risk of being banned.
Enrollment managers should remain aware of marketing trends, key concerns, and national
issues impacting students from various countries. A market segmentation approach is also
recommended to effectively recruit specific students by understanding their circumstances and
managing their conflicting needs (Choudaha et al., 2012; Hu, 2014).
112

To balance the immediate financial bottom-line needs and long-term diversity goals,
community colleges should continuously nurture existing relationships with external partners
while seeking new, non-traditional avenues of recruitment. Enrollment managers should also
challenge the status quo and try new strategies that intentionally target non-traditional students.
Although identifying non-traditional populations and relationship-building often takes time, the
potential long-term benefits of creating multiple pipelines are worth the wait.
Recommendation #3: Burst the International “Bubble” Silo
This study demonstrated how both international students and the international education
departments could be siloed and silenced within community colleges. The campus climate
framework should be inclusive of international students and be used to evaluate the inclusiveness
of its co-curriculum and its ability to promote intercultural learning (Yakaboski et al., 2018).
Institutions that justify recruiting international students primarily for the diversity benefits and
global perspective they bring to the campus environment must align their actions with their
words. If community colleges consistently enroll international students for their financial
contributions and do not adequately support them, they may unintentionally commodify
international students and reproduce inequities.
International education staff members should be included at the table of decision-making
and not be silenced by higher priorities or the voices of the majority. It is recommended that
community colleges that enroll international students or desire to enroll international students are
involved with the development of the overarching strategic enrollment management plan. An
effective SEM effort requires an open systems theory environment that involves shared
information, decision-making, and the discouragement of organizational silos (Hossler, 1986).
As a few of the MCC and RCC participants suggested, the opportunity to share practices and
113

lessons learned between the domestic and international enrollment teams could foster more
effective strategies and a better understanding of the needs of all students. Community colleges
must recognize and appreciate that international students are a heterogeneous group with various
academic and financial needs. To effectively recruit and support international students, colleges
should consider their educational aspirations, demographics, and academic needs (Choudaha et
al., 2012). Rather than perpetuating stereotypes on a global scale, the students’ intersectionality
of their identity could be a means to create connections and collaborations across cultural groups
and various organizations on campus.
Recommendation #4: Foster a Mutually Beneficial Intercultural Environment
Institutional leaders must intentionally support a campus climate that equitably supports
international students and fosters a community of intercultural interaction that mutually benefits
all students. According to the DLE, faculty, and staff should implement curricular and
cocurricular strategic efforts both inside and outside the classroom to foster an inclusive,
beneficial learning environment (Hurtado et al., 2012). Rather than adding more cultural
activities and events, community college departments should evaluate their existing programs
and events to discuss improvements for enhancing, revising, or retiring efforts to help ensure
meaningful outcomes and avoid duplicative efforts.
The internationalization of the campus should not be limited to international recruitment.
It cannot be left to chance or the international education staff to implement independently.
Institutional leaders should provide dedicated time, resources, and staff training that help foster a
campus climate that supports intercultural interaction and includes international students.
Colleges can incorporate intercultural awareness into their co-curriculum planning and campus-
wide internationalization efforts to promote an inclusive campus climate (ACE, 2012).
114

Community colleges can create an internationalization committee incorporating
international education and student affairs staff members, faculty, and executive leaders. The
committee could help foster inclusion and collaboration not only for the sake of international
students but amongst staff members as well. The committee can collaborate on ways to
strategically implement co-curricular and curricular efforts that encourage open dialogue,
reflection, integrative, and service-learning.
Colleges should consider implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion training within a
pathways program or a new student program that includes domestic and international students.
The training for new students should be a starting point rather than an endpoint accompanied by
curricular and co-curricular opportunities for discussion and intentional activities throughout the
student’s community college experience. Through the training, deliberate exercises that promote
dialogue and interaction can help foster intercultural exchange and an opportunity to recognize
similarities and embrace one another’s unique identities.
While the study participants discussed various ways students from homogenous
backgrounds could interact and foster a sense of belonging, there were few examples of
intentional efforts to partner and bring together students from multiple cultural, national, or
ethnic backgrounds. Another avenue to promote intercultural interaction would be to create a
mentorship and buddy system program that partners students from different cultural and national
backgrounds. The initiative could be implemented through a pathways program, between
departments, cultural groups, or through a cross-cultural center if available.
Future Research
There is a lack of research at community colleges that focuses on how staff members and
faculty can promote a campus climate that is mutually beneficial to domestic, historically
115

minoritized students and international students. While the findings of this study hinted at ways
that community colleges could promote a campus climate that is mutually beneficial for
historically minoritized students and international students, there were not clear strategic actions
discussed. This study can serve as a starting point for further research that can delve deeper into
the strategies that can create an environment of inclusive, mutually beneficial learning both
inside and outside of the classroom. Future studies could also evaluate how faculty members at
community colleges internationalize the curriculum, if at all.
Given the lack of related research, future research studies can also enhance an
understanding of enrollment and support practices at other community colleges and four-year
universities. Further research on recruitment practices at other community colleges outside of
Southern California and diversification efforts could provide valuable insight and themes given
the lack of currently available research.
Given the limited representation of enrollment staff in this study, future studies could
focus solely on the perspectives of enrollment staff and administrators. In addition, incorporating
the views of international students versus domestic students regarding the challenges and
recommendations for improving the enrollment and admission process and support systems
would be beneficial. Future research should be conducted that evaluates the trends and
enrollment practices in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were glimpses of
lessons learned shared by the RCC and MCC participants that undoubtedly will become clear
and more evident over time.
Limitations
There were limitations of this study, including the disproportionate number of
participants from RCC versus MCC. There was also an underrepresentation of participants who
116

worked specifically within admission or enrollment compared to student services and counseling.
This was partially tied to the fact that RCC had limited personnel who only focused on admission
and enrollment compared to MCC. Given that most of the participants focused on a specific
student population, whether international students versus historically minoritized students or the
general population, most of the participants had limited knowledge of the student enrollment and
support efforts of other student groups. In several cases, the participants’ responses were limited
to what they had heard from their colleagues instead of having first-hand experience. The study
was also limited to staff members from two colleges within Southern California with similar
demographics and geo-political environments that cannot be generalizable to other institutions
and other regions of the country.
The study's timeframe, which took place during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic
and the Black Lives Matter movement, likely impacted the participants’ responses, perspectives,
and focus areas discussed. Given both events' political, racial, and socio-economic impact, the
participants’ responses may have been skewed and intensified. The study’s findings were also
limited to a short time frame of over one calendar year.
My viewpoint was likely influenced by the political climate and overall sentiment
regarding international students and historically minoritized students that could have impacted
the focus and analysis of the data. Furthermore, since I have not been previously employed
within a community college, the findings were limited to an outside perspective.
The study did not include minoritized populations that are less commonly included, such
as Pacific Islanders and Hawaiian natives. Additionally, although Native Americans were
included in the definition of historically minoritized students, none of the participants mentioned
117

this student group. However, it is unknown whether they were omitted based on the low number
of students versus an actual lack of interaction with Native American students.
Conclusion
Community colleges are increasingly open systems that seek resources and external
partnerships and are not only influenced but can impact the future of its institution and its
external environment (Frost, 2009; Williams et al., 2005). The COVID-19 pandemic and the
Black Lives Matter movement have magnified the need to foster equitable support, positive
intercultural relations, and the development of global citizens. Community colleges as open
access institutions have the unique opportunity to diversify their student populations and promote
environments that embrace inclusion and accessibility both domestically and internationally.
While this is not an easy or immediate task, community colleges can begin to take strategic
action to lead the charge. Community college staff members have the power to influence an
institution’s budget, or lack thereof, budget allocations, and decision-making processes to
support or restrict recruitment efforts for a more diverse learning environment (Hurtado et al.,
2012).
This study validated and added to current research regarding the recruitment practices,
challenges, and imbalance regarding the enrollment and support of historically minoritized
students. While this study provided valuable insight, it also pointed to the importance of further
research on developing strategies to support practices that mutually benefit historically
minoritized and international students. Future research will also be needed to respond to the
challenge of balancing community colleges’ vulnerability to focus on the demands to generate
revenue while staying true to their mission of open access and equitably supporting all students,
whether domestic or international.
118

More than ever, the urgency and necessity of diversity for the sake of developing global
awareness, intercultural competence, and empathy cannot be left to chance. It will take all levels
of the community from the students, staff, faculty, and executive leadership within colleges and
higher education institutions to make a collaborative, intentional, and strategic effort to turn the
desires and aspirations into a reality. A delicate balance of supporting domestic students,
including historically minoritized students, while also equitably supporting international students
is not an option. It is essential to continuously promote the education of all students as global
citizens while also ensuring that historically minoritized students are not left behind (Smith &
Ota, 2013).

119

References
Addington, L. M., & Butto, J. A. (2014). Student affairs and foreign policy: The far-reaching
impact of international student services. NASPA Leadership Exchange, 12, 27–29.
Alberts, H. C. (2007). Beyond the headlines: Changing patterns in international student
enrollment in the United States. GeoJournal, 68(2-3), 141-153.
Altbach, P.G. (2006). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. J.J.F.
Forest and P.G. Altbach (eds.). International Handbook of Higher Education, 1, 121-140.
Altbach, P. G., & De Wit, H. (2015). Internationalization and global tension: Lessons from
history. Journal of studies in international education, 19(1), 4-10.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education,
Tracking an Academic Revolution, Center for International Higher Education, Boston
College, Boston.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2019). Community college enrollment crisis?
Historical trends in community college enrollment.
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/2019/08/07/community-college-enrollment-crisis/.
American Council on Education (ACE). (2002). Beyond September 11: A comprehensive
national policy on international education. Washington DC: American Council on
Education.
American Council on Education (ACE). (2012). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses:
Final report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
American Council on International Intercultural Education. (1996, November). Educating for the
120

global community: A framework for community colleges. In Conference Report.
Muscatine, IA: Stanley Foundation.
Andrade, M. S. (2009). The international student picture. In M. S. Andrade & N. W. Evans
(Eds.), International students: Strengthening a critical resource (pp. 1–24). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006). Assessing global learning: Matching
good intentions with good practice. Washington, D.C.: C.T. Musil.
Beach, J. M. (2012). Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the United
States. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 36(1), 44–52.
Bevis, T. B. & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International Students in American Colleges and
Universities: A History. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN-13: 978-0-230-
60011-9.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. 5th Edition, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Bontrager, B. (2004). Enrollment management: An introduction to concepts and
structures. College and University, 79(3), 11-16.
Brennan, M., & Dellow, D. A. (2013). International students as a resource for achieving
comprehensive internationalization. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(161),
27-37.
121

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing
America’s disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119–149.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2020). “Key Facts.” Last accessed 5.16.20
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (February 2020). Vision for Success.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force Report.
Cantwell, B. (2019). Are international students cash cows? Examining the relationship between
new international undergraduate enrollments and institutional revenue at public colleges
and universities in the U.S. Journal of International Students, 512, 512-525.
Center for International and Global Engagement. (2017). Mapping internationalization on
U.S. campuses. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Mapping-Internationalization-2017.pdf.
Chapa, J., & Schink, W. (2006). California Community Colleges: Help or hindrance to Latinos
in the higher education pipeline? New Directions for Community Colleges, 133, 41-50.
Charles, H., Longerbeam, S. D., & Miller, A. E. (2013). Putting old tensions to rest: Integrating
multicultural education and global learning to advance student development. Journal of
College and Character, 14(1), 47-58.
Choudaha, R. (2013). Social media in international student recruitment. Association of
International Education Administrators (AIEA) Issue Brief.
Choudaha, R. (2017). Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020). Studies in
Higher Education, 42(5), 825-832. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1293872
Choudaha, R., Chang, L., & Kono, Y. (2013). International student mobility trends 2013:
Towards responsive recruitment strategies. World Education News & Reviews, 26(2).
122

Choudaha, R., Orosz, K., & Chang, L. (2012). Not All International Students Are the Same:
Understanding Segments, Mapping Behavior. World Education Services.
http://www.wes.org/ewenr/12aug/feature.htm.
Chow, P., & Chambers, J. (2010). International enrollments in the United States: 60 years of
'Open Doors' data. International Higher Education, (59).
Clinedinst, M., & Patel, P. (2018). State of college admission 2018. Washington, DC: National
Association for College Admission Counselors.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American Community College. The Jossey-Bass
Higher Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome St., San Francisco,
CA 94104.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American Community College. (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Colby, S.L., & Ortman, J.M. (2014). Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S.
Population: 2014 to 2060, Current Population Reports, P25-1143, U.S. Census Bureau:
Washington, DC.
Cowan Pitre, C., & Pitre, P. (2009). Increasing underrepresented high school students’ college
transitions and achievements: TRIO educational opportunity programs. NASSP
Bulletin, 93(2), 96-110.
Davis, T. M. (2000). Open Doors 2000: Report on International Educational Exchange.
IIE Books, Institute of International Education, PO Box 371, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701-0371; toll-free.
Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2014). State spending on higher education capital outlays.
Research in Higher Education. 55(5), 433-466. doi:10.1007//sl1162-013-9319-
123

Dennis, M. J. (2017). The Trump impact on international recruitment. Enrollment Management
Report, 21(3), 1-3.
DeWit, H. (2009). A brief history of international recruitment in US higher education.
Internationalisation of higher education, an introduction on the why, how, and what, 13-
46.
Du Bois, C. (1962). Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Dunnett, S. C. (2009). A brief history of international recruitment in US higher education. An
Introduction to Higher Education Internationalisation, 75-90.
Eckel, P. D. (2008). Mission diversity and the tension between prestige and effectiveness: An

overview of U.S. higher education. Higher Education Policy (21), 175-192.

Engberg, D. (2013). International recruitment: Oversight and standards. International Higher
Education, (73), 6-7.
Espinosa, L.L., Gaertner, M.N. and Orfield, G. (2015). Race, Class, and College
Access: Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape. (Washington, DC: American
Council on Education). https://www.acenet.edu/newsroom/Documents/Race-Class-and-
College-Access-Achieving-Diversity-in-a-ShiftingLegal-Landscape.pdf.
Evelyn, J. (2005, February 11). Community colleges go globe-trotting. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/section/Home/5/.
Falcetta, F. M. (2005). The globalization of community colleges. Study abroad: A 21st century
perspective, 2, 7-9.

124

Fierro, I., & Ponce, M. F. M. (2017). International student mobility: trends among
emerging markets as a strategic tool for international student recruitment offices.
INNOVA Research Journal, 2(8.1), 117-138.
Frost, R. A. (2009). Globalization contextualized: an organization–environment case study.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(12), 1009-1024.
Glass, C. R., Wongtrirat, R., & Buus, S. (2015). International student engagement: Strategies for
creating inclusive, connected, and purposeful campus environments. Stylus Publishing,
LLC.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162-183.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1),
59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2020). International Students in Community Colleges: An Unplanned Diversity.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Haigh, M. (2008). Internationalisation, planetary citizenship, and higher education inc. Compare,
38(4), 427-440.
Han, P. (2014). A literature review on college choice and marketing strategies for
recruitment. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 43(2), 120-130.
Haring-Smith, T. (2012). Broadening our definition of diversity. Liberal Education, 98, 6–13.

125

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1287938017?accountid=14749.
Hasson, C. (2019). A roadmap for Strategic Enrollment Management planning. Spring SEM
Program, 2nd Edition. California Community Colleges. Institutional Effectiveness
Partnership Initiative.
https://vrccdn.cccco.edu/vrccdnpublic/sem%20resource%20guide/semroadmapplanning_
spring2019.pdf
Hossler, D. (1999). Effective admissions recruitment. New directions for higher education, 108,
15-30.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model
and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207–221.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539–569.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998b). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher
Education, 21(3),279–302.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting Diverse Learning
Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 26, No. 8. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1181.
Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2012). A model
126

for diverse learning environments. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research, pp. 41-122. Springer, Dordrecht.
Institute of International Education. (2019). “International Student Enrollment Trends, 1948/49-
2018/19”. Open Doors report on international educational exchange.
http://www.iie.org/opendoors.
Institute of International Education. (November 2020). “Fall 2020 International Student
Enrollment Snapshot”. Open Doors report on international educational exchange.
http://www.iie.org/opendoors.
Johnson, R.B. and Christensen, L.B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization
and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447-465.
Kessel, V., & Mink, O. G. (1971). The Application of Open Systems Theory and Organization
Development to Higher Education: A Position.
Kezar, A.J, & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the
literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(4), 371-399.
Kezar, A. J., & Holcombe, E. M. (2019). Leveraging multiple theories of change to promote
reform: an examination of the AAU STEM initiative. Educational Policy,
0895904819843594.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A development model of intercultural maturity.
Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571-592.
127

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. (2nd
ed.) Prentice Hall.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalisation remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales.
Lee, J. J. (2008). Beyond borders: International student pathways to the United States. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 12(3), 308-327.
Lee, J. J., & Becskehazy, P. (2005, April). Understanding international student attitudes about
SEVIS and VISA procedures after 9/11. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
College Personnel Association, Nashville, TN.
Levin, J.S. (2001). Globalizing the Community College: Strategies for Change in the
Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave.
Levin, J. S. (2005). The business culture of the community college: Students as consumers;
students as commodities. In B. Pusser (Ed.), Arenas of Entrepreneurship: Where
nonprofit and for-profit institutions compete (pp. 11-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Levin, J. S., Viggiano, T., López Damián, A. I., Morales Vázquez, E., & Wolf, J. P. (2017).
Polymorphic students: New descriptions and conceptions of community college students
from the perspectives of administrators and faculty. Community College Review, 45(2),
119-143.
Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push-pull
factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher
education, 53(6), 791-818.
128

Martel, M. & Baer, J. (2021). Open Doors® 2020 Report on International Educational Exchange.
Institute of International Education. https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-
Doors.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Mayhew, M. J., Grunwald, H. E., & Dey, E. L. (2006). Breaking the silence: Achieving a
positive campus climate for diversity from the staff perspective. Research in Higher
Education, 47(1), 63-88.
Mazzarol, T.W. & G.N. Soutar (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student
destination choice. International Journal of Education Management. 16(2), pp. 82-90.
Meier, K. (2013). Community college mission in historical perspective. In J. S. Levin & S. T.
Kater (Eds.), Understanding community colleges (pp. 3-18). New York, NY: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (3rd ed). http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research based perspective. Washington: American Association of Colleges and
Universities.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.).
Morgan, G. (2006). Nature intervenes: Organizations as organisms. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Images
of organizations, (Updated ed., pp.33–69). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
129

Naidoo, V. (2007). Declining foreign enrollment at higher education institutions in the United
States: A research note. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 215–226.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299421.
NAFSA Association of International Educators (2003). In America’s Interest: Welcoming
International Students. Report of the Strategic Task Force on International Student
Access. Retrieved July 28, 2020, from
http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/public_policy_document/international_student5.
National Association for College Admissions Counseling. (2018). Admissions Trends Survey
2017-18.
National Association of Foreign Student Advisers: Association of International Educators
(NAFSA). (2019). New NAFSA Data: Despite Stagnant Enrollment, International
Students Contribute Nearly $41 Billion to the U.S. Economy.
https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-nafsa/new-nafsa-data-despite-stagnant-enrollment.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020). The condition of education 2020. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 29, 2020, from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/.
National Research Council. 2005. Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and
Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Ng, J. (2007). Campus Politics and the Challenges of International Education in an Urban

Community College District. New Directions for Community Colleges, 138, 83-88.

Open Doors (2019). Community College International Students.
https://opendoorsdata.org/data/international-students/community-colleges-leading-
institutions/.
130

Özturgut, O. (2013). Best practices in recruiting and retaining international students in the U.S.
Current Issues in Education, 16(2), 1-22.
Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S. A., Cummings, H., & Kinzie, J. (2004). Fifty years
of college choice: Social, political, and institutional influences on the decision-making
process.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications.
Perna, L.W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: Characteristics of programs serving
historically underrepresented groups of students. Journal of College Student
Development, 43, 64-83.
Perna, L.W. (2015). Improving college access and completion for low-income and first-
generation students: The role of college access and success programs.
Perrow, C. (1986). The environment. In A. J. Reiss, Jr. & H. L. Wilensky (Eds.), Complex
organizations: A critical essay, (3rd ed. pp. 208–218). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 1990(68), 3–18.
Phillippe, K. A., & Sullivan, L. G. (2005). National profile of community colleges: Trends &
statistics. American Association of Community Colleges (AACC).
Pippert, T.D., Essenburg, L. J., & Matchett, E. J. (2013). We’ve got minorities, yes we do:
Visual representations of racial and ethnic diversity in college recruitment materials.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23, 258–282.
131

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2013.867920.
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework.
Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-270.
Raby, R. L. (2020). Celebrating the Last 10 Years of Community College
Internationalization. Journal of International Students, 10(4).
https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jis/article/view/2362.

Raby, R. L., Budd, D., Serban, A., & Van Hook, D. (2016). International student mobility at
California community colleges. In Global perspectives and local challenges surrounding
international student mobility (pp. 1-15). IGI Global.
Raby, R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back
to forecast the future. New Directions for Community Colleges, 138, 5-14.
Raby, R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (2016). Global is not the opposite of local: Advocacy for
community college international education. In International Education at Community
Colleges (pp. 9-22). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Reisberg, L. (2004). ‘Where Did All the International Students Go?’. International Higher
Education. 37, 11–13.
Saudi Gazette. (2012, January 29). 50,000 Saudis to graduate from top 500 universities by 2020.
http://bit.ly/NUwPYL.
Schmidt, E. P. (2018). Postsecondary Enrollment before, during, and since the Great Recession.
Population Characteristics. Current Population Reports. pp. 20-580.
Scott, W.G. (1961). Organization theory: an organization and an appraisal. Academy of
Management Journal, 4(1), 7-26.
132

Smith, M. J., & Ota, A. (2013). Matching international enthusiasm with diversity
commitment. Journal of College Admission.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. In M. A.
Gibson, P. C. Gándara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: US Mexican youth,
peers, and school achievement (pp.18–38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society,
10(5), 1–44.
Treat, T., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2013). Resituating the community college in a global context. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(161), 5-9.
United States Department of Education. Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education: key data
highlights focusing on race and ethnicity and promising practices.
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf.
United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 12-month Enrollment component final
data (2001-02, 2002-03, 2005-06 - 2017-18) and provisional data (2003-04, 2004-05,
2018-19). https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/answer/2/2.
Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. World
Education News and Reviews, 20(10), 1-16.
Viggiano, T., López Damián, A. I., Morales Vázquez, E., & Levin, J. S. (2018). The others:
Equitable access, international students, and the community college. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 22(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317725883.
133

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1956). General system theory. General systems, 1(1), 11-17.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426.
Wadhwa, R. (2016). Outbound mobility and students' decision-making process: a case of
India. In Global perspectives and local challenges surrounding international student
mobility (pp. 36-52). IGI Global.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
science quarterly, 1-19.
West, E., & Addington, L. (2014). International Student Recruitment Agencies. Arlington, TX:
National Association for College Admission Counseling. National Association for
College Admission Counseling, 364.
Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Wu, T. & Naidoo, V. (eds.) (2016). The role of international marketing in higher education. In
International Marketing of Higher Education. DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54291-5_1
Yakaboski, T., Perez-Velez, K., & Almutairi, Y. (2018). Breaking the silence: Saudi graduate
student experiences on a US campus. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2),
221.
Zheng, X. H. (2003). An analysis on study abroad of graduates of undergraduate in Tsinghua
University. Research on China’s foreign cultural exchange in higher education, 199-237.

134

Appendix A: Interview Invitation Email
Hello [Participant First Name],

I hope this email finds you well. I was referred to you by (name, title) from (campus name), who
indicated that you had valuable experience in the area of enrollment (or student services).

I am reaching out to you because I am an Ed.D. doctoral candidate at USC and would like to
invite you to participate in my dissertation study through a one-on-one interview.
My study will focus on how enrollment managers and student services personnel within
community colleges approach enrollment and support of international students and historically
minoritized students.

The interview will be held online via Zoom and will last approximately one hour. As a token of
my appreciation for your time, you will receive a $15 Amazon e-gift card.

Would you be willing to volunteer for my study and share your valuable insight? I would greatly
appreciate it if you could let me know either way.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about my study.

Thank you,
Erin Tanaka

135

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Researcher’s Name: Erin Tanaka
Main Research Question:
● How do community college enrollment and student services leaders approach strategic
enrollment and support of both international students and historically minoritized
students, if at all?

Emerging Questions:

● How can enrollment managers diversify their recruitment and enrollment strategies for
both international students and historically minoritized students?

● How can student services personnel foster a campus climate where historically
minoritized and international students mutually benefit from internationalization efforts
of community colleges?

Introduction
Thank you for your willingness to participate in my research study. I really appreciate the
time out of your busy day to answer my questions. As mentioned earlier, this interview should
last about one hour - is that still okay with you? Before starting the interview, I wanted to
provide you with a quick overview of my study. I am a current doctoral student at USC and am
conducting this study as part of my dissertation as well as my own interests professionally and
personally. As an enrollment manager, I am interested in learning how enrollment managers and
student services personnel within community colleges approach enrollment and support of both
international students and historically minoritized students.
The data taken from this interview will be solely used for the purposes of this research
study. Although I may use some direct quotes from this interview, I assure you that your
responses will not be tied to your name in which I will use a pseudonym to protect your
confidentiality.
In order to help accurately capture your responses, I would like to record the audio during
the interview. The recording, as well as the notes I take during the interview, will not be shared
with anyone, and will be stored on my password-protected laptop. Do I have your permission to
record this interview? Do you have any questions about the study before we get started?

Interview Questions (with transitions)
Background - I’d like to start by first asking you some background questions.
1) What is the current title of your position? How long have you been in the position?
2) Can you explain the primary duties/responsibilities of your role?
136

a) In what capacity do you work with international students and/or domestic, historically minoritized
students, if at all?

3) How are you involved in decision-making regarding student enrollment and/or support services
(if at all)?

International & Historically Minoritized Student Enrollment – now, I would like to ask you some
questions about your experiences working with international and/or historically minoritized
students. When I indicate “international” students, I am referring to students who are not U.S.
citizens or permanent residents who come from another country outside of the United States. When I
mention “historically minoritized” students, I am referring to U.S. citizens or permanent resident
students who identify as African American/Black, LatinX, or Native American.

4) What diversification strategies for recruiting international students are used (if any)?
Historically minoritized students (if any)?

5) What do you believe are the benefits and/or challenges of recruiting international students (if
any?)? Historically minoritized students?

6) Do you believe international and historically minoritized students receive an equitable
amount of support within your school? Why or why not?

Open Systems and perceptions of internationalization - I am now going to ask you a few
questions about your beliefs and feelings about internationalization efforts, including international
student enrollment and student support.
7) How does international student recruitment align with and/or go against your institutional
mission (if at all)?

8) Do you believe there is internal or external pressure (i.e., government, state funding) to enroll
international students - why or why not?

9) Some believe that efforts to recruit and support international students shift focus away from
local, historically minoritized students. Do you agree, why or why not?
137

Campus Culture – the final series of questions are about the school’s culture with regard to
international students and historically minoritized students.

10) How is interaction between domestic historically minoritized students and international students
encouraged (if at all)? Can you provide a specific example?

11) Some staff members have indicated that international students take seats away from deserving
domestic students. What are your thoughts regarding this notion?

12) Tell me about a time when you felt there was tension or debate about international student
enrollment or support (if at all).

Closing: Thank you so much for taking the time to ask you questions today. I truly appreciate
your time and candid responses. Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I
have any questions that I need to clarify in the future, may I reach out to you to follow up? Do
you have any questions or concerns for me?

138

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol
Researcher’s Name: Erin Tanaka
Research Question:
1) How do community college enrollment and student services leaders approach strategic
enrollment and support of both international students and historically minoritized
students, if at all?

Emerging Questions
2) How can enrollment managers diversify their recruitment and enrollment strategies for
both international students and historically minoritized students?
3) How can student services personnel foster a campus climate where historically
minoritized and international students mutually benefit from internationalization efforts
of community colleges?

Type of Document
(Possible Examples)
Concepts/Topics/Questions to consider
All Documents ● Who is the targeted audience(s) of the
document?
● What is the intended goal of the document?
● What does the document communicate in
terms of (see specific key concepts/topics by
the document below)?
● When was the document created/published?
● How is the document used and/or
distributed?
● Conceptual framework:
- Open systems theory
- Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model of Diverse
Learning Environments (DLE)

Marketing Materials
(Advertisements/Brochures)
● Targeted students
● Pull factors – international recruitment
Annual Reports ● Institutional priorities
● Inclusion/exclusion of international and/or
historically minoritized student enrollment or
support efforts
● DLE – organizational dimension
● Open systems theory – internationalization
effort
● Key challenges
139

Informational Brochures ● Support services for international students
● Support services for Historically minoritized
students
Institutional Data ● Recruitment strategies
● DLE – organizational dimension
● Open systems theory

Diversity & Inclusion
Statement
● Inclusion and/or exclusion of student groups
● What does the document indicate about the
campus culture, if at all? (RQ 3)
● Are international students included in the
statement? (RQ 2)

Mission Statement ● Institutional priorities (DLE – Organizational
dimension)
● Campus culture
● What does the document indicate are critical
priorities of the institution?
● Are international and/or historically
minoritized students included in the
statement?

Organizational Charts ● DLE – organizational dimension
● Decision-makers
Strategic Plan ● Institutional goals/priorities
● Inclusion and/or exclusion or student groups
● International recruitment strategies –
diversity strategies? (RQ 2)
● Historically minoritized recruitment diversity
strategies? (RQ 3)
● How may external influences play a role in
the communication of the plan? (Open
systems theory)

Website ● Key audiences and support provided
● Indicators of diversity and inclusion
● International student support

140

Appendix D: Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4033

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
A FINE BALANCE: ENROLLMENT & SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL AND
HISTORICALLY MINORITIZED STUDENTS WITHIN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will gain an understanding of the challenges, perspectives, and beliefs of community
college staff members as they develop and implement internationalization and local efforts to
enroll and support historically minoritized students. This study aims to provide empirical insights
and recommendations to enrollment managers, recruitment, admissions, and administrators
within community colleges who are involved with the enrollment of international and historically
minoritized students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
This study will include semi-structured interviews of enrollment managers and student services
personnel who work with international students and historically minoritized students. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, all semi-structured interviews will be conducted live and recorded online
via the Zoom communication platform. To receive consent from my participants, the interview
protocol will begin with an introduction to the study, including the researcher’s role, the
intention of the study, a confidentiality statement, and a request for permission to record their
voice during the interview. The participants will also be informed that they can opt-out of any
question throughout the interview. The interview will consist of 10-15 questions and will last
approximately 1 hour for each participant. After the interview has been completed, the researcher
will ask for permission to contact the interviewee to ask any clarifying questions as needed.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a digital $15 Amazon gift card as a thank you for your time. The gift card will
be emailed to you after you complete the interview. You are not required to answer all of the
questions to receive the gift card.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The data collected through the interviews and document collection will be stored on the
researcher’s laptop. Access to information on the laptop will be password-protected, and the data
collected will only be accessible by the researcher. The recorded audio and transcribed data will
141

be stored in a password-protected digital file. Pseudonyms will be used to protect each of the
participants’ identities.

The researcher will also confirm with the participants during the study that their responses will
not be tied to their names, and pseudonyms will be used to protect their identity and ensure
confidentiality. To further protect the participants’ confidentiality, the data collected will be
stored securely and disposed of three years after the completion of the study.

The research team members, the funding agency, 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.

No identifiable information will be used when the research results are published or discussed in
conferences.

Qualitative data will be saved and accessed through the researcher’s laptop and secured back-up
cloud site.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Erin Tanaka via email at erintana@usc.edu
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia via email at tpoon@rossier.usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board,
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA
90033-9269
Phone (323) 442-0114
Email irb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There is a shortage of research on how community colleges develop enrollment strategies and support services that align with the mission of open access and diversity for historically minoritized students and international students. This study aimed to understand how student services personnel can build a campus climate where historically minoritized and international students mutually benefit from internationalization efforts. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 13 student affairs and enrollment staff members and examining institutional documents at two community colleges in Southern California. The first central theme revealed in this study included a dissonance between the intentional recruitment efforts and the challenging realities that hindered the strategic enrollment and diversification strategies for both historically minoritized and international students. The second theme revealed tension amongst the participants and their belief that there was an inequitable amount of support for international or historically minoritized students. Open systems theory and Hurtado et al.’s (2012) Model for Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) formed the conceptual framework for analyzing the data. Findings aligned with extant research surrounding the recruitment, enrollment, and support of international and historically minoritized students. Recommendations include ways community colleges can strategically recruit and support both historically minoritized domestic and international students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Honorary mention: the untold stories of minoritized community college honors students

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

PDF

Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

Latino male community college students' persistence to transfer

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

A gap analysis to find best practices in philanthropy to support California's community colleges and offer potential solutions to close performance gaps

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at public research universities: a gap analysis

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students

PDF

Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Tanaka, Erin Mariko (author)

Core Title A fine balance: enrollment & support of international and historically minoritized students in community colleges

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Publication Date 03/21/2022

Defense Date 12/10/2021

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

Tag community college enrollment,diversification strategies,historically minoritized students,international students,internationalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,student recruitment

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair)

Creator Email erintana@usc.edu,tanaka.erin@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110816575

Unique identifier UC110816575

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Tanaka, Erin Mariko

Type texts

Source 20220323-usctheses-batch-917 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu