Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Standards as drivers of internationalization
(USC Thesis Other)
Standards as drivers of internationalization
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STANDARDS AS DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 1
STANDARDS AS DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION
by
Nancy Bjorklund
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 of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2018
Copyright 2018 Nancy Bjorklund
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 2
DEDICATION
To Paulo
Because you have always understood
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”
Bertrand Russell
As I reflect on this journey, there are many individuals who deserve recognition for their
leadership, guidance, knowledge, inspiration and support throughout the process of this program
and this dissertation. First, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Tracy Tambascia,
who helped me navigate this dissertation endeavor. She has been a constant source of guidance
and advice throughout this process. I am grateful for her knowledge and expertise. Many thanks
are also due to my two other committee members, Dr. Cathy Krop and Dr. Lawrence Picus. I am
honored to have such esteemed faculty serving on my dissertation committee. Thank you for
your time and effort on my dissertation.
I am grateful for Dr. James Cooney, Vice Provost for International Affairs, Colorado
State University (CSU) for giving me permission to use CSU’s Office of International Programs
as a case study in my dissertation. I am indebted to all of the Office of International Programs
(OIP) employees who responded to my surveys and gave me time to interview them despite their
busy schedules. Their participation made my study a reality.
A very special thank you goes to my cohort colleagues, #C5. From you came
encouragement, a drive for excellence, and the motivation to continue the pursuit of our degrees,
one assignment and one class at a time. You have each motivated and inspired me in your own
unique ways. I will cherish each of you and the incredible journey we have been on together.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their continuous love and support. To my
wonderful parents, Harold and Donna Bjorklund, thank you for always inspiring me and
encouraging me to be my best. To my beautiful daughters, Hannah and Lauren, thank you for
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 4
never giving up on me and always believing that I would succeed. I hope you can take
inspiration from my experience and know that you are never too old to realize your dreams. To
my husband and best friend, Paulo, I could not have asked for a more dedicated partner
throughout this journey. Thank you for recognizing and encouraging my gifts and talents, and
for your unending love, patience, and support.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction 12
Background of the Problem 12
Importance of Addressing the Problem 14
Organizational Context and Mission 16
Organizational Performance Status 17
Organizational Performance Goal and Status 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 18
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 19
Stakeholder Group for the Study 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions 21
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 22
Definitions 23
Organization of the Project 24
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 25
Defining Internationalization 26
Internationalization and Higher Education 28
Importance of Internationalization in Higher Education 28
Motivations for Internationalization in Higher Education 34
Political 35
Economic 36
Social and Cultural 37
Academic 38
Issues, Challenges, and Constraints in Higher Education Internationalization 38
Institutional and Cultural Barriers 38
Quality Assurance and Measuring Internationalization 39
Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education 41
Challenges for International Quality Assurance Systems 42
Implications of the Literature to this Study 42
Conclusion 44
Chapter Three: Methodology 45
Research Questions 45
Methodological Framework 46
Assumed Influences 48
Population and Sample 49
Data Collection 50
Instrumentation 50
Data Analysis 54
Validation of Performance Influences 55
Trustworthiness of Data 56
Limitations and Delimitations 56
Conclusion 57
Chapter Four: Findings 58
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 6
Historical Commitment to Internationalization 59
Programs that Fostered Internationalization 60
Overview of Participants 62
Document Analysis 63
Mission 64
Strategic Plan 64
CSU’s Office of International Programs Internationalization Report 66
Internationalization Strategy 66
Visible Campus Action and Attention 67
Knowledge Findings 68
Importance of a Mission and Strategic Plan 69
Importance of Comprehensive Internationalization 71
Defining Comprehensive Internationalization 73
Understanding the Rationale for Comprehensive Internationalization 75
Knowledge of Potential Constraints to Comprehensive Internationalization 77
Applying Comprehensive Internationalization 78
Knowledge of Peer Institutions’ Performance 80
Standards and Benchmarking 86
Summary of Knowledge Findings 87
Motivational Findings 87
Valuing a Mission 88
Investing and Sustaining Effort 91
Peer and Association Recognition 93
Summary of Motivational Findings 93
Organizational Findings 94
Organizational Culture 95
Administrative Structure 96
Administrative Leadership 97
Location 101
Funding 102
Summary of Organizational Findings 103
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 104
Validated Assets Applicable to Other Institutions 104
Location 106
Intentional Leadership 107
Transferable Practice Recommendations 108
Level 1: Reaction 109
Level 2: Learning 110
Level 3: Behavior 110
Level 4: Impact 110
Transferable Practice One: Embed Internationalization into the Culture of the University 110
Implementation Plan 111
Evaluation Plan 114
Transferable Practice Two: Engage Leadership 116
Implementation Plan 117
Evaluation Plan 120
Implementation Plan 122
Additional Considerations 125
Future Research 125
Conclusion 126
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 7
References 128
Appendix A: Research Survey 139
Appendix B: Open-Ended Questionnaire for Senior International Officer 144
Appendix C: Open-Ended Questionnaire for Office of International Programs Staff 145
Appendix D: Table of Validated Assets 146
Appendix E: Executive Organizational Chart – Colorado State University 148
Appendix F: Organizational Chart – Office of International Programs 149
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Table of Assumed Assets 55
Table 2: Participant Overview 62
Table 3: Knowledge-Related Assets 69
Table 4: Main Rationale for Internationalizing 76
Table 5: Individual Participation in Comprehensive Internationalization 78
Table 6: Peer Recognition Affects Comprehensive Internationalization 81
Table 7: Assumed Motivational Assets 88
Table 8: Assumed Organizational Assets 94
Table 9: Discovered Organizational Assets 94
Table 10: Transferable Practices by Thematic Area 106
Table 11: Building Institutional Culture 113
Table 12: Evaluation Plan 115
Table 13: Building a Leadership Team 119
Table14: Team Evaluation 120
Table 15: Peer Institution Identification 122
Table 16: Evaluation Plan 124
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: GAP analysis model. 47
Figure 2: CSU's 2016-2018 strategic plan. 65
Figure 3: Participant overview. 68
Figure 4: Internationalization is embedded in the mission. 70
Figure 5: Why comprehensive internationalization is important to an institution. 73
Figure 6: Participants place value on the institutional mission. 89
Figure 7: Time and effort is important to an institution. 92
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 10
ABSTRACT
Institutions of higher education are embarking upon comprehensive internationalization
in an effort to prepare students to work in an increasingly globalized world. A review of the
literature presents a need for higher education to establish standards in the field in which to
measure internationalization.
This study used a case study approach to explore the primary assets that led a public
institution to achieve comprehensive internationalization. Interviews, surveys and an
examination of documents were used to understand the perceptions of staff regarding the
knowledge, motivation and organizational assets that led to success. Factors identified during
the literature review were included throughout the design of this study.
Primary components of the foundational assets focused on the importance of an
institutional commitment demonstrated through an articulated institutional mission and narrative.
Another foundational asset confirmed the importance of supportive and knowledgeable
leadership. The primary roles and functions of the senior international officer, as well as the
administrative staff tasked with leading an institutions comprehensive internationalization effort,
emerged as an essential theme. Moreover, results from the current study emphasized the
significance of peer influences and the use of benchmarks to assess comprehensive
internationalization, further supporting the limited research on the need for the development and
use of standards for measuring comprehensive internationalization.
Transferable recommendations from the findings are presented and suggestions for
further research are offered. As institutions seek to achieve an advanced level of comprehensive
internationalization, this case study presents key assets which other higher education institutions
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 11
can embrace, which ultimately can lead an institution to a higher level of comprehensive
internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Quality assurance processes in higher education internationalization have become
increasingly important throughout Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United States over the past
two decades (Altbach & Knight, 2007). A number of factors contributed to this development,
and governments and industries now advocate for a well-educated workforce that is competitive
in the global knowledge economy. Higher education institutions are increasingly being asked to
help support the development of students who will be prepared to meet the challenges of the
global century (Association of American Colleges and Universities [AAC&U], 2017; American
Council on Education [ACE], 2017). Not every institution may choose to pursue
internationalization; however, for those that do there is an absence of standards that help
motivate universities to achieve an advanced level of comprehensive internationalization. Using
regional accreditation as an example, there are no current guidelines or standards by which a
university may choose to evaluate its internationalization efforts, nor inform its stakeholders on
how its efforts compare to the efforts of other institutions. Also, there are no standards that can
help define levels of internationalization for universities. The absence of standards further affects
inequality in the delivery of education, learning outcomes, and issues of equity in educating
students from remote areas or less diverse backgrounds. This study examined the promising
practices employed by administrators at a top research university that received international
recognition for having made substantial progress toward comprehensive internationalization.
Background of the Problem
Around the world, the environment in which institutions of higher education work has
increasingly becoming more internationalized and globalized. As universities have evolved in
the 19th and 20th century, they have become more involved in furthering the development of
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 13
education in the areas of science and technology, as well as the development of educational
opportunities that produce students for the global economy (Green & Burris, 2008). The growth
for such educational opportunities has forced universities to develop a new framework that
includes internationalization efforts and policies (Scott, 1998).
Presently, universities in the United States, as well as in many other parts of the world,
are not required to meet any standards, nor are they accredited or certified for having achieved
any level of internationalization; nevertheless, “social confidence in higher education demands
giving priority to defining the roles and responsibilities of all players involved in quality
assurance...these players must collaborate to build a system for internationalization that ensures
the quality and integrity of cross-border education” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 209). Hundreds
of universities throughout the United States have developed internationalization strategies aimed
at internationalizing their campus; however, neither standardization nor methodologies of
measurement for achieving and maintaining an increased level of internationalization exist.
Universities currently do not know what level of internationalization they have achieved, nor are
there methods in place to determine how they measure against other universities in their efforts.
In 2004, the Task Force on International Education of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (APLU) published a white paper advising university
presidents and chancellors to lead the process of changing their institutions from having some
international programming on their campuses to becoming comprehensively internationalized
(APLU, 2004). The performance need for comprehensive internationalization is for the
development of a set of standards that create quality assurances to guarantee that institutions
have processes for improvement. Such measures are also important to advance the quality of
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 14
internationalization throughout the world, define standardized preferred practices, and promote
institutional accountability through systematic and consistent evaluation.
Having a standard set of quality assurances and processes would help raise the quality of
higher education programs, services and institutions, and ultimately contribute to the
preparedness of the workforce to meet the challenges of a globalized economy (Schray, 2005).
Over the last two decades, a number of studies provided strong evidence of the challenges
stemming from globalization and internationalization (Altbach & McGill Peterson, 1998; Craft,
1992; de Wit, 1995, Harvey & Knight, 1996; Van derWende, 1997). These studies influenced
universities to construct new internationalization efforts and policies over the past 20 years. As
such, most institutions of higher education are now engaged in activities, such as developing
multilateral agreements and joint research projects, in an effort to internationalize their campuses
(Van Damme, 2000). However, efforts toward internationalization are often challenged by the
lack of clear and consistent strategies at both a national and institutional level. The United States,
the most prevalent host for international students and scholars (UNESCO, 2014), is faulted for
not having well-defined policies on internationalization and having “an insular attitude” (Altbach
& McGill Peterson, 1998, p. 17). The lack of clear and consistent strategies at the national and
institutional level prevents the effective functioning of internationalization efforts of campuses.
Currently, universities do not know when they have met the standard for internationalization, nor
do they have the necessary framework to measure their progress (DeWit, 1995).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of a lack of framework, articulated strategies, and assessment for
internationalization is important to solve for a number of reasons. First, there is an overall need
for well-defined and articulated standard procedures and transparent evaluation and assessment
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 15
processes that measure the quality of internationalization in higher education institutions
(Altbach & Knight, 2007). In having well-defined and articulated standard procedures for
comprehensive internationalization, the quality and quality assurance of internationalization can
be ensured.
Additionally, as the demand for progress in international education grows, universities
need to distinguish themselves from competitors. Self-evaluation and self-reporting of an
institution’s efforts toward internationalization will no longer be endorsed. Objective
assessments and improved quality of international education are needed to be competitive in the
field of higher education (Van Damme, 2000). A system must be identified that ensures the
quality and integrity of cross-border education that institutions may choose to employ should
they want to pursue comprehensive internationalization at a more advanced level.
Universities are now at a juncture where it is no longer conceivable to think about
comprehensive internationalization without raising the issue of quality and quality assurance.
Cross-cultural education is increasing on a global scale, and metrics must be established to assist
institutions claiming or presenting themselves as internationalized as having attained the
measurement standards for achieving an increased level of comprehensive internationalization
(Friedman, 2005). Such standards could ensure that accredited universities would be graduating
globally competent students who meet the needs of an increasingly globally minded workforce.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to address the role of standards in promoting and
enhancing comprehensive internationalization in higher education institutions. To keep a
reasonable scope for the current study, the Association of International Educators (NAFSA)
Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization requirements and selection process
were chosen as the representative example of standards set in the field of internationalization by
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 16
this reputed international organization, and CSU, recipient of this award in 2013, was the chosen
higher education institution for the case study regarding the role and impact of standards. This
study identified the factors that influenced successful campus internationalization efforts at this
public research university and demonstrated how they influenced campus internationalization.
Organizational Context and Mission
Colorado State University (CSU), located in Fort Collins, Colorado, is the flagship
university of the Colorado State University System. CSU is a doctoral-granting research
university and is the only land-grant institution in the state. It has served the state of Colorado
since 1870 and features nationally ranked schools and innovative research. During the 2017-
2018 academic year, the student body consisted of 31,616 students. Of the total student
population, 1,985 were degree seeking international students and over 1,300 undergraduate
students participated in an education abroad experience (CSU Factbook, 2017a) The CSU system
has three campuses, each offering very distinct programs and missions, and operates in a global
context enabling CSU to make education an international experience for its students, faculty,
staff, and community (CSU, 2017a).
As part of its internationalization strategy, the OIP at CSU creates and fosters
international activities that include education abroad opportunities, faculty initiatives, and
partnerships with universities around the world. The OIP supports teaching, learning, research
and engagement throughout the CSU system and their mission is accomplished through a broad
array of programs and services designed to provide international experiences. The mission of
OIP follows:
The Office of International Programs (OIP) facilitates education abroad opportunities,
provides International Student and Scholar Services and promotes International
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 17
Initiatives. OIP oversees the Confucius Institute and Peace Corps programs, sponsors and
administers faculty travel research and grants, initiates and coordinates academic and co-
curricular programs, and develops agreements with international partners around the
world. (CSU, 2017b, p.4)
Organizational Performance Status
The OIP continuously encourages students to experience and understand diverse cultures
through education abroad experiences. OIP helps prepare students for success in today’s global
economy by providing quality services to international students and scholars; organizing
classroom-based, programmatic and experiential activities; supporting the international activities
of CSU colleges, departments, and faculty in their efforts to create joint research initiatives,
international exchanges and other collaborative activities worldwide; and through the
management of key strategic partnerships which creates pathways for CSU students and faculty
to become more engaged around the world.
Organizational Performance Goal and Status
CSU constitutes a rich case to study for a number of reasons. In 2013, CSU received the
prestigious Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization from the Association of
International Educators (NAFSA). This award recognizes U.S. colleges and universities making
a significant, contribution in the area of comprehensive internationalization. The award is
granted annually to five U.S. institutions and recognizes overall excellence in
internationalization efforts as evidenced by the recipient universities’ missions, strategies,
programs, and results (NAFSA, 2017). In addition, CSU’s founding purpose is to be a leader in
recognizing the rapidly changing global environment and has made a commitment to excellence
in international education through its instructional, research, and outreach programs (CSU,
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 18
2017a). As a result, CSU continually strives to reinforce its international mission as a university
that serves the needs of the people of Colorado, the nation, and the world. It is also part of CSU’s
strategic plan, revised in January 2016, to “expose students to diverse cultures and focus research
in key areas of institutional strength, societal, and global needs” (CSU, 2017d, p. 9).
Furthermore, within its Opportunities: University Strategic Plan 2016-2018, CSU identified an
international theme with the goal to “make a global impact and translate discoveries into
products of knowledge, creative artistry, and innovation” (CSU, 2017d, p.1). As part of its
commitment to global education, CSU partnered with the educational program Semester at Sea.
This unique opportunity engages students in a global comparative learning program that reaches
all areas of the globe while giving depth to international education. Additionally, CSU displays
an active approach on internationalization at home and abroad. CSU’s variety of offerings of
programs abroad and exchanges, regional studies program, and programs with international
focus exemplify their internationalization efforts at home. Finally, for CSU, geography is
destiny. As an urban and fast-growing university located at the base of the Rocky Mountains, it
attracts foreign students from all over the world further enhancing CSU’s campus
internationalization efforts (Institute of International Education, 2016).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Administrators throughout international higher education have offered a number of
benefits to campus internationalization, including improved student experiences, academic,
economic, and social goals (Olson, Green & Hill, 2008). However, three administrative groups
should be examined for the critical role they play in internationalizing a campus: the chief
executive officer/president (CEO), the chief academic officer (CAO)/provost, and the senior
international officer (SIO). All three administrative groups are critical to the success of a
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 19
campus internationalization agenda. In addition to the financial, human, and symbolic support,
these administrative groups provide internationalization initiatives, and the appreciation and
understanding of the importance of their involvement for moving comprehensive
internationalization forward.
The university CEO/president is responsible for articulating the vision for international
education, both to the campus community and all external stakeholder groups. With this vision
expressed, it is the president’s role to provide the resources necessary to develop and support
campus leadership involved in internationalization, to engage all stakeholder groups in
conversation about its benefits and to make sure that information about all internationalization
efforts is distributed.
The CAO/provost plays a role corresponding to that of the president but with a focus on
faculty and the curriculum. The primary internationalization roles of the CAO/provost include
working with faculty to integrate global perspectives into general education curriculum,
providing resources for faculty-led education abroad programs, and enhancing campus
international study capabilities.
The SIO plays a vital yet complimentary role to that of the CAO/provost in
comprehensive internationalization. The SIO is responsible for such international activities as
administering and providing resources for support services to international students, international
activities and events on campus, and developing on-campus programs to socially integrate
domestic and international students. Each of the roles these key administrators play is essential
in moving the university toward comprehensive internationalization, and they each need to
articulate the value and importance of comprehensive internationalization.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 20
In 2011, the vice provost for international affairs at CSU announced the goal and
campus-wide initiative to improve campus internationalization efforts to further improve student
learning. This effort began a rigorous two-year process to internationalize, which resulted in the
nomination and acceptance of the prestigious NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus
Internationalization. Following this effort, in April 2015, the OIP held several campus-wide
discussions on the global dimensions of the undergraduate curriculum. The purpose of these
discussions was to explore global learning outcomes and strategies, and to identify ways in
which OIP could further support CSU faculty and staff in the development of a globalized
curriculum. These campus discussions resulted in the emergence of several themes, called
global dimensions, which included topic areas such as global citizenship, student integration and
the impact of mobility, local relevance, and multi-disciplinarity for the internationalization
improvement of the CSU campus. Such measures have led to the successful integration of
comprehensive internationalization into the foundation of CSU, and the recent establishment of
the Global Dimensions Initiative constitutes a promising practice in the field of international
higher education.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete study would involve all stakeholder groups, this promising practice
study focused on one stakeholder group, namely, the SIO and the SIO’s personnel reporting
structure within the OIP. More than presidents and chief academic officers, SIO’s and their staff
are most likely to understand the importance of internationalization for promoting global
awareness and the necessity to create inclusive campus environments that promote the tolerance
and understanding of different cultures. SIO’s and their staff are perhaps best positioned to
understand the importance of students’ intrinsic interests in international education and how the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 21
interactions between domestic and international students can present powerful opportunities for
internationalization. Furthermore, in addition to providing international academic support
services and overseeing study-abroad and the Semester-at-Sea programs, the staff in the OIP also
provide a number of services to the university’s external communities. This includes language
services such as translation and interpretation, an immersive English as a Second Language
program, and conversational partnership programs for its students (CSU, 2017d).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to study CSU related to the larger problem of practice of
comprehensive internationalization. The Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses: 2012
Edition reports from ACE have documented how colleges and universities have made progress in
internationalization. However, there is still a lag at institutions with campus-wide
internationalization plans, formal assessments of campus internationalization efforts,
scholarships for education abroad purposes, and campus-wide policies or guidelines for
partnerships (Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement, 2017). This project
analysis focused on the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational resources
within CSU and the instrumental role played by the SIO and its staff to elevate CSU and its
comprehensive internationalization efforts which resulted in international recognition.
As such, CSU was selected for a promising practice case study based on the following
four criteria:
1. CSU achieved national recognition as a leading institution in campus
internationalization. Winning the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus
Internationalization in 2013 provided evidence for this.
2. CSU had recently announced major campus-wide internationalization initiatives.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 22
3. The SIO, who was tasked with this major campus initiative, was still employed at the
institution, as well as key senior administrators, faculty, and staff.
4. The SIO demonstrated the knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources needed
to position CSU to respond to the opportunities and challenges brought forth by
comprehensive internationalization.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to
understand organizational goal achievement, was adapted to a promising practice study and
implemented as the conceptual framework. A qualitative research approach addressed the
purpose of this study and supported interpretive objectives such as understanding the impact of
comprehensive internationalization, identifying the links between internationalization and
administration, and assessing the potential for improvements to strengthen a university’s ability
to embrace the positive impacts of internationalization while mitigating any potentially negative
effects. The methodological framework was a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics.
Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational assets were generated based on related
literature. These influences were assessed by using surveys, document analysis, interviews, and
literature review. Research-based solutions are recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive
manner.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 23
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the key terms are defined as follows:
Comprehensive Internationalization: A process that aligns and integrates policies, programs, and
initiatives to position colleges and universities to be more globally oriented and
internationally connected (Center for International and Global Education, 2017).
Internationalization: The process of integrating an international, intercultural and/or global
dimension into the goals, functions (teaching/learning, research, service) and delivery of
higher education (Knight, 2001).
International Education: International education is an all-inclusive term encompassing three
major strands: (a) international content in the curricula, (b) international movement of
scholars and students concerned with training and research, and (c) arrangements
engaging U.S. education abroad in technical assistance and education programs (Harari,
1972).
Globalization: “The flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, [and] ideas …
across borders. Globalization affects each country in a different way due to a nation’s
individual history, traditions, culture, and priorities” (Knight & de Wit, 1997).
Global Competency: Having mindfulness while actively seeking to understand the cultural
norms and expectations of others, leveraging this gained knowledge to interact,
communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment (Hunter, White, &
Godbey, 2006).
Internationalization Dimension Index (IDI): A standard institutional value that represents the
sum of the products of the most highly correlated variables used to rate the results of
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 24
institutional internationalization as identified by researchers Afonso (1990) and Krane
(1994).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about comprehensive
internationalization. CSU’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial review of the
promising practice framework was provided. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of globalization, comprehensive internationalization,
international education and the international dimension index are addressed. Chapter Three
details the assumed assets for this study as well as methodology that guided choice of
participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice and future research, based on data
and literature as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 25
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Institutions of higher education within the United States currently face the daunting
challenge of remaining intellectually and culturally relevant. As a result, the mission of many
higher education institutions includes the advent of assurances to produce and graduate globally
minded citizens who are prepared to work in and engage with a global society. Through a
multitude of internationalization characteristics, institutions are putting forth efforts to achieve
this commitment through comprehensive internationalization efforts. Understanding exactly how
an institution goes about internationalizing its campus proves to be a worthwhile pursuit. This
literature review focused on the motivations behind internationalization and what constitutes an
internationalized campus, including the indicators necessary for an institution to implement a
successful internationalization strategy. It also explored analytical frameworks for assessing
higher education internationalization, looking closely at what standards currently exist, if any,
and provides the foundational baseline from which internationalization could be measured.
The literature review begins with defining internationalization in general as well as
internationalization as it pertains to higher education. The following sections describe and define
the importance of internationalization and explore the effects of globalization in higher
education. Next, the review considers the current issues and challenges in higher education
internationalization, including its importance, impact on the organization and on learning, and
the constraints and barriers to internationalization. Furthermore, this chapter also reviews quality
assurance practices and assessment strategies for internationalization. The review addresses the
learning and motivation theory, paying special attention to the knowledge, skills, motivations,
and organizational factors and their influences on higher education internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 26
Defining Internationalization
To better understand the concept of internationalization and the various ways in which
intercultural scholars conceptualized it to date, it is helpful to briefly explore the nature of
internationalization as defined by international education administrators, most of whom are
experts in the fields of international higher education and administration. This section then
examines internationalization in general to illuminate the broader issues pertinent to this study
that will help higher education administrators think more comprehensively about the topic of
internationalization and place the later discussion on assessment of internationalization in
context.
The most common definition of internationalization is provided by Knight (2003b) as
“the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose,
functions or delivery of tertiary education” (p. 2). This was later revised and proposed as the new
working definition in 2015 by Knight (2015) as “the process of integrating an international,
intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary
education.” (pp. 2-3). Knight (2015) underscored that the term process was carefully selected to
better demonstrate and express that the process of internationalization is on-going and
continuous. Knight emphasized internationalization in relation to its application to differing
counties, cultures, and educational systems and outline a historical perspective on
internationalization that dates back to the 1980s and includes an initial focus within the field of
political science and governmental relations (Arum & van de Water, 1992; de Wit, 2002;
Wachter, 2003). Knight (2015) summarized the historical perspective by stating,
For over 20 years now, the definition of internationalization has been the subject of much
discourse. Internationalization is not a new term… (and) …its popularity in the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 27
education sector has really only soared since the early 1980’s. Prior to this time,
international education was the favored term and still is in in some countries (p. 2).
According to Knight, internationalization incorporates emerging terms including transnational
education, borderless education and cross-border education.
The term internationalization is not in itself easily identified. As Mestenhauser and
Ellingboe (1998) wrote, “While internationalization is used virtually interchangeably with
globalization, an explicitly helpful distinction can be made between them, in viewing
globalization as an advanced phase in the evolving process of internationalization” (p. 11). New
labels for internationalization were recently introduced into this debate (e.g. comprehensive
internationalization); however, none of these new labels include any new dimensions of
internationalization and relate back to Knight’s well-established definition (De Wit & Merkx,
2012). De Wit and Merkx (2012) further argued that an instrumental approach towards
internationalization leads to major misconceptions about what internationalization actually
means. Accordingly, they proposed a shift from a more activity and motivation-based approach
to internationalization to a combination of a process and competence-based approach. In other
words, they recommended a more integral process approach to internationalization focused on
achieving an enhanced quality of higher education and improved competencies of faculty, staff,
and students.
The American Council on Education described comprehensive internationalization as “a
strategic, coordinated process that seeks to align and integrate international policies, programs,
and initiatives” that assists institutions of higher education in position themselves to be more
globally oriented and internationally linked (ACE, 2017).
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 28
Internationalization and Higher Education
The dissemination of knowledge on a global scale has the potential to transform students’
lives in significant ways. Today, technology provides this powerful capability and facilitates
access to information that is no longer constrained by physical boundaries. Higher education
institutions and their consumers are reaping the benefits of globalization, proving to be one of the
most important and game-changing trends in higher education today. The globalization of higher
education has the potential to reshape our world; however, very few organizations within higher
education can clearly articulate the differences between globalization and internationalization
(Yang, 2002).
Importance of Internationalization in Higher Education
A common question that arises within higher education is why college students need to
be prepared for global leadership. ACE conducted two surveys in 2001 aimed at measuring
public expectations regarding international education and the value that the public places on
international education. One survey polled adult-aged individuals and the second survey focused
on college-bound high school seniors. The majority of adult respondents (93%) reported that
they believed that international knowledge is important for future generations, career success and
advancement. The same percentage expressed that awareness and understanding of other
cultures and customs is necessary to function in a global context. Among the respondents, there
was overwhelming consensus that higher education coursework addressing international topics
should be mandatory for students (Hayward & Siaya, 2001). College-bound high school seniors
who were also polled strongly supported international education and believed that coursework in
international education or consisting of international topics was an important factor in the
selection of a college or university. Interactions with international students and the availability
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 29
of foreign language classes was also viewed as playing an important role in their selection
process. Furthermore, 90% of the college-bound students indicated that their personal
experience with another culture further piqued their interests in international education
opportunities (Hayward & Siaya, 2001). In either study, employers also cited the need for global
understanding, as well as knowledge of global issues and human cultures, as critical for success
in the global economy (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2006).
While it may seem clear that the process of implementing campus internationalization is
similar to other initiative in higher education, such as service learning or online learning, the
literature suggests that this is not the case. Internationalization is a much broader, deeper, and
substantive change - few other initiatives that colleges undertake can be compared. Furthermore,
internationalization is not a definable, singular end goal of an institution. As noted by Knight
and de Wit (1995), internationalization is a cyclical process that takes place not once, but
continuously.
Internationalization is expressed in numerous ways and there are multiple possibilities for
leaders to internationalize their campuses. Some colleges emphasize the need for students to
study abroad (Engberg & Green, 2002), while others focus on domestic students with differing
cultural backgrounds as a means to enhance international education (Nilsson, 2003). Some U.S.
institutions may focus on technology and collaboration to give students exposure to
opportunities. While it is important to identify critical performance indicators to determine
whether an internationalization effort is comprehensive, it is also important to note that the
methods may differ greatly from one university to another. As the research reveals, higher
education institutions have unique structures and cultures that influence a leader’s ability to
implement change (Birnbaum, 1988; Kezar, 2001; Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 1998).
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 30
Several key aspects of internationalization provide a framework for understanding the
differing methods that higher education institutions may employ towards achieving an
internationalized campus (Rumbley, Altbach, & Reisberg, 2013).
Student mobility. The best-known form of internationalization is to increase the
numbers of students who study abroad. Mobility schemes that support international student
mobility can be divided into three models:
▪ Exchange mobility: Students choose to have a short- or long-term abroad experience, at a
host institution, per the terms of the institutional exchange agreement.
▪ Networked mobility: One university, a faculty member, department or specific university
forms a network with several partners. The student studies for a certain period of time at
one or more partnering network institutions to follow their curriculum abroad.
▪ Embedded mobility and curricula: A limited number of partners engage in a consortium
in which students then rotate and follow parts of their educational plan in two or more
partner institutions while students from the other institutions do the same.
Study abroad programs, described as all educational programs that occur outside the
geographical areas of the country of origin, increasingly have gained popularity over the past 20
years (Carlson, Bum, Useem, & Yachimowicz, 1991). According to the Institute of International
Education Open Doors report, between academic years 2004-2005 and 2014-2015, the number
of U.S. students studying abroad increased by 52% (Open Doors, 2006, 2016). This sizable and
increasing involvement enhances students’ worldview, global perspectives, cross-cultural
effectiveness, interests in travel, art, foreign languages, history, and architecture (Carsello &
Greaser, 1976) and increases their abilities in terms of reflective thought, self-reliance, self-
confidence, and personal well-being (Kuh & Kauffman, 1984). However, many critics argue
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 31
that, while there are a number of funding sources that afford many students to study abroad,
inequity exists when some students are excluded due to financial constraints (Altbach & Knight,
2007; Boggs & Irwin, 2007). Furthermore, the continued push to create globally minded civic
education solely through focused study abroad programs undermines the pillars of
comprehensive internationalization.
Faculty mobility. Faculty mobility is considered one of the most important forms of
internationalization in higher education, yet the hardest to implement. Four levels of faculty
engagement are identified in the literature: those who have extensive knowledge of international
education and cross-cultural communication skills, advocates who are particularly passionate
about international initiatives, skeptics who are reluctant to engage in international initiatives as
they are doubtful of the relevance of international perspectives to their curriculum, and
opponents who openly oppose internationalization and attempt to disrupt international education
initiatives (Childress, 2009; Green & Burris, 2008).
Traditionally, international mobility among faculty has involved research activity;
however, more recently education and teaching have become reasons for faculty to participate in
exchange or mobility programs. The challenge for developing and sustaining
internationalization in the 21st century is the engagement of the faculty. While higher education
institutions are largely successful in providing mechanisms for student mobility, they have not
successfully engaged the faculty nor is faculty mobility as sizeable as it should be. This lack of
faculty engagement has prevented the delivery of learning and discovery that internationalization
seeks to aim (Stohl, 2007). In order to capture the faculty interest and commitment to
internationalization, higher education institutions need to move beyond the conceptualization of
internationalization and examine how teaching, research, and service activities encourage greater
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 32
learning and discovery. Programs such as ERASMUS, SOCRATES, Fulbright, Fulbright-Hays,
and Higher Education for Development help promote faculty mobility projects and multilateral
programs (Altbach & Knight, 2007; DeWit, 1995; Van Damme, 2000). The Marie Sklodowska-
Curie Fellowship, established by the European Union in 2007, has supported more than 60,000
researchers from 130 countries since its inception. The fellowship funds international and cross-
sector mobility, supporting research, training, professional development and innovation
(European Commission, 2017). The SOCRATES Program, another European Union initiative,
encourages innovative efforts, mutual cooperation and exchanges in higher education and other
educational sectors and has been instrumental in developing links between exchange and
curricular innovations in higher education (Altbach & Teichler, 2001).
Partnership agreements. Collaboration between universities includes signing
partnership agreements that deal with various aspects of education and teaching; however, there
are misconceptions within higher education that more partnerships improve internationalization.
Most frequently, they are developed in the context of collaborative projects that involve faculty
or student exchanges yet seldom are they implemented strategically, aligned with overall mission
and goals of the institution (ACE, 2017; DeWit, 1995; Institute of International Education,
2016). The value of strategic partnerships and research collaborations for advancing
international education has long been established. McLean (1990) outlined the benefits of using
partnerships to promote study abroad. Among the benefits he cited were consistency, quality,
and variety of program as well as low cost and efficiency. The partnership approach is especially
attractive for smaller colleges and universities where budget and resources are often challenged.
Publications outlining strategies for successful internationalization have offered strategic
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 33
partnerships and research collaborations as viable options for institutions (Raby, 2008; Scott,
1998).
Moreover, international partnerships are a “strategic element” in meeting the institution’s
goals and “require an institution to seek quality” (Wright & Breda, 2015, p. 968).
In their review of the literature on cross-border curriculum partnerships, Waterval et al. (2015)
refer “mistrust and disturbed relationships” as the reason why so many partnerships worsen and
degenerate (p. 76). Wright and Breda (2015) support this view, indicating “trust and
transparency” as essential for ethical partnership success.
Internationalizing the curriculum. Internationalizing the curriculum should be seen in
higher education as something more comprehensive than merely developing a curriculum with
international contents. The effects of globalization on higher education and international
education must be looked at closely (ACE, 2017; DeWit, 1995).
Integrating the foundational elements of an internationalized curriculum allows an
institution to make a meaningful impact on all of its students due to the ability of reaching all or
most students through the core curriculum (Nilsson, 2003). The effort to implement an
internationalized curriculum also mandates the broad participation of faculty in a campus-wide
effort as universities have given their faculty members through faculty senates, councils, and
their committees the responsibility of overseeing major curricular changes and improvements.
Furthermore, internationalizing a curriculum is a cost-effective measure for students and allows
them to better prepare for and take advantage of study abroad opportunities and experiences.
In addition, inequality was highlighted as connected to the need to internationalize higher
education curriculum. By internationalizing the curriculum, universities can equalize the
opportunities for its students by decreasing the financial barriers to international education while
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 34
encouraging students to become more globally minded and competent (Zagalo-Melo, Atteberry,
& Turner, 2018).
Motivations for Internationalization in Higher Education
The literature reveals four motivations regarding the importance of internationalizing
higher education: political, economic, social/cultural, and academic (Childress, 2009; Dolby &
Rahman, 2008; Knight J., 2004; Kreber, 2009; Raby, 2008). These motivations provide a good
basis for discussion of the importance of internationalization in higher education.
The transformation and improvement of global economic and trade systems, research
networks, and cross-border communications are highlighted as macro-level motivations by
Hudzik (2011) as motivations and purposes driving comprehensive internationalization. Human
capital development, strategic partnerships, commercial trade, constructing national identity, and
social and cultural development are the important motivations that drive internationalization at
the national level (Knight, 2004). As indicated by Peterson (2014), despite the absence of a fully
centralized higher education system, U.S. higher education policy is set at the national level by
the president, Congress, the Supreme Court and government agencies. Moreover, these policies
are influenced by associations (i.e., AIEA and NAFSA in the case of international education),
taxpayers, employers, students, parents, faculty, staff, alumni and donors. The amplified
pressures to recruit and retain the smartest and most educated international students and scholars,
as well as the increasing need to further the international dimensions of research and teaching
have led to the human capital motivations. The increasing attention to enhancing intercultural
understanding and skills for citizenship development are an additional motivation for
internationalization (Knight, 2004). Strategic partnership motivations emphasize the need for
greater student mobility, as well as the increasing need for international faculty and research
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 35
mobility. Through collaborative research and education efforts, geographic connections and
economic relations can boost internationalization (Hudzik, 2011; Knight, 2004). Recent
developments in higher education, including the advent of online instruction, has given
additional motivation behind commercial trade as universities strive to develop and enter into
new trade agreements as an effort to increase the profitmaking side of cross-border education
(Knight, 2004). National identity formation policies and internationalization interact to both
complement and contradict each other in the global context of higher education. While
increasing global competitiveness through internationalization may prove to be beneficial to
nation states, nations need to avoid becoming singly focused on national competitiveness at the
expense of regional relations and understanding.
Political
The political motivation emphasizes the importance of international knowledge for
functioning in a global society and the importance of international knowledge to government
agencies (Childress, 2009). Several authors cite matters of national security and foreign policy
as key drivers for international education (ACE, 2017; Dolby & Rahman, 2008), and this is
validated by the continuous presence of stories regarding diplomatic issues, military
involvement, and national security issues in the headlines. Government agencies rely on
institutions of higher education to prepare experts with skills in languages, cultures, and global
knowledge to support the role of the U.S. in global affairs.
A 2010 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office examined the
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense and the Department of State to
evaluate and identify the foreign language needs and existing gaps within. The U.S. Government
Accountability Office conducted the study, citing the following reasons:
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 36
Foreign language skills are vital to effectively communicate…and are an increasingly key
element to the success of diplomatic efforts, military operations, counterterrorism, law
enforcement and intelligence missions; as well as to ensure access to federal programs
and services to Limited English Proficient populations within the United States. (Maurer,
2010, p.1)
The U.S. Government Accountability Office report identified risks to diplomatic
readiness, citing both foreign language and staffing gaps at the Department of State in its 2010
report. Furthermore, the report specifically addresses the need for improved language skills and
regional proficiency among its military and the need to further the military work with partners in
various nations and the importance of language and regional knowledge for success (Pickup,
2010). The United States government supports the education related to critical languages by
investing in programs such as the Fulbright Program, Boren Fellowships, and the Department of
Defense Language and National Security Education Programs, providing financial resources to
expand the number of individuals studying and mastering critical foreign languages and cultural
skills, contributing to the economic competitiveness and national security of the United States.
Economic
International business and the expanding global market rests at the center of the
economic motivation (Byers-Pevitts, 2008; Dellow, 2007; Qiang, 2003). Very few truly local
companies still exist as technology, such as the Internet, has allowed offices and operations of
small or independent businesses to do business at any time and in any place around with world.
This global expansion of local companies will continue to expand as companies continue to
realize the prospects of markets that exist outside the United States (Qiang, 2003). The
significance of global literacy skills for individuals working in the global economy become
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 37
evident as the export and import industry conducted by the United States is examined. The nature
of international labor markets places an increasing amount of pressure on higher education to
deliver graduates who have skills to be internationally competitive (Byers-Pevitts, 2008; Dellow,
2007; Qiang, 2003).
The impact of communication technology and the increased mobility and diversity of the
global economy have ensured that even those students who do not work abroad need to have a
more advanced level of intercultural awareness and understanding necessary to live and work in
this global century (ACE, 2017; Knight, 2004).
Social and Cultural
The third motivation promotes international education in a way in which students can
better understand and appreciate the various individuals and cultures of the world (AAC&U,
2016; ACE, 2017; Kreber, 2009). Contact with peoples of the world increases daily due to
advancements in technology and the increasing ease of international travel. Even local travel and
daily interactions bring encounters with people from other cultures and countries. As the United
States becomes increasingly diverse, the manner in which international education is represented
will be even more important (Green & Burris, 2008; Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006).
Green and Olson (2003) wrote that internationalization should produce college graduates
who are culturally competent, have the ability to speak languages other than English, and have
knowledge of political, economic, and social systems in other countries. Furthermore,
Mestenhauser (1998) stated that internationalization is a way of thinking by defining it as a
“complex, multidimensional learning process that integrates international knowledge with a deep
understanding of cultural variables to enable one to understand and compare multiple points of
reference from an insider and outsider perspective” (p. 504). International learning has less to do
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 38
with the acquisition of knowledge but focuses on the application of knowledge when new
situations and information extends beyond culturally bound expectations. Thus, the goal of
internationalization is to enable students to be culturally adaptable in order to work in other
countries or in unfamiliar cultural settings.
Academic
Academic refers to the idea that, to maintain and strengthen the quality of education,
there should be an international component build into all curriculum and that internationalization
should be imbedded into the mission of the institution (Childress, 2009; Green & Burris, 2008;
Knight, 2001; Raby, 2008).
The successful implementation of international education programs will require
institutions to overcome numerous obstacles. Many of the barriers cited by higher education
institutions resemble those encountered by other educational entities and commonly include lack
of support, insufficient resources, and the inability of students to participate (Boggs & Irwin,
2007). One method is to look at the barriers to internationalization and place them into two
categories: institutional and individual (Green & Burris, 2008; Childress, 2009).
Issues, Challenges, and Constraints in Higher Education Internationalization
Institutional and Cultural Barriers
Institutional barriers center mostly on policy, mission, and strategies and, therefore, on
leadership due to the role leaders play in shaping these aspects of an institution (Raby, 2008).
Because of the traditionally local focus placed on universities and colleges, mainly public and
state universities that have missions mandated and funding allocated by state and local
government, institutional leaders will often place minimal value and investment on international
education. This subsequent low prioritization leads to little effort by institutions to implement
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 39
policies and strategies that support international education (Green & Burris, 2008; ACE, 2017).
In addition, universities must also focus on faculty and students and the misconception among
institutions that study abroad will solely further internationalization and that internationalization
is the equivalent to academic mobility.
Unfortunately, study abroad is a possible for only a few students. According to NAFSA
(2017), the total number of U.S. students studying abroad for credit during the 2014-2015
academic year represented 1.55% of all U.S. students enrolled at U.S. institutions of higher
education. This creates a sense of elitism arising from the perception that study abroad is only
possible for those students who can be the recipient of a scholarship or those who have the
financial means to afford a study abroad experience (Knight, 1999). Elitism resulting from this
balance of internationalization and academic mobility leads to a negative perception of the value
of internationalization for the larger student population and creates another barrier (Childress,
2009; Harari, 1972; Kreber, 2009). Furthermore, cultural and regional identities pose additional
barriers to internationalization due to diverse reasons such as geographical isolation, regional
pride, and lack of diversity (Peacock, 2007; Zagalo-Melo et al., 2018).
Quality Assurance and Measuring Internationalization
For most industry areas, it is possible to define a threshold or minimum standard in which
to measure and ensure quality (e.g. percentage of calcium in milk, fuel consumption of a car,
number of customers served) (Craft, 1992). If there is a single parameter defining the standard,
then quality control is simple. If there are a number of similar products or services, applying the
measurement enables them to be compared and even put in rank order. However, in the area of
higher education, quality assurance is complex and multifaceted (Loder, 1990).
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 40
As institutions of higher education strive toward comprehensive internationalization, the
issue arises whether there are standard measurements in internationalization related to quality
assurance and the national and international recognition of providers, programs, credits, and
qualifications related to internationalization activities. Clearly, all enterprises, including
universities, need to have system of checks and balances to ensure that the materials they use, the
products they make, or the services they provide reaches a minimum level of standards.
However, there is a lack of literature in the area of higher education that discusses the agencies
or programs that are registered, licensed, or recognized by higher education that have the
regulatory systems in place to register or evaluate comprehensive internationalization. While
frameworks do exist for quality assurance and accreditation in higher education, they typically
do not apply outside the national education system nor do they involve aspects of comprehensive
internationalization (Craft, 1992).
There are four components that are universally used in the field of quality assurance
(Craft, 1992; Loder, 1990):
1. Everyone in the enterprise has a responsibility for maintaining the quality of the product
or services;
2. Everyone in the enterprise has a responsibility for enhancing the quality of the product or
service;
3. Everyone in the enterprise understands, uses and feels ownership of the systems which
are in place for maintaining and enhancing quality; and
4. Management (and sometimes the customer or client) regularly checks the validity and
viability of the systems for checking quality.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 41
If the word ‘enterprise’ can be replaced with ‘university’, then a university will be able to
apply these same standards as a model and will emerge as a community of students, teachers,
support staff and administration who are accountable for their education, each contributing to
and striving for continued improvement (Lewis & Loder, 1990).
Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education
The establishment of quality assurance policies and mechanisms took place in a political
and governmental environment characterized by a changing relationship between the state and
the institutional field (Van Damme, 2000; Green, 2012). During the 1990s, the word ‘quality’
became a major theme and quickly become known as ‘the decade of quality’. In the areas of
industry, commerce, government and in all aspects of education the word ‘quality’ was widely
being used: ‘quality control’, ‘quality circles’, ‘total quality management’, ‘quality assurance’,
and so on. The maintenance and enhancement of quality, and attempts to define and measure
quality, quickly became major issues for higher education in many countries. Quality is often the
central concept and major focus of institutions. There are four main functions in quality
assurance systems that are used throughout educational systems worldwide (Altbach & McGill
Peterson, 1998; Green, 2012; Van Damme, 2000):
▪ Improvement of education, by addressing student learning outcomes;
▪ Accountability, defining spheres of responsibility in the delivery of instruction and
achievement of outcomes;
▪ Public information and market transparency, to meet standards of democratic
accountability; and
▪ Resource allocation and planning, as a means of assuring fiscal responsibility.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 42
Challenges for International Quality Assurance Systems
One of the significant issues to quality assurance is the efficacy and cost effectiveness of
the system, specifically related to the results obtained in relation to cost and resources. A further
challenge is the issue of effectiveness and the efficient use of resources. Additional standardized
effects of quality assurance systems are of concern as it implies that there is only one set of
definitions, concepts, methodologies, and criteria that creates uniformity and standardization
(Van Damme, 2000; Green, 2012). These concerns focus on questions related to the definitions
of raw materials, services and products provided by higher education. Are the raw materials of
the university its students, its teachers and researchers or its curriculum? Is the service the
university provides its teaching, its care of students or the learning facilities such as libraries, and
computer facilities? Is the product of the university its graduates and the competences they have
acquired, or the new knowledge generated by research? All of these aspects of a university’s
activities contribute independently to its overall quality; nevertheless, they are interrelated. No
university could, or should, employ groups of regulators to examine each of these aspects in
isolation.
Implications of the Literature to this Study
De Wit (2002) stated that “the key role of internationalization and its contribution to
higher education is gaining more recognition around the world, in both developed and
developing countries. As internationalization matures, both as a concept and as a process, it is
important that institutions of higher education address the issues of quality assessment and
assurance of their international dimension” (p. 155). As the review of the literature indicates, it is
important for institutions to address the specific outcomes of their internationalization efforts and
how to best assess those outcomes. This chapter reviewed seminal works in the field of
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 43
international higher education, comprehensive internationalization, and globalization and
internationalization as they attempt to define and assess internationalization. Areas of
disagreement were highlighted in regard to terminology, the importance of internationalization,
its motivations and challenges, and methods of assessment. This chapter, thus, illustrates the
complexity and difficulty facing any group of experts or institutions of higher education that
undertake internationalization efforts and seek the best ways to measure its progress for
effectiveness.
Among the many scholars in the field of international higher education, several will argue
that internationalization cannot be measured. Knight (2001) argued, “the concept of
internationalization tracking measures should not be interpreted as performance indicators of
internationalization (p. 31).” Furthermore, Knight suggested that internationalization should
only be seen as a process in which the tracking measures are intended to help in the evaluation of
the progress and quality of the process but should not be used as a means to assess or assess the
results or impact of internationalization (Knight, 2001).
While the literature surrounding internationalization provides extensive information that
covers the importance of internationalization, how to implement internationalization, and why, to
internationalize, the literature has a substantial gap in the area of measuring internationalization.
However, despite highlighting the importance of quality assessment (Craft, 1992; Loder, 1990)
the literature is scarce in providing an analysis of the role of standardization that can contribute
to measure and assess an institution’s internationalization efforts.
While increasing internationalization efforts in higher education may prove beneficial for
institutional profile, reputation, student and staff development, financial stability, as well as
research and knowledge production, institutions need to avoid the pitfalls of working toward
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 44
comprehensive internationalization without a common set of standards that measures and
assesses a minimum level that ensures that the intentions and outcomes of their programs meet
similar national or international qualifications.
This dissertation analyzes the role of standards in promoting and enhancing
comprehensive internationalization in higher education institutions by looking at a promising
practice: the case of CSU’s recognition of its level of comprehensive internationalization by
NAFSA and how its criteria for judging applicants to the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for
Campus Internationalization can act as a driver to improve quality in internationalization.
Conclusion
The assumed influences categorized as knowledge, motivation, and organization was
summarized and validated as a result of this study. The following sections will focus on the
population and sample size of the study, as well as the instrumentation, data collection process,
and data analysis. The data collection methodology included surveys and interviews. The data
provide the foundation to support the promising practice for other institutions to implement
comprehensive internationalization successfully.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 45
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The nature of internationalization in higher education has forced institutions to look at
efforts to become more internationally driven, and measures of assessment need to be developed
to assist higher education administrators ascertain the effectiveness of their internationalization
strategies. While the literature review provided the foundation for the importance of
internationalization while highlighting the relevance of quality and assessment, it also revealed
that currently there are no standards that exist for measuring institutional preparedness. The
purpose of this promising practice study was to evaluate one institution of higher education,
CSU, to determine the extent to which it undertook comprehensive internationalization to be
nominated for and the recipient of the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus
Internationalization. This study examined the assets and attributes that were in place at CSU that
influenced their comprehensive internationalization plan and serves as a foundation for other
universities wishing to achieve the same level of comprehensive internationalization as
recognized by a leading organization in the field.
Research Questions
This study sought to address the factors that influenced successful comprehensive
internationalization at a public, research university. More specifically, the following primary
research question was addressed: What assets contributed to CSU having achieved a high level
of comprehensive internationalization?
The analysis focused on the promising practice that existed in the areas of administrative
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors. The analysis began by focusing on
the assumed influences that affect a university’s ability to internationalize, which was then
systematically examined to validate the assumed or actual causes.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 46
Two secondary questions were further examined in this study:
1. What factors influenced successful campus internationalization?
2. How did these factors influence the process of campus internationalization?
Methodological Framework
Using the gap analysis framework, this study identified the strategies employed by CSU
to internationalize and become a leading institution in higher education. The gap analysis used to
guide this study was a systematic and analytical methodological framework that helped to
explain organizational goals and identified the performance gap in achievement by focusing on
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers within an organization. The process
included identifying, understanding, and diagnosing performance gaps, as well as implementing
solutions and proposing methods for further evaluation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Assumed causes
for the performance gap were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature.
These causes were then validated through the use of surveys, interviews and document analysis.
Each are described in further detail in this chapter, including background information on the
methodology, as well as details on the sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis. The
gap analysis process is shown in Figure 1.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 47
Figure 1. GAP analysis model.
This study used a promising practice/case study framework for question exploration.
Merriam (1998) suggests that case studies work well in educational settings since they are
established in existent situations and can successively impact practice. Case study research is
good for exploring practice and adding to the knowledge base in an effort to improve practices as
benefited from focusing on the understanding and insight from the promising practice being
studied. A promising practice framework allowed for the development and exploration of
various assumed characteristics as it explored the topic by looking at programs and strategies that
demonstrated positive and successful outcomes.
As described by Creswell (2009), a case study is a “qualitative strategy in which the
researcher explored a program in depth, event, activity, or process of one or more individuals”
(p.19). Case studies are ideal for the study of constrained systems and focus on the
understanding of context and processes as opposed to pursuing cause and effect relationships.
They are depicted as having an exclusive interest, focus on a specific occurrence, and examine
what a specific case reveals about a problem or practice. Promising practices also provide a rich
and detailed description of the specific occurrence and the investigative nature allows for the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 48
discovery of meaning and understanding of the occurrence (Merriam, 1998). In this study, the
promising practice approach allowed for exploration of the role that the OIP at CSU held in
internationalizing its campus and provided an in-depth description of how this model may inform
the process of internationalization for other institutions. For the purpose of this study, the SIO
and program administrators were the key stakeholders. The SIO and the program administrators
are crucial components to internationalizing a campus and need to understand the meaning of the
term comprehensive internationalization. Once this meaning is understood, the key stakeholders
must acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for implementation of comprehensive
internationalization. Then, the SIO and program administrators can design goals and objectives
that serve as the framework for implementation. In order for these stakeholders to support the
campus effectively, they must be able to connect the goals of the institution with the goals and
objectives of comprehensive internationalization.
Assumed Influences
The root causes for performance gaps are often overlooked when individuals rely on their
personal knowledge of a problem and offer solutions without first validating the apparent causes.
In using the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the root causes of a performance gap
were evaluated in an evidence-based manner. As such, a thorough investigation of
organizational performance identified information based on a) interviews with stakeholders; b)
learning, motivation, and organization/culture theory; and (c) review of the literature on the
specific topic under question. Related literature was discussed in Chapter Two, but each of these
categories are included in tables in Chapter Three and the knowledge, motivation and
organizational problems are identified.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 49
Population and Sample
Colorado State University, located in Fort Collins, Colorado, is the flagship University of
the CSU System. CSU is a doctoral-granting research university and is the only land-grant
institution in the state. It has served the state of Colorado since 1870 and features nationally
ranked schools and innovative research. The CSU system has three campuses, each offering
very distinct programs and missions, and operates in a global context enabling CSU to make
education an international experience for its students, faculty, staff, and community (CSU,
2017d). CSU was chosen for this promising practice study because it is recognized in the field of
internationalization of higher education as an institution that made a “significant, well-planned,
well-executed, and well-documented progress toward comprehensive internationalization”
(NAFSA, 2017), having received the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus
Internationalization in 2013. Furthermore, CSU proved to be a valuable case study as, for over a
decade, their comprehensive internationalization efforts were led by Dr. James Cooney, a
prominent senior administrator in the field of international higher education.
As part of its internationalization strategy, the OIP at CSU created and fostered
international activities, which included education abroad opportunities, faculty initiatives, and
partnerships with universities around the world. The OIP supported teaching, learning, research
and engagement throughout the CSU system and their mission is accomplished through a broad
array of programs and services designed to provide international experiences.
Interviews and surveys included the current vice provost for international affairs, and
approximately 10-20 current employees of the OIP staff who served in strategic leadership
capacities, as they possessed the most informed understanding of CSU and its influence on
internationalization. The vice provost for international affairs provided a different perspective
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 50
related to the roles influencing internationalization at CSU. The participants were all over the
age of 18 and voluntary participated.
Patton (2002) notes that with qualitative studies it is important to select candidates that
are “information rich;” in other words, people who have knowledge and experience in the area
being studied. The individuals selected for this study worked on campus internationalization
efforts either directly or indirectly and were selected specifically because of their position and
experience. The results are not intended to be generalizable but helped to determine the factors
that influenced campus internationalization and made the connections between the factors that
enabled the development of a comprehensive initiative.
Data Collection
Instrumentation
In a qualitative methods study, the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection
(Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 1998). This creates a situation where data is related to context and is
subjected to ongoing analysis as it is collected. The researcher imparts a certain amount of
flexibility that is not available when using inanimate instruments and this allows for the adaption
to circumstances during data collection. Data collected is subject to the filters and biases of the
researcher. The researcher brings its own understanding to the study while each participant to
the study brings another (Merriam, 1998). The combination of these two understandings
produces a phenomenon which includes yet another understanding. The researcher must be
aware of these potential influences, their interactions, and be able to provide an explanation for
this as the study develops.
Potential sources of researcher bias in this study included pre-existing experience with an
institution’s internationalization efforts, the higher education system associated with the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 51
university, and with some of the individuals identified for interviews as well as personal thoughts
and opinions regarding internationalization in higher education. The researcher took care during
the interview process to avoid language that might lead or influence the answer of the
participants. The researcher also made every effort to prevent the introduction of personal views
regarding internationalization and higher education into the interview process. An additional
ethical consideration is maintaining the confidentiality of the participants. Measures were taken
to preserve the anonymity of all participants and participants.
The following section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures that
were utilized to collect data for this inquiry following approval by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board. The data sources included surveys and semi-structured
interviews.
Surveys. In the case of this promising practice study of CSU, the main data collection
method was through the use of surveys. Surveys served as the primary source for collecting data
as they are a reliable and efficient way to analyze, interpret, and evaluate data (Fink, 2017). A
survey with 18 questions, using a Likert scale response, ranging from Strongly Agree, Agree,
Disagree, and Strongly Disagree was developed. The survey was administered online using the
Qualtrics software and was distributed to staff members within the OIP, as well as the vice
provost for international affairs. Identification of the respondents was not collected to maintain
confidentiality. Results of the survey were downloaded onto a password-protected computer for
further analysis beyond the capabilities of the Qualtrics software. The surveys are attached as
Appendix A and Appendix B.
Interviews. Administrators and staff who are closely associated with the comprehensive
internationalization efforts at CSU were also interviewed. These individuals were appropriate to
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 52
interview, as they were likely to be the most familiar with the campus-wide internationalization
efforts and best able to contribute to a deeper understanding of how the institution informed
internationalization among its students, faculty, and staff. This knowledge added value to the
research and offered insights that other individuals could not. The interview questions were
based on the overarching research question: How did CSU’s OIP measure its campus-wide
comprehensive internalization efforts? Interview questions were formulated using both closed
and open-ended questions to better understand the perceptions of administrators and staff
regarding the benefits and connections of comprehensive internationalization. Participants were
predetermined to assist the researcher in information gathering from individuals who are most
likely to provide an in-depth understanding of the research questions (Creswell, 2009).
One-on-one interviews were conducted on the campus of CSU after obtaining permission
from the institutional review board at the University of Southern California. Creswell (2009),
noted one-on-one interviews work well when interviewees are comfortable speaking and can
easily communicate their thoughts and ideas. They tend to be open-ended, have less structured
protocols and participants may be interviewed on multiple occasions to clarify concepts or to
check the reliability of data.
Interview questions were open-ended and conducted within the framework of a consistent
semi-structured interview protocol which allows for probes during the questioning if the
opportunity or need presents itself to acquire more detail. Open-ended questions allowed
participants to answer questions based on their perceptions and experiences and not be
influenced by the researcher’s perspective or pre-defined response categories while allowing the
researcher to make adjustments to the wording and to the order of questions as the interview
advanced. The interview protocol was developed based on the recommendations of Creswell
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 53
(2009) and included a generalized opening question followed by other major
internationalization-related questions. Each major question had the potential to have possible
probes developed to gain a deeper and more thorough understanding of the response or to solicit
clarification. The researcher remained flexible and considered all questions to be tentative so
that modifications could be made, and early interviews revisited. This allowed the researcher to
capture the distinctive way in which each interviewee viewed the research topic as the interview
naturally developed.
An audio recording was made of each interview and the researcher took notes to
supplement the recorded material to preserve perspectives and common themes throughout the
data collection process. Recordings of the interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim
and were reviewed along with interview notes to identify emerging themes and to provide a
general idea of what participants said during the interviews and focus groups.
Allowing time for review and practice with the interview questions and its protocol is
critical to obtaining the necessary data (Merriam, 1998). The communication exchange between
the interviewer and interviewee, as well as the skill of the interviewer in asking questions, are
critical elements in conducting a successful interview. A pilot survey to assess the interview
questions effectiveness in practice was conducted at the researcher’s current institution.
Feedback about clarity and the relationship to the topic was solicited and revisions were made
accordingly. Practice interviews were conducted prior to data collection to assist in the
refinement of the interview protocol and questions. Furthermore, practice sessions allowed the
researcher to develop note-taking skills to further assist in the interview process (Creswell,
2009).
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 54
Document analysis. Document analysis was used as another source of evidence for the
promising practice study. This was the most informal component of the data collection process
because of the limitations of time spent on the campus of CSU. The document analysis consisted
mainly of physical artifacts. Yin (2009) defines this as a “physical or cultural artifact - a
technological device, a tool or instrument, a work of art or some other physical evidence”
(p.113). Furthermore, documentation provided by the institution, such as proposals, year-end
reports, and accreditation reports from academic and administrative units can be found online.
This allowed for accessibility to analysis of documents related to international academic
programs, general education curriculum requirements, faculty policy handbooks, budget
allocation documentation, strategic plans, and general institutional data.
Data Analysis
The examination of data for common themes and ideas is an important first step in data
analysis (Creswell, 2009). Descriptive statistics was used from the survey to identify the basic
features throughout. Common themes and frequencies were evaluated, and data was analyzed
for similarities between variables. When analyzing the data for motivational causes, scanning
looked for variables associated with interest, self-efficacy, attributions, goal orientation, active
choice, persistence, and mental effort. Organizational assets were also scanned for knowledge
types related to policy or procedures, values and culture, and resources.
The qualitative data collected through the semi-structured interview was coded using the
same descriptive terminology representing the categories of knowledge and skills, motivation
and organization to obtain and analyze the relevant information and to assist in the identification
of specific assets and trends.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 55
Validation of Performance Influences
The assumed assets surrounding comprehensive internationalization were validated
through surveys, interviews, and document review during the promising practice study, and are
listed in Table 1. Currently, there is an assumed lack of knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organization of institutions aspiring to internationalize.
Table 1
Table of Assumed Assets
Knowledge Survey Interview
Document
Analysis
Institutions need to have internationalization in their mission statement and
strategic plan.
x X
x
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to demonstrate their
understanding of how standards can relate to internationalization strategies.
X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know what the key
motivations are of their institution in implementing comprehensive
internationalization.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know how peer
recognition can affect their comprehensive internationalization strategies.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to be able understand the
importance of internationalization for the institution.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to have a firm
understanding of how comprehensive internationalization applies to their work.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to understand the key
issues that can obstruct internationalization efforts.
X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know to define
comprehensive internationalization.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to be able to recognize
why internationalization should be a priority of the institution.
x X
Motivation
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to value the mission and
vision of the university.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to be able to invest the
mental effort to implement internationalization.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to sustain their
internationalization efforts.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team have to believe that their
efforts make a difference to the campus culture.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team have to believe that they can
achieve internationalization.
x X
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 56
Table 1, continued
Knowledge Survey Interview
Document
Analysis
Motivation
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to see the value of the
strategies employed for internationalization.
x X
SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to believe they can be
recognized by peer institutions, and other associations, for their contribution in
internationalization.
x X
Organization
There has to be culture of comprehensive internationalization embedded in the
university.
x X x
Internationalization has to be a key component in the mission and vision of the
university.
x X x
University administration needs to be able to provide a structure that is in line
with comprehensive internationalization.
x X x
There must be a designated individual who is responsible for leading
comprehensive internationalization.
x X x
Funding must be allocated for campus internationalization efforts. x X x
Trustworthiness of Data
Researcher bias is a threat to the trustworthiness of data and its validity when the
researchers’ preconceived notions and understanding distorts the analysis of data. Patton
suggests that it is instrumental for both validity and reliability that the researcher envisions the
observed social world as it actually exists to those under investigation (2002). Reflections were
made by the researcher as to how values and preconceptions affected what was seen, heard, and
recorded in the field and steps were taken to moderate influence through rigorous field
procedures.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study were time and geography. The researcher was limited to a
predetermined amount of time to collect and analyze data. Additionally, the study focused on a
comprehensive, research-oriented, diverse university located in the state of Colorado. Data
collection was limited to the institution and individuals with whom the researcher had an existing
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 57
relationship with, as well as to those whom the researcher referred to during the process. These
factors limited the scope and breadth of the study.
The delimitations of the study are the singular institution being studied and the intention
of the study was to create a scale for which internationalization could be measured and validated.
Further studies will be needed to create the scale, whereas the creation of the list of
internationalization indicators which subsequent institutions can use for successful
implementation was the goal of the present study. Other institution types were not studied. The
focus of this study was explicitly stated and does not infer an extensive and unlimited use.
Conclusion
This chapter presented a summary of the presumed asset validation methods of the
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational (KMO) framework. The data collection methods
employed for this research utilized surveys and interviews as a basis for an in-depth analysis and
to assist in the development of solution-based recommendations for institutions seeking to
implement a successful comprehensive internationalization strategy. This plan incorporated the
perspectives of critical stakeholders and looked at the promising practices of one institution that
has improved the quality of internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 58
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The main purpose of this case study was to describe the success factors that influenced
comprehensive internationalization at CSU using findings from the qualitative data collected.
This study focused on the staff of the OIP and their views pertaining to the factors which led to
attaining comprehensive internationalization at their institution. The aim was to analyze how
CSU became a highly recognized leader in the area of higher education internationalization. This
chapter presents the results of the qualitative study that evaluated the knowledge, motivation and
organizational assets of a public university, which was recognized through awards for its
successful and notable internationalization efforts.
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis served as the framework for this case study. By
utilizing a gap analysis process, it is possible to examine a program in its accomplished stage and
identify the assets that led to their success, and other institutions seeking to internationalize may
use these findings to examine their own knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that
may serve as a barrier to the successful achievement of their internationalization.
Surveys and in-person interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to identify
fundamental leadership qualities and factors that influenced campus internationalization, along
with an analysis of internal documents and articles related to campus internationalization at CSU.
Data collected from both the survey and interviews offer perspective on what they see as
practices that helped them internationalize. Due to the limited sample size, findings should not be
generalizable to other campuses.
Chapter Four first summarizes the historical commitment to internationalization at CSU,
including programs that fostered internationalization. This summary will contextualize CSU’s
success case, enabling other institutions that are seeking to elevate their comprehensive
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 59
internationalization efforts to better analyze and understand the origins of the progress made by
CSU towards recognition as a success case. Next, a demographic overview of the participants is
presented to better understand their various roles and ways in which their associations may
influence their knowledge, perceptions and experiences. This chapter then provides an overview
of the institutional documentation that has helps frame and ground CSU’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts. Findings related to knowledge assets are presented next, focusing on
the importance of a mission and the definition of internationalization. Motivational assets are
then discussed and look at the success factors focusing on value, and also the organizational
assets are examined. All of the findings are related to the OIP at Colorado State University and
offers evidence that support the assets that led to CSU achieving a high level of comprehensive
internationalization. A summary of validated assets can be found in the appendix.
The findings will show that 20 of the 21 assumed assets were validated throughout this
study, thus providing validity to the case that CSU is a model of success for comprehensive
internationalization
Historical Commitment to Internationalization
Colorado State University is a public research university established in 1870 and located
in Fort Collins, Colorado. CSU is the state’s land-grant university, and the flagship university of
the Colorado State University System. CSU was founded when the city of Fort Collins acted to
fill a void left by the closure of a military post.
CSU is recognized as a highly active research university serving approximately 31,616
students and 2,000 faculty. CSU’s campus offers students a vibrant place for learning, providing
interaction and experiences to engage with the diversity of an international campus. CSU’s
academic programing provides the Fort Collins community with eight colleges, supports 55
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 60
academic departments, and offers 65 fields of study at the undergraduate level and 55 fields of
study at the master’s level. Additionally, CSU confers doctoral degrees in 40 fields of study, as
well as a professional degree in veterinary medicine.
Colorado State University’s geographical location contributes to the university’s diverse
population. According to the 2010 United States Census, Colorado’s population became
substantially more diverse over the past decade. The number of individuals identifying
themselves as White fell, while the Hispanic, Black, Asian and those individuals who identify
themselves as multiracial increased by 20%.
As the diversity of the State of Colorado begins to rise, the diversity of CSU’s study body
also thrives. According to CSU’s 2017 InFact report, CSU enrolled 1,995 international students
during the fall 2017 semester. Of these enrolled students, 37% are from 34% are from China,
followed by 12% from India, 6% from Saudi Arabia, 5% are from Oman, and 3% represent each
South Korea and Taiwan (InFact, 2017). The diversity in the student population enhances the
international experiences of students, faculty and staff at CSU.
Programs that Fostered Internationalization
The notion of Colorado being a land-grant university developed in the 19
th
century,
surrounding the social and cultural changes in the United States. This propelled CSU into being a
land-grant university that assisted citizens in promoting the social and economic progress of the
United States through a variety of programs and partnerships.
Peace Corps. The historical land-grant influence also contributed to how
internationalization was defined at CSU. In the 1960’s, Colorado State researchers published a
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 61
feasibility study that led to the creation of Peace Corps-Colorado1. This establishment began the
training work for CSU volunteers in Pakistan and other parts of the world and helped to
introduce CSU into the global arena. In 2018, CSU’s Peace Corp program ranked 10th among
large undergraduate schools that produce Peace Corp volunteers and also ranked in the top 15%
for volunteer producing colleges and universities of all time. “CSU’s strong connection to the
Peace Corps is an example of our land-grant heritage” (Colorado State University, 2018c). These
historic elements helped drive internationalization at CSU and established the foundational and
organizational structure of the OIP.
INTO-CSU. In 2012, CSU and INTO University Partnerships2 partnered to further
increase CSU’s international student enrollment and improve the cultural diversity of the
campus. INTO used its extensive network to help recruit and enroll students into INTO-CSU
Programs and CSU degree seeking programs from key international markets. CSU’s endeavor to
enter into a partnership with INTO was part of CSU’s strategic initiative to boost international
enrollment and to create a culturally positive experience for students. Although the INTO-CSU
Program administration does not report to the vice provost for international affairs, it has allowed
CSU to expand its footprint to locations not previously touched by CSU, enabling them to create
further opportunities for globally competitive programs while advancing the comprehensive
internationalization efforts of the institution.
1
The Peace Corps is a United States government agency that sends United States citizens abroad to promote world
peace and friendship. Men and women are trained and placed in countries to help support their development needs.
2
INTO is a private organization that partner with higher education institutions to increase international student
enrollment at universities through the development of pathway programs. They also develop enhanced support
services that address the specific educational, social and cultural needs of international students. The company
holds partnerships with universities in the United Kingdom, United States and Asia.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 62
This rich history of internationalization at CSU demonstrates a commitment to
internationalization that is still present today. This history provides the foundation which
continues to support CSU’s promise to function in a global context, with a goal to make
education an international experience both at home and abroad (Colorado State University,
2018).
Overview of Participants
This study focused on staff in the OIP at CSU. Participation in this study was voluntary
and participants were assured confidentiality. Table 2 below illustrates the distribution of all
survey participants, as well as descriptive data such as employment status, gender and length of
employment within the OIP.
Table 2
Participant Overview
Total Participants N Percentage
Employment Status Faculty/Instructor
Staff
Student Employee
0
19
0
0%
100%
0%
Gender Female
Male
14
5
73.7%
26.3%
Years employed by
Office of International
Programs
Less than one year
1-4 years
5+ years
3
7
9
15.79%
36.84%
47.37%
During the study, all participants were employed at CSU. As exhibited in Table 2, all of
the respondents are staff or administrators in the OIP (100%; n=19). Of the 35 individuals who
were sent the survey, 19 responded, reflecting a 54% response rate. Seven employees
participated in an in-person interview.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 63
Survey participants were well established in their positions. As part of the study,
participants were asked to specify how long they had been employed in the OIP. Nearly half of
participants have worked in OIP for 5 or more years (47.37%; n=9), while the next largest group
of participants have worked for OIP for 1-4 years (36.84%; n=7). Participants had an average of
6.33 years of work experience in the office, and the total length of employment in higher
education ranged from less than one year to 22 years.
The interview participants held a broad range of positions within the OIP, including vice
provost for international affairs, education abroad director, international initiatives director,
global co-curricular initiatives assistant director, global academic initiatives assistant director,
director for international student and scholar services, and assistant director for international
admissions. Each interview was recorded and transcribed in full by the researcher. The findings
of this study are presented using the expressions of the participants but are reported in a manner
that makes participants unidentifiable. Each described their experiences and perceptions of
comprehensive internationalization at CSU.
Document Analysis
This section provides the contextual findings that grounds CSU’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts. A complete review of CSU’s mission statement and its
accompanying “Principles of Community” revealed a strong institutional commitment to
inclusive excellence, multicultural awareness and global competency. Furthermore, a
comprehensive review of CSU’s 2016-2018 University Strategic Plan examined the historical
attributes, mission, values, and guiding principles of the institution. An in-depth review of CSU’s
OIP 1998 Internationalization Report offered further insight into CSU’s initial endeavors for
comprehensive internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 64
Mission
In higher education, a mission statement that aligns with the priorities of the institution is
essential. The commitment to effort and attention can be demonstrated through the use of a
mission statement, which may give the impression that comprehensive internationalization is
present (Kelleher, 1996). The mission statement of CSU succinctly explains why the institution
exists. A careful analysis of CSU’s mission illustrates a concerted focus toward
internationalization and emphasized the university’s history as a leader in the current global
environment, pledging to “set the standard for public research universities in teaching, service
and extension for the benefit of the world” (CSU, 2018a, p. 1).
Strategic Plan
Colorado State University’s Strategic Plan 2016-2018 serves as the guiding framework
for the institution. It provides the strategic directions for institutional planning and outlines the
major priorities and provides university-level outcomes against which CSU’s performance is
measured. It provides a set of institutional values that grounds both the historic and ongoing
settings of the institution and emphasizes five broad objectives, one that includes the need for
CSU to make a global impact.
CSU’s opportunities. University Strategic Plan 2016-2018 explicitly incorporates
‘internationalization’ as one of the university’s strategic initiatives. In particular, CSU’s
Opportunity: University Strategic Plan 2016-2018 puts emphasis on strategic partnerships,
places international research as the foundation, seeks to develop regional approaches and
programs, such as Semester At Sea, Todos Santos, INTO-CSU and China Programs.
The plan is organized around five broad objectives including student success, global
impact, problem solving and knowledge sharing, inclusivity and accountability, sustainability,
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 65
and responsibility. Furthermore, there are 11 specific goals related to these objectives, each that
offer specific strategies related to goal achievement. The broad objectives, specific goals, and
their major initiatives can be found in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. CSU's 2016-2018 strategic plan.
The strategic plan is an important document in CSU’s comprehensive internationalization
efforts because it demonstrates CSU’s drive towards internationalization and was developed as a
response to the changing forces of globalization affecting CSU. It should be noted that a new
strategic plan is being developed to reflect the changing times of institutions of higher education.
This new plan will also focus on the continuous process of internationalization, reflecting on new
priorities, new environments and sustainability.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 66
CSU’s Office of International Programs Internationalization Report
The 1998 Office of International Programs Internationalization Report was prepared in
response to CSU’s self-study that evaluated the effectiveness of services at CSU. Three offices
with university-wide responsibilities were identified for review: The Office of International
Education, Office of International Student Services, and the Office of International Research and
Development. A comprehensive review of the internationalization report revealed a well-
articulated plan and vision that provided the framework that led CSU toward its
internationalization goal.
This self-study also included comparisons with peer institutions and went beyond the
scope of these three offices to address broader issues related to international programming on
CSU’s campus. Submissions for the self-study also contained reports from the Intensive English
Program and on-campus schools, centers, and institutes that had a connection to or
responsibilities in international activities, including trainings.
While this document did not encompass all of the international activities of CSU in 1998,
it did provide a significant glimpse of those units that contribute to the initial comprehensive
internationalization efforts of the institution.
Internationalization Strategy
The Working Paper on a CSU Internationalization Strategy was released in October
2006. The working paper indicated that the “time was right for CSU to develop a targeted,
distinct internationalization strategy” (Colorado State University, 2006, p1). The report provided
insight into the factors that drive a comprehensive internationalization strategy. Furthermore, the
working paper provided guiding principles for the institution, bridging their world-class research
efforts to the commitment of being a land-grant institution.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 67
The working paper made recommendations for using CSU’s niche of world-class
research paired with a land-grant commitment to develop a distinctive and unique approach to
their internationalization strategy. This strategy sought to have a regional focus and
recommended the development of key institutional partners around the world to actualize the
regionalized approach. The recommendation offered strategies for internationalizing at the three
niche levels, including at the broadest level (land-grant and local); at the policy level (University
Strategic Plan); and at the operational level (institutional partnerships).
The comprehensive review of this working paper offered insight into the starting point
for CSU’s development of a rigorous comprehensive internationalization strategy, thus linking
strategies to the university’s strategic plan. It also provided an understanding on the strategy,
initiatives and motivations behind CSU’s comprehensive internationalization efforts. Although
released in 2006, CSU continues to use the working paper as a guide as they seek to remain
distinctive and unique in their approach to globalizing CSU’s campus.
Visible Campus Action and Attention
Visible action was present on Colorado State University’s campus signifying their
commitment to and development of CSU’s comprehensive internationalization efforts. Figure 3
exhibits a wall display located in the OIP. The photo depicts an array of diverse photos, a
welcoming slogan, as well as the commemorative recipient plaque for the 2013 NAFSA Senator
Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 68
Figure 3. Participant overview.
This document analysis provided a thorough overview of the strategic plan, mission,
internationalization report, internationalization strategy, and general campus actions supporting
comprehensive internationalization. All of the documents and actions that were reviewed align
with CSU’s commitment to comprehensive internationalization.
Knowledge Findings
The findings presented in this section are related to the nine knowledge-related assets
identified in Chapter Two and summarized below in Table 3. From the nine knowledge-related
assets, eight were validated, one was inconclusive. All items that were validated were identified
through the surveys or interviews as assets that are present at CSU.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 69
Table 3
Knowledge-Related Assets
Assumed Asset Validated Not Validated
Importance of Mission and Strategic Plan X
Importance of CI X
Defining CI X
Rationale for Implementing CI X
Potential Constraints to Internationalization - -
Application of CI X
Impact on Campus X
Peer Influences X
Standards and Benchmarking X
Each of these assets will be presented in the order summarized in the table above,
supported by evidence collected from surveys, interviews, and document analysis.
Importance of a Mission and Strategic Plan
Johnston and Edelstein (1993) asserted that campus internationalization efforts are long-
term, require sustained efforts, and need to be well supported by an institutional mission and/or
vision. Comprehensive internationalization is linked to the mission and strategic plan of the
institution and must be clearly articulated. This documented articulation can provide a campus-
wide narrative for which comprehensive internationalization is framed and provides validity to
the endeavor. A well-defined institutional mission provides a guide for employees carrying out
the institutional mission, thus enabling them to continue to sustain CSU’s current
internationalization process.
When interviewed about the importance of an institutional mission, 100% of all
participants responded that an institutional mission is ‘critical’, ‘essential’ or ‘vital’ to the
institution. Although no specific statement on internationalization is found in either CSU’s
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 70
mission or vision, it is implied in a much broader context through the lens of a global
commitment in its strategic plan. When interview participants were asked whether
comprehensive internationalization is specifically recognized in CSU’s institutional mission, six
out of seven (86%) participants expressed that it is not specifically recognized but the narrative
for internationalization embedded into the mission. This demonstrates a high level of
understanding and knowledge by interview participants tasked with implementation regarding
their ability to extract meaning from a mission statement.
Figure 4. Internationalization is embedded in the mission.
Further supporting these findings are the results of a survey question that asked
participants about the meaning of the mission of CSU. As demonstrated in Figure 4 above, 100%
of all respondents stated that they either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’ that
comprehensive internationalization is either implied or embedded in the institutional mission
statement.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Percentage of Respondents
(n=19)
Internationalization is embedded in Colorado State University's
mission.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 71
During the interviews participants had the tendency to interpret CSU’s mission statement
as it relates to their position. This demonstrates a pragmatic understanding of the mission of the
institution. The findings from this study demonstrated that all participants felt that this aspect of
an institutional commitment toward comprehensive internationalization is inferred in CSU’s
mission and strategic plan and provides value to its employees.
This asset was validated.
Importance of Comprehensive Internationalization
Internationalization is a complete process of transformation and those areas tasked with
implementation need to understand how to bring about change and reform. That is, they need to
demonstrate that they understand the significance, or purpose, of comprehensive
internationalization and be able to develop goals, policies, support structures, programs and
implementation strategies toward CSU’s comprehensive internationalization.
The OIP at CSU is the home to several service areas that support the comprehensive
internationalization efforts of the institution. These support service areas include:
administration, operations and communications, education abroad programs, international
initiatives, international student and scholar support services, and all China programs.
When reviewing the various position descriptions of the OIP staff, it was immediately
evident that the individuals who make up these teams demonstrated vast knowledge about the
importance of comprehensive internationalization. Several interview participants offered their
beliefs on the importance of comprehensive internationalization citing “that comprehensive
internationalization increases the flow and integration of international students.” Another
participant stated, “Comprehensive internationalization helps to expand international learning
opportunities to all students of CSU.” A third participant offered that comprehensive
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 72
internationalization is a “way that helps students to be globally confident, even if they’re not
studying abroad.” Moreover, when interview participants were questioned further on the
importance of comprehensive internationalization to CSU, the common theme centered on a
strategic and coordinated effort to position CSU more globally. As stated by one participant,
“there’s so many opportunities out there at this point. The opportunities for strategic
internationalization have expanded so much in the past 10 years for CSU but it has been strategic
and well thought out. CSU is being…deliberate about their choices they make. I think it’s
increasingly important, as well. We have seen the results.”
The results of the survey offered similar results. When surveyed about the importance of
comprehensive internationalization at CSU, over 90% of all participants indicated a solid
understanding why comprehensive internationalization is important to an institution. Figure 5
displays the results of that question.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 73
Figure 5. Why comprehensive internationalization is important to an institution.
The interview and survey results demonstrate that the employees of the OIP felt confident
in their knowledge about the importance of comprehensive internationalization.
This asset was validated.
Defining Comprehensive Internationalization
A third asset within context of knowledge is the ability to articulate what comprehensive
internationalization entails. As the literature review revealed, the ways in which individuals
define comprehensive internationalization and the definition varies.
Analysis of interview transcripts found similarities in meanings arose among participants.
One participant indicated that comprehensive internationalization “infuses international
components into all aspects of university life.” Another participant revealed similar sentiments
stating, “it's looking at all aspects of internationalization and strategically thinks about engaging
it in different platforms.” Further analysis found that the verb choices selected to represent the
“action” of comprehensive internationalization echoed the key concepts and terminology used in
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents
(n=19)
I know why comprehensive internationalization is important at my
institution.
Agree
Neither Agree nor disagree
Disagree
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 74
the field of international higher education, as informed in the literature review, including actions
such as infuse, engage, integrate, pervade, instill, seep, and permeate.
Knight (2003) defined internationalization as a process. She liberally uses the word
“integrating” to denote that internationalization is an action that must be embedded into the
policies and mission of an institution. NAFSA, a national organization in international higher
education, defined comprehensive internationalization as “a commitment, confirmed through
action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout…missions of higher
education” (NAFSA, 2010, p. 6). The CIGE describes comprehensive internationalization as a
“strategic, coordinated process that seeks to align and integrate policies, programs, and
initiatives…” (CIGE, 2018). When comparing the definitions provided by the participants with
prominent scholars and organizations in the field, CSU staff were in consistent alignment with
the meaning and concepts in comprehensive internationalization.
Participants’ personal definitions were heavily influenced by individuals’ roles within the
office, their personal experience, or their professional and personal backgrounds. Knight
(2003b) provided perspective when stating, “it is interesting to look at the way in which
definitions are shaped by practice” (p. 1). Interviews with Office of International Program staff
reflect this viewpoint.
When asked during the interview to define comprehensive internationalization, one
assistant director defined internationalization as “infusing international components into all
aspects of university life…and taking a look at all of those pieces and developing appropriate
opportunities for infusing internationalization and its international components.” Another
Director defined it as “internationalization is not about one thing; it’s about everything. For me,
internationalization isn’t about this add-on. It isn’t a separate thing…it’s actually positioned
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 75
centrally in all facets of the institution, and presents itself in every department, in every college,
in every administrative office…where it is embedded throughout the institution.” The vice
provost for international affairs stated,
What is most critical about comprehensive internationalization is that it reaches every
aspect of the campuses international activities…that it is not just limited to international
students or study abroad possibilities…but it is really widespread. The important
component of comprehensive internationalization that gets forgotten so often is that
comprehensive internationalization has to be one the main values, the standard values of
the campus. It is not an add-on value. It is not something you do because it is a nice
addition to other things you do. It has to be central to everything that you are doing.
Interviews with participants reveal a consistency in defining comprehensive
internationalization aligned with how the experts in the field describe it, which demonstrates a
solid understanding of the key concepts and values.
This asset was validated.
Understanding the Rationale for Comprehensive Internationalization
A fourth asset in the knowledge area demonstrates the understanding participants have
about CSU’s rationale for comprehensive internationalization. Many factors affect
comprehensive internationalization in a higher education setting. These differ in scope and scale
depending on the mission and goal of each institution. Establishing better local and global
environments for its students, faculty and staff is cited as one purpose (Hudzik, 2014). It can also
provide an avenue to prepare students for global mindedness (Knight, 2009). University
administrators prepare students to respond to global interconnectedness or its aim may also be to
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 76
connect and align policies, programs and initiatives of an institution to become more globally
focused and internationally connected (ACE, 2018).
Table 4 demonstrates the primary reasons for CSU’s comprehensive internationalization
efforts, as indicated by the OIP in survey responses.
Table 4
Main Rationale for Internationalizing
Main Reasons for Internationalization
Percentage
(n=19)
Increasing international student enrollment 16.84%
Developing/expanding research collaborations 12.63%
Contributing to the institutions financial sustainability 12.63%
Initiative by senior administration 9.47%
Fulfilling the institutional mission/strategic plan 8.42%
Enhancing the knowledge, skills and attributes of its students 8.42%
Promoting study abroad opportunities 7.37%
Increasing campus diversity 6.32%
Strengthening its international stature 6.32%
Promote/expand upon faculty opportunities 4.21%
Recognition by peer institutions 3.16%
Expanding cross-cultural knowledge 3.16%
Increasing alumni presence worldwide 0.00%
Other 1.05%
Participants were asked in the survey to indicate their views on the reasons that lead an
institution to undertake comprehensive internationalization. The 14 components of
internationalization were taken from the literature review and are identified as the possible
reasons for advancing internationalization comprehensive internationalization as determined by
the 2008 NAFSA Task Force (Hudzik, 2011). Results from both the survey and interviews
indicate that the participants have a clear understanding of the rationale of comprehensive
internationalization strategies and are supported by the survey’s statistical analysis. Table 4 also
provides aggregated data responses for the top six reasons in which at least 75% of all
respondents indicated CSU’s rationale for comprehensive internationalization. Of the reasons
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 77
identified the participants, approximately 50% are represented in only three areas: (a) increasing
international student enrollment, (b) developing/expanding research collaborations and (c)
contributing to the institutions financial stability.
These findings accurately mirror the research available regarding the rationale for
comprehensive internationalization in higher education as identified by NAFSA. This
demonstrates the level of knowledge the staff of OIP has related to trends in higher education, as
well as their understanding of the motivations that led to CSU’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts.
This asset was validated.
Knowledge of Potential Constraints to Comprehensive Internationalization
A fifth assumed asset was OIP staff knowledge regarding important issues, as cited in the
literature, that might constrain an institution’s comprehensive internationalization efforts. While
the research question specifically asked about the greater issues that could pose a barrier to
internationalization, the majority of participants’ responses centered around “institutional
mission” and “leadership.” Comments ranged from, “it would be such a grave mistake by an
institution if comprehensive internationalization is not part of the mission” and “one person is
needed to get internationalization off the ground.”
While these comments do reflect potential challenges in internationalization, they are not
the main constraints identified in the literature such as faculty resistance, competing interests,
sustainability of funding, and continuity of personnel involved with comprehensive
internationalization. The staff of the OIP provided little additional evidence or information on
this topic. Therefore, this assumed asset was found to be inconclusive as it did not provide
significant evidence to support this assumed asset.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 78
Applying Comprehensive Internationalization
A fifth factor related to the assumed knowledge asset was the level of knowledge the
participants had in the area of comprehensive internationalization and how it is applied to their
related work responsibilities. The level of expertise and longevity in the field of international
higher education elevated the participants’ knowledge and understanding of the need, purpose,
benefits and challenges of internationalization. This proficiency was not only reflected in the
interviews that were conducted but also evidenced in documents published by OIP personnel in
their respective areas in support of comprehensive internationalization. A list of these
publications can be found in the appendices.
NAFSA (2013) has identified participation activities that are commonly found among the
offices responsible for internationalization. To demonstrate the level of professionalism
exhibited by the staff of the OIP, research questions examined how staff members have
participated in these activity types and how that is integrated in their work. Table 5 shows
international activities that respondents indicated they had participated in during their
employment in the OIP. The top 10 activities are listed below, and those having the most
significant involvement are listed first.
Table 5
Individual Participation in Comprehensive Internationalization
Participation Activity Percentage
Answering Yes
Presented research or work at seminars/conferences within the United States? 83.3%
Been a member of an international association? 83.3%
Read international journal articles related to your discipline more than once per week? 83.3%
Collaborated with a foreign partner institution on a project or program? 66.7%
Provided opportunities for international students to share country specific perspectives in the
classroom or at an OIP sponsored event?
66.7%
Traveled overseas to participate in a professional development opportunity? 66.7%
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 79
Presented research or work at seminars/conferences outside of the United States? 50.0%
Assisted in or revised an existing course to include a more global perspective? 50.0%
Published research related to your area of expertise in a journal, book, or publication? 33.3%
Taught a course that includes strategies for students to improve their intercultural skills? 33.3%
Among the international activities noted in the survey, all of the participants indicated
they had been involved in professional activities related to internationalization. The top six
international activities which received the highest levels of participation from individual staff
members were: (a) presented research or work at seminars/conferences within the United States;
(b) been a member of an international association; (c) read international journal articles related to
your discipline more than once per week; (d) collaborated with a foreign partner institution on a
project or program; (e) provided opportunities for international students to share country specific
perspectives in the classroom or at an OIP sponsored event; (f) traveled overseas to participate in
a professional development opportunity.
Furthermore, participants unanimously agreed that they play a continuous and central role
in the process of integrating an international dimension into CSU’s institutional activities. To a
slightly lesser degree, respondents also indicated that they presented research or work at
seminars/conferences outside of the United States; assisted in or revised an existing course to
include a more global perspective; published research related to your area of expertise in
a journal, book, or publication; or taught a course that includes strategies for students to improve
their intercultural skills. Collectively, the above activities exhibit the main areas in which staff
participated in international activities, thus assisting the institution in its comprehensive
internationalization efforts.
To further support these findings, participants offered insight into their own international
experiences and engagement with strategic initiatives and how their work applies to CSU’s
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 80
comprehensive internationalization efforts. Without prompting, one participant indicated that
she was putting together co-curricular programming for her area which includes the global
engagement lecture series. Performing the duties necessary to arrange and organize a lecture
series required the employee to stay informed politically, globally and internationally,
demonstrating an advanced level of application to the participant’s position.
All of the data collected indicates that the participants have a solid understanding of how
comprehensive internationalization is applied to their field. This clearly demonstrates a high
level of knowledge around application by the participants, as well as establishing a committed
investment to CSU’s comprehensive internationalization efforts by individuals.
This asset was validated.
Knowledge of Peer Institutions’ Performance
As defined by Merriam-Webster, the word ‘peer’ signifies “one that is of equal standing
with another” (Merriam-Webster, 2018). Peer comparisons are becoming more common as
institutions of higher education are increasingly expressing the need for greater performance
(McLaughlin, Howard, & McLaughlin, 2011). Enhanced institutional performance requires the
identification of a set of reference or comparison institutions to measure institutional efforts
against. In higher education, there are various types of groupings that can be used- among them
are peer institutions, aspirational institutions, and competitor institutions. These groups are
constructed on the basis of similar characteristics and are commonly used to find an appropriate
method for benchmarking the performance of one institution relative to another.
The sixth finding related to knowledge assets suggests that there are three different peer
groups are found at Colorado State University: 1) formal peer institutions adopted by CSU’s
governing board; 2) informal peer institutions; and 3) peer individuals. Statements were selected
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 81
from related literature citing the perceived benefits of peer influences in an institution’s
comprehensive internationalization effort. These statements were included in the survey and
asked during the interviews.
Table 6
Peer Recognition Affects Comprehensive Internationalization
Agree Disagree
I am proud of Colorado State University winning the NAFSA Senator
Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization.
89.47%
(n=17)
10.53%
(n=2)
Peer recognition affects Colorado State University’s comprehensive
internationalization strategies.
68.42%
(n=13)
31.58%
(n=6)
Other institutions use Colorado State University as a model for their
comprehensive internationalization efforts.
47.37%
(n=9)
52.63%
(n=10)
Table 6 displays data related to the perceived benefits that peer influences have on
enhancing or improving an institutions comprehensive internationalization effort. Several
interview questions centered on peer institutions and their influences on CSU’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts. When asked during the interview about peer recognition, one
participant stated, “we do a fair amount of looking at our peer institutions to see how many
students our peer institutions are sending abroad…and…what research they’re doing that is most
relevant in the field.” A second participant indicated that, “I am looking primarily at the
informal institutions because I am assuming the dean is obviously going to look at the formal, as
they are our biggest competitors.” These questions were critical in order to determine the impact
that peer influences, awards and incentives have on improving or enhancing a university’s
comprehensive internationalization efforts. Participants were asked to rank their perception of
the statements on a Likert scale. The table combines the ‘strongly agree’ responses with the
‘somewhat agree’ responses and, conversely, combined the ‘strongly disagree’ with the
‘somewhat disagree’ responses.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 82
Formal/Aspirational peer institutions. The examination of methodologies for forming
reference groups in higher education began more than 20 years ago (McLaughlin & McLaughlin,
2007). The main objective was to find an appropriate method for comparing how one institution
compared to another. These comparison groups are often referred to as peer institutions and
often fall within two groups - formal and aspirational institutions.
Formal institutions used for comparison are usually those most similar in mission and
relevant characteristics, and frequently consist of institutions that are operationally comparative.
Furthermore, research demonstrates that universities also tend to participate in formal
institutional comparisons because of its membership in external organization, including the
Carnegie Foundation Classification System, which provides the framework for classifying
colleges and universities in the United States based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) data.
Aspirant groups are often defined as being institutions whose characteristics and quality
an institution seeks to emulate. Aspirant institutions are often selected by institutions due to
their higher than average SAT scores, high graduation rates, lower acceptance rates, and larger
endowments, budgets, and enrollment numbers (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2018). As
stated by one interviewee when discussing the use of CSU’s peer groups, “institutional peer
groups often include desired peers that are not true peers. Colleges want to receive reports on
enrollments, graduation rates, costs, personnel, and budgets for institutions they aspire to be
more like.”
Currently, there is no known national methodology for institutions to determine their
formal or aspirant peer institution groups. Literature identifies varying approaches employed
throughout higher education - ranging from those that are highly statistical to those that are
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 83
based on qualitative assessment. Most institutions in the United States have developed and
published on their institutional website an informal list of their peer institutional groups;
however, the criteria used for the creation of this list is never listed, the frequency in which
institutions are replaced is certainly not disclosed, and rarely is this list made into a formal
statement.
The following is a list of CSU’s peer institutions, adopted by Colorado Commission on
Higher Education and approved by the CSU System Board of Governors:
• Iowa State University
• Kansas State University
• Michigan State University
• North Carolina State University
• Oklahoma State University
• Oregon State University
• Purdue University
• Texas A & M University
• University of California, Davis
• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• University of Tennessee
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
• Washington State University
These 13 peer institutions are used by Colorado State University as comparison
institutions and allows CSU to receive feedback on how each institution is doing in terms of
finances, enrollment and other measures tabulated in the IPEDS, thus empowering institutions to
compare to what other universities are doing. Although this list seems extensive, departments
and programs are also encouraged to benchmark appropriate comparison or informal peer
schools (CSU, 2018d).
Informal peer institutions. Informal peer institutions may be more appropriate for
precise comparisons, such as those involving specific academic departments or service units.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 84
With informal peer institutions, university’s look to other colleges and universities that
exemplify excellence across a number of practices, including comprehensive
internationalization. These informal peer institutions typically are institutions that have similar
attributes and frequently include institutions nearest institutional neighbors. Informal peer
institutions are usually much more informal in nature than those of formal and aspirant
institutions. By using informal peer groups for benchmarking services and programs,
universities are often able to learn more about themselves and reveal their aspirations and
institutional interests.
Benchmarking against informal peer institutions has allowed the OIP the ability to
compare its methods, practices and strategies in comprehensive internationalization, as well as
other areas, to those of peer institutions. According to the research findings, individuals believe
that their informal interaction with peer institutions has played a significant role on an
employee’s decision to engage in specific activities or how they compare themselves with others.
As explained in one interview, informal peer institutions can assist other institutions in knowing
what is being done in a field, new research areas that are influential, as well as using informal
peer institutions to get feedback on how their institution measures up in specific areas. He
emphasized,
I look at other institutions a lot to see what they are doing. I look a lot at what’s
happening within the network that’s been defined for us. I look to see what those schools
are going. That is always the barometer. I’ll look to certain networks and then I’ll
look at CU-Boulder. We are very interested in what’s happening at CU-Boulder, both
domestically and internationally.
Similarly, another participant had the following to offer,
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 85
I usually pick an institution compared to us. One that compares to us, how we are funded,
how we are set up, and what kind of students we are recruiting. Even if it’s not remotely
the same conversation, yet, it’s all the same field. I do a lot of informal benchmarking
with Boulder. They’re not one of our official peers and yet how can you be in the same
state and not check in with what they are doing.
The importance of peer institutions is a key factor in how individuals in the OIP measure
their success.
Peer individuals. One perceived benefit contributing to the successful comprehensive
internationalization efforts of CSU was the opportunity to promote greater collaboration and
research with individuals and using individuals as benchmarks for their respective work.
According to the interview findings, 100% of the participants indicated that they rely on specific
individuals within their area of expertise, yet outside their institution, to help guide, shape and
evaluate their work. It was collectively agreed upon that individuals who make up the peer
individual group are likely able to influence the direction of ones work and while providing
perspective outside individual viewpoints due to their interests, backgrounds, or positions.
When describing the benefits of peer individuals, five interview participants offered
responses affiliated with the opportunities to reinforce their own learning and understanding
through peer interaction. Peer interaction strengthens and reaffirms work relationships, but also
serves as a guide for further innovation. As one participant explains, assessing what are the best
practices in the field by particular individuals helps her “to develop a focus or to acquire a
perspective and conceptualize new ideas.” Another participant stated that,
I don’t look at institutions as much as I look at individuals. For me, there are a half
dozen, dozen, maybe couple dozen people who to me are shining leaders in our field. We
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 86
could talk about institutional interests, but I want to know what Roger Brindley is doing
at the University of South Florida, for example…I’m just interested to know what
individuals are doing. Then, if an individual goes to a new institution, I will want to
know what they are doing there.
One participant commented that the list of aspirant institutions is important to the
administration of CSU but she “looks to various individuals in the field who are doing exemplary
work or are well-known in the field.”
Collectively, these responses affirm the notion that respondents perceive peer individuals
as essential to the work they are performing. The impact of looking at peer individuals is also a
way to share insight, confirmation, affirmation and aspirations while working on a strategy or
vision.
Standards and Benchmarking
When a university uses its peer institutions to compare their internationalization efforts,
the objective is to measure their strategies against another institution to see how they compare.
This comparison is often referred to as benchmarking. Merriam-Webster (2018) defines
benchmarking as “something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or
judged [or] a point of reference from which measurements may be made.” As informed by the
research data, CSU’s OIP looks to their peers for inspiration and guidance. By looking at their
peers, they are setting a standard for which they continuously aspire to. Benchmarking can serve
as a motivation for change and improvement and a driver for changed behavior, as affirmed in
The Handbook of Benchmarking (Andersen & Pettersen, 1996). These standards also serve as a
motivation for their institution to achieve a higher level of internationalization, thus helping
CSU, and other institutions, to identify their desired outcomes for quality.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 87
Using peer institutions (either formally and informally) to develop benchmarks, coupled
with the notion of award recognition, provided validity to the claim that peer recognition and
benchmarking played an important role in the comprehensive internationalization of CSU. By
measuring their success, CSU guaranteed that their efforts matched or exceeded that of its
competitors, thus ensuring importance and quality to its stakeholders.
This asset was validated.
Summary of Knowledge Findings
Most of the assumed knowledge assets were validated giving support to the importance
of an institutional mission. Additionally, finding disclosed the importance of an international
offices knowledge and ability to define, apply, implement, and measures the internationalization
efforts of an institution
As eight of the nine assumed assets were validated, there is strong evidence that there is a
significant knowledge component held by employees of the OIP at CSU which helped drive the
institution to a high level of comprehensive internationalization.
Motivational Findings
Three indicators of motivation are often cited as factors that influence behavior - choice,
effort, and persistence. The level and amount of energy one is willing to expend upon an activity
will be dependent on these three indicators (Clark & Estes, 2008). When an individual willfully
selects new to learn new skill or concept, there is a high level of motivation. This high level of
willingness to learn something new is an indication of motivation. Persistence to complete the
goal is the final motivational factor. The process to measure such factors can be done through
direct observation, observation by others, and through self-reporting using questionnaires or
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 88
interviews. This study aimed to determine the motivational assets influencing the employees of
the OIP that helped CSU attain a high level of comprehensive internationalization.
The research results related to the motivational assets of the employees of the OIP are
presented in this section. All seven assumed assets were validated and fell within the three
primary categories summarized below in Table 7.
Table 7
Assumed Motivational Assets
Assumed Asset Validated
Not Validated
Value of a Mission x
Investing & Sustaining Effort x
Peer and Association Recognition x
These motivational assets will be presented in depth below and follow the chronological
order as shown in the tables above. Validation of all assets was gathered through surveys and
interviews on the choice, effort, and persistence of the employees of the OIP.
Valuing a Mission
The first validated motivational asset (Figure 6) relates to the value participants placed on
the mission of the institution and how it relates to comprehensive internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 89
Figure 6. Participants place value on the institutional mission.
Participants were surveyed about the value they place on the mission of CSU. One
hundred percent of all respondents stated that they either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’
to the value of the institutional mission statement.
Mission motivated mindset. A second factor of organizational culture that emerged
within the context of valuing a mission is the translation of the institutional mission into an
institutional mindset. Transformation in higher education occurs when assumptions, behaviors,
processes, and structures are deeply embedded across the entire organization (ACE, 2018). Once
this pervasive belief is achieved, greater levels of change can occur (Knight, 1999; Mestenhauser
& Ellingboe, 1998).
When interview participants were asked why employee mindfulness was central to
internationalization participation, one stated, “There is a lot of thoughtfulness being put into how
we internationalize the campus and not just with international student or education abroad
experiences.” She went on to say,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Percentage of Respondents
(n=19)
I value the mission of Colorado State University
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 90
There are a lot of colleagues thinking a lot about international research. There is a lot of
mindfulness and intention to what we do. There is a lot of cross collaborating that can
happen in an international setting or with international colleagues. We are doing that
here, in OIP. We believe in what we are doing and the difference we can make to the
institution and our students. This helps to keep us focused. The OIP employees are
essential to this collaboration and the continuous integration of comprehensive
internationalization.
The data showed an agreement among participants that employee participation advanced
the broader academic mission, helped to accomplishments the goals of the institution, and
improved the participant’s attitudes and perceptions of the institution.
This asset was validated.
Intrinsic motivation. Although not as prominently displayed throughout the research
findings, another asset demonstrated that there are several personal motivating factors that
influence an employee’s involvement in comprehensive internationalization, including the desire
to improve student outcomes, to engage people around matters of global issues, and to create
educational opportunities for people throughout the world. These motivations suggest that there
are intrinsic elements that help to drive employees to be internationally engaged. When asked
about this intrinsic motivation, one interview participant stated the involvement in international
higher education activities makes a difference to individuals and the world. He explained,
I believe that education is the path forward, for people and for the good of our world. I
also believe that threads are established from person to person diplomacy that
education enables, through student mobility, through faculty collaboration, through co-
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 91
authorship of journals, improves lives and improves communities in way that maybe the
corporate public sector, really can never do.
Furthermore, the exposure to students, programs and partnerships representing different
areas and cultures of the world by the employees of the OIP is noteworthy. They possess a keen
interest in global events and freely speak about their living and working experiences, both
domestically and internationally. Together they agree that the degree to which employees are
globally engaged depends on the individual, the personal satisfaction they get, as well as the
commitment made from the institution. In the end, all seven interviewees expressed a sense of
intrinsic value for their work in global engagement.
This asset was validated.
Investing and Sustaining Effort
A third research finding related to motivational factors that influence the persistence of
an employee’s effort relates to the time and effort that participants put into comprehensive
internationalization activities. This question sought to understand the value individuals place on
the institutional mission with perceived value of their time and effort to the institution.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 92
Figure 7. Time and effort is important to an institution.
When asked about the value placed on time and effort, one participant stated that his
involvement in international higher education activities made a difference to him, to individuals
and the world. He explained,
I believe that education is the path forward, for people and for the good of our world. I
enjoy spending my time working on collaborative efforts and programs that improve an
individual and the lives of our students. I also believe that threads are established from
hard work in person-to-person diplomacy. Internationalization improves lives and
improves communities in way that maybe the corporate public sector, really can never
do. If that is the case, everything I do is worth doing. Twice.
These research findings suggest a strong connection between the value individuals place
on the time and effort spent working on comprehensive internationalization in relation to the
institutions mission and the alignment of its strategic goals.
This asset was validated.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Strongly agree
Percentage of Respondents
(n=19)
The time and effort I put into comprehensive internationalization is
important to my institution.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 93
Peer and Association Recognition
When asked specifically during the survey and interview about winning the NAFSA
Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization, a large portion of participants
responded favorably to having won the award. According to the interview findings, individuals
believe the recognition earned through the acceptance of the award is a way in which exemplars
in the field are highlighted or gives other institutions something to aspire to.
Distinctive awards and recognition are critical benefits for an institutions participation in
comprehensive internationalization and nearly 90% of those surveyed and 100% of those
interviewed agreed that pride is a reward for participation in comprehensive internationalization.
In the field of international higher education, winning the NAFSA Senator Paul Award for
Campus Internationalization demonstrated that that university made significant, well-planned,
well-documented progress toward comprehensive internationalization using innovative and
creative approaches.
Awards to not only acknowledge success, they recognize many other qualities, including
ability, struggle, effort, and excellence. In higher education, distinctive awards and the
recognition that follows allows an institution to distinguish itself from its competitors and peers.
While awards can provide an ego boost to the institution, they also help enhance an institution’s
reputation, rankings, and instill confidence in its stakeholders, they also attest to the quality and
professionalism of an institution.
Summary of Motivational Findings
All of the seven assumed motivational assets were validated, with several assets being
nested within the three common elements of value of the mission, investing and sustaining effort,
and peer and association recognition. The findings primarily aligned with the need for an
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 94
articulated, institutional mission and focused on the intrinsic value that participants placed on
their work. The data suggest that motivation exists in the OIP and played a significant role on
their movement toward a high level of comprehensive internationalization.
Organizational Findings
The findings presented in this section are related to the five organizational-related assets
assumed in Chapter Two. During the interviews, two additional organizational-related assets
emerged. These findings are summarized below in Table 8.
Table 8
Assumed Organizational Assets
Assumed Asset Validated Not Validated
Organizational Culture x
Administrative Structure x
Administrative Leadership x
Funding x
The two organizational-related assets that were discovered during the in-person
interviews were the presence of collaborative leadership and the importance of location. These
discovered assets are summarized below in Table 9.
Table 9
Discovered Organizational Assets
Discovered Asset Validated Not Validated
Collaborative Leadership x
Importance of Location x
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 95
All of these assets, both assumed and discovered, will be presented in the order
summarized in the tables above. Each of the five organizational assets were validated through the
use of surveys, interviews, and document analysis.
Organizational Culture
The first assumed organizational asset is related to organizational culture. According to
the (ACE), the process of comprehensive internationalization leads to gradual institutional
transformation (ACE, 2008). Activities of an institution must be integrated into the mission of
the college or university (Qiang, 2003) and an institution’s culture has the ability to influence the
scope of comprehensive internationalization of a university. Culture is made up of many
differing things and includes the underlying beliefs, assumptions, values and knowledge of
individuals that contribute to a unique organizational environment (Hofstede, Hofstede &
Minkov, 2010). Moreover, institutional leaders and institutional mission can often shape
organizational culture.
A significant finding from this study is the extent to which organizational culture
influenced the advancement of comprehensive internationalization at CSU. Strong institutional
mission and institutional narrative had a pronounced influence on almost all international
activities within the institution. Findings also revealed that the organizational culture was also
influenced by several other factors. For example, collaborative leadership, which is identified
below in greater detail, was an important asset influencing comprehensive internationalization,
and comes out of the organizational culture. Evidence of this can be found in strategic
documents that articulate cooperation, mutual support, and transparency in the OIP. These
values can be directly tied to the values of the CSU’s mission.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 96
Furthermore, CSU’s organizational culture was solidified further through the presence of
an institutional narrative about the importance of comprehensive internationalization. Nearly
80% of the survey participants said that they strongly agreed that comprehensive
internationalization was a main priority on campus, as evidenced by the narrative of its mission
statement and strategic plan. Participants all agreed that the campus narrative on comprehensive
internationalization was continuously present in all aspects of the institution. Additionally,
participants agreed that the institutional allocation of human resources, time, and attention
further improved the culture of comprehensive internationalization.
This data provided strong evidence that CSU has a strong institutional mission and
strategic plan that links the culture of the university with the narrative of comprehensive
internationalization.
This asset was validated.
Administrative Structure
The manner in which comprehensive internationalization is structured and implemented
looks very different across institutions of higher education. Some institutions have a very
centralized model, while others have their services scattered throughout an institution. For the
effective integration of comprehensive internationalization, the ACE recommends that the
administrative structure has a centralized office or offices that are designated for the coordination
of campus-wide internationalization activities (ACE, 2018). Furthermore, it is recommended
that the individual primarily responsible for internationalization report directly to the chief
academic officer/provost or president of the institution.
The executive structure of CSU, which supports ACE’s recommendation that the SIO
reports to the Provost and Executive Vice President, can be found in Appendix E. Positioning the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 97
vice provost for international affairs under the Provost and Executive Vice President signified
collaboration and enhanced accountability, understanding and mutual cooperation between
academics and the efforts of the OIP.
At CSU, institutional level internationalization is carried forth in the work of the vice
provost for international affairs. This centralized model for comprehensive internationalization is
represented and sustained through the OIP, which houses the following university-supported
offices/programs: education abroad, international initiatives, international students and scholars,
and the Confucius institute. All of these units serve to advance comprehensive
internationalization throughout the institution. The organizational chart for the OIP is shown in
Appendix F.
This administrative structure reflects a centralized model for comprehensive
internationalization that allows for collaborative efforts for comprehensive internationalization to
thrive. Positioning the vice provost for international affairs under the provost and executive vice
president signifies collaboration and enhanced accountability, understanding and mutual
cooperation between academics and the efforts of the OIP.
This asset was validated.
Administrative Leadership
Analyzing an institutions comprehensive internationalization effort must include a review
of the institutional leadership. ACE (2011) emphasized the role that institutional leadership
plays in the creation and implementation of comprehensive internationalization strategies.
Presidents, senior administration, deans, chairs, faculty and staff are all integral to the successful
comprehensive internationalization of an institution. However, in order for institutional change,
individuals charged with application also have to demonstrate the skills, knowledge and
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 98
motivation to move comprehensive internationalization beyond implementation. Those who are
held accountable for leading such an endeavor must possess the skills and knowledge needed to
elevate an institutions effort (Hudzik, 2011).
Knowledgeable senior international officer. Not only does an institution need strong
institutional support for comprehensive internationalization, it also needs to have a strong leader
who is responsible for leading and guiding an institution’s efforts. This individual not only
needs to possess the knowledge of higher education and their institution, but they must also
possess the knowledge of best practices and trends in internationalization. In higher education,
this position is often held by the SIO. This position may have a variety of titles, depending on
the institution, but its purpose is still the same. This position serves as the campus expert in
internationalization. It serves to provide oversight to international initiatives, as well as to lead
and facilitate institutions comprehensive internationalization efforts. In a campus setting, the
sharing of knowledge, understanding, and educating others about internationalization is the main
priority for a SIO. It is through collaboration and a shared sense of vision, along with the
support from the leadership of the institution, that an SIO can begin the implementation of
comprehensive internationalization. The following assets emerged as a result of this study related
to the leadership within the organization.
Participants of the study unequivocally identified the vice provost for international affairs
(CSU’s SIO) as the individual who originated the internationalization process and provided the
initial source of continuous motivation for expanding international education across CSU’s
campus. Of the participants surveyed, 100% felt that the SIO kept abreast of latest developments
and trends in the field and had the knowledge, expertise and drive necessary to advance CSU’s
comprehensive internationalization initiative. This drive is consistent with research conducted by
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 99
ACE regarding the roles and responsibility areas of a SIO and how the efforts in leadership are
typically the impetus for initiating comprehensive internationalization efforts in higher education
(Green, 2012).
Further evidenced collected through document review validated that the vice provost for
international affairs has the knowledge, motivation, skills, and experience to implement
comprehensive internationalization. A review of the SIO’s curriculum vitae provided evidence
to- and demonstrated the depth of- the SIO’s knowledge and expertise. In addition to holding
several prominent positions throughout well-known institutions of higher education, the current
SIO has served in leadership positions in national organizations known to elevate comprehensive
internationalization efforts, including NAFSA and AIEA.
This asset was validated.
Collaborative leadership. The final asset within the leadership component includes
evidence that supports collaborative leadership. While undertaking comprehensive
internationalization efforts, the collaborative leadership of the president, vice president, provost,
dean/director and other leadership positions is vitally important. Johnson and Edelstein (1993)
argue that in a complex organization with competing stakeholders it is critical for leaders build
collaborative partnerships and commitments across an institution and gain the support of key
individuals across a continuum. Kezar and Eckel (2003) believe that in order for change to occur
in a higher education institution that collaborative leadership needs to be employed. Because
many higher education institutions have decentralized decision-making structures at many levels,
an effective leader must be able to champion stakeholders throughout each stage of the
internationalization process and encourage a collaborative process that permeates the entire
institution and creates support for campus-wide initiatives.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 100
Johnston and Edelstein (1993) asserted that the champions for institutional
comprehensive internationalization efforts may be one individual or several people who come
from any part of an organization and may also include outside factors and influences.
Individuals may possess the knowledge and authority to institutionalize a comprehensive
initiative, but they also can demonstrate their ability to organize and motivate administrators,
faculty, staff and students which leads to greater collaboration (Kezar, Eckel, & Kelleher, 1996).
These individuals are known as the champions of internationalization and should be viewed as
important and critical advocates to its success, especially in its infancy.
When interview participants were asked who the champions of campus
internationalization were at CSU, there were many answers. Some noted specific faculty leaders,
others noted administrators. Everyone noted the influence of the vice provost for international
affairs. One participant noted that “there are a lot of people thoughtfully engaged in
internationalization and there is a global and cultural awareness that is embedded in our core.”
Another echoed sentiment was that “CSU’s successful internationalization efforts were the result
of many, not just one.” One OIP employee celebrated the success of all campus champions who
have made their mark on internationalization by stating “We have had good leadership. Not
high-profile leadership, but it reverberates throughout campus and into the community. We are
all leaders and champions in this effort. People have embraced this effort and we know people
are out here doing things and doing them for the right reason.”
When the vice provost for international affairs was asked who the champions were who
spearheaded comprehensive internationalization at CSU, the conversation was naturally
deflected and credited to those who he relies on to help move CSU’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts forward - predominantly, the OIP staff. In a candid statement by the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 101
vice provost for international affairs, he stated, “the success of our internationalization efforts
was a result of my amazing team. We have a solid, knowledgeable team. It takes a solid team
effort.”
Kezar (2005) stated that for collaborative leadership to happen it is important that a sense
of trust is established between stakeholders on campus. Although it is difficult for an external
researcher to assess something as multifaceted as trust, information gathered demonstrated a
general sense of trust and mutual respect among colleagues within the OIP. During the interview
stage, several staff members mentioned that their colleagues were “very knowledgeable” about
their areas and demonstrated “professionalism” when working with colleagues, students, faculty,
or staff to promote comprehensive internationalization initiatives across campus.
The commonality among those who were interviewed suggests that there are multiple
actors and a number of factors that lead to collaborative leadership at CSU, giving evidence that
collaborative leadership is not only present but is also at work at CSU.
This asset was validated.
Location
Institutions of higher education perform many functions for society, including educating
students and transforming people’s lives through education and research, thus enriching society
and stimulating culture. The importance of place and how it shapes its students, courses, and
programs influences the culture of the institution and helps to shape an institution’s
comprehensive internationalization efforts. Whether a college campus is situated in a large city
or small town can make significant difference in terms of recruiting students and faculty, the
retrenchment of student, and its state funding allocations. The state, size of the city, community,
and reputation all play a significant impact on the college experience and adds to the diversity of
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 102
the institution. The geographic location of an institution needs to be part of the conversation
when looking to achieve comprehensive internationalization. All interview participants agreed
CSU is positioned in an increasingly international region of the United States and this has had a
significant impact on its comprehensive internationalization efforts.
This asset was validated.
Funding
According to CSU’s Office of Budgets, CSU had an operational budget for the 2017-
2018 academic year of $1.106 billion. The main sources of funds are generated from tuition and
fees for service and sponsored research. The remained of CSU’s budget comes from federal
funds, self-funded operations and auxiliaries, and miscellaneous revenue and cash operations.
The CSU operational budget funds personnel and internationalization activities such as study
abroad scholarships, visiting scholars, international speakers and projects, and research activities
in the OIP. These activities represented a significant outlay of resources, primarily through the
use of unrestricted and restricted funds.
During the interview, almost all of the participants indicated that they felt that the OIP
had strong financial support for internationalization. One participant stated, “my unit is
primarily self-supporting. We’ve got a good financial model - the more students we have, the
more staff we can support to support more students. It works pretty well.” Another participant
indicated that the support from CSU has been critical to their internationalization success in
stating that, “…the university has done some huge investments and partnerships that have
enhanced internationalization, like Semester at Sea or with the Todos Santos Center. They’ve
definitely rallied behind some big ideas and put sufficient funding to make these successful
initiatives.”
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 103
Further contributing to the operational budget, the vice provost for international affairs
actively solicits donors to provide funding for other comprehensive internationalization
initiatives and activities, mostly directed toward student scholarships.
This asset was validated.
Summary of Organizational Findings
The assets influencing comprehensive internationalization match the theory of
organizational transformation and campus internationalization quite well. There is strong
evidence of both a culture and structure that supports comprehensive internationalization, as well
as strong indications of the role administrative and collaborative leadership played in the
comprehensive internationalization efforts of CSU. Furthermore, evidence suggests that funding
and location offered some value to CSU’s comprehensive internationalization efforts, however,
most of the assets validated in this study pertained to the building and development of human
capacity. The research for this study validated all of the organizational assets related to CSU’s
comprehensive internationalization efforts.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 104
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that led to the successful
comprehensive internationalization of an institution of higher education. The study sought to
investigate the success factors that influenced comprehensive internationalization at CSU. The
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis model was used to propose and validate assumed assets within the
scope of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008) found within
the OIP, thus serving as a rich case study for comprehensive internationalization.
A total of 21 assets were validated using data collected through surveys, interviews, and
document analysis. This chapter is designed to provide other institutions seeking to initiate or
bolster comprehensive internationalization with the transferable practices that led to CSU’s
success. These transferable practices may serve as a guide for comprehensive
internationalization based on the validated assets and related literature. This first section will
discuss the order and rationale of the assets. Following are recommended solutions, an
implementation plan, and an evaluation plan based on Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation
(2006) and may be adapted for successful implementation. The chapter then concludes with a
discussion of future research in the field and a conclusion to this study.
Validated Assets Applicable to Other Institutions
This study produced findings that may be transferable to other higher education
institutions wishing to achieve a high level of comprehensive internationalization. For the
purpose of this study, a validated asset is considered to be one in which the assumed asset (or
hypothesis) was verified, or validated, based on truth or fact and was demonstrated to have
established genuineness through authoritative affirmation or by factual proof. In Chapter Four,
assumed assets were validated that align with the knowledge, motivation and organizational
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 105
factors of CSU’s comprehensive internationalization efforts. A list of the 21 validated assets is
displayed in the appendix. At CSU, these validated assets helped lead CSU into a higher level of
comprehensive internationalization. As this is a promising practice study, there is no discussion
on the problems or gap areas within CSU’s comprehensive internationalization efforts. To
effectively answer the initial research question as to what factors led to CSU’s successful
internationalization efforts, the remainder of the paper presents recommended practices. While
those assets that are identified are not the only indicators of campus internationalization, and
perhaps not the most important ones (Childress, 2009), they were the priorities that were
identified repeatedly by study participants and can serve as priorities for an institution to further
their efforts.
The assets that were found to have significantly influenced CSU’s efforts all reside
within four major themes. Other institutions of higher education can replicate these themes, with
the exception of one - location. Location is identified as asset to CSU’s success but the
geographical location of Fort Collins, Colorado is unique to CSU and is not transferable to other
institutions. The remaining three themes, (a) organizational culture, (b) leadership, and (c)
benchmarking & standards, contain assets that can be translated into transferable practices for
higher education institutions seeking to internationalize. Table 10 contains a list of transferable
practices, based off of validated assets, and the primary themes they fall within.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 106
Table 10
Transferable Practices by Thematic Area
Location Organizational Culture Leadership
Benchmarking and
Standardization
Cannot be transferable but
institutions may have qualifying
location assets of their own to build
upon.
Development of a mission
statement and strategic plan
Importance of
comprehensive
internationalization
Institutional Peers, Aspirational Peers,
Informal Peer Institutions, Peer
Individuals
Create organizational culture
Ability to define
comprehensive
internationalization
Develop benchmarks for achievement
of comprehensive internationalization
Commitment for leadership
Understanding of
comprehensive
internationalization
Setting standards for which
comprehensive internationalization is
measured and assessed.
Champion of
Internationalization
Application of
comprehensive
internationalization
Funding
Assess internationalization
strategies
Structure
Motivations for
comprehensive
internationalization
Location
Although location has been a highly successful asset to CSU, it will not be explored
further in this study as it is unique to CSU and the State of Colorado. CSU is situated in a highly
international region of the United States and this has had a significant impact on their
comprehensive internationalization efforts. The location of CSU, situated in the heart of the
Rocky Mountain West, is an easy destination to recruit international students and faculty to, thus
contributing to the global diversity of its campus due to location alone. While the history,
heritage and location of CSU cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the world, it is worth
pointing out that many higher educations throughout the world are situated in locations that have
something unique to offer their stakeholders. It will be the responsibility of the person(s) tasked
with comprehensive internationalization to uncover and expose the assets that location offers and
use them to build a diverse institution that holds comprehensive internationalization within its
core values.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 107
The first group of transferable assets relate to the thematic area of creating an
organizational culture that embodies comprehensive internationalization. CSU undertook an
extensive internationalization strategy and addressed institutional culture as a measurement of
internationalization. CSU began by assessing the existing campus culture and then worked to
create a culture that embedded comprehensive internationalization. The importance of creating a
culture conducive to comprehensive internationalization is also supported in the literature
review.
Intentional Leadership
The second thematic area containing transferable assets gives special focus to the creation
and support of dedicated and intentional leadership for comprehensive internationalization.
Institutional leadership typically initiates a comprehensive internationalization effort (Green,
2012), however, having one individual who initiates the process is central for motivating and
implementing comprehensive internationalization. The embedding of internationalization in a
campus’s culture requires an engine to move it forward. It does not simply happen by the efforts
of a few dedicated individuals, it requires broad support and understanding across campus but
takes the effort of one to get it started (Olson, 2005). Creating and supporting the leadership
needed for comprehensive internationalization aligns with the case study findings. Nearly all
participants at CSU pointed to the Vice Provost as being the leading champion of
internationalization, which is evidence that effective and knowledgeable leadership is important
to an institution’s internationalization efforts.
Benchmarking
The third thematic area with the potential to help other campuses attain comprehensive
internationalization is through peer association, benchmarking and standardization. How
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 108
institutions measure internationalization is not currently addressed in any models for
comprehensive internationalization offered by national and international organizations. Instead,
institutions are using their peer institutions and peer individuals to gauge their level of
effectiveness and success. Employing benchmarking as a way to measure comprehensive
internationalization would help guide institutions in their planning while providing a benchmark
for implementation and assessment. This practice leads to the development of institutional
benchmarks. Furthermore, institutional benchmarks, when widely used by the industry, could
lead to the establishment of standards of comprehensive internationalization.
The 21 validated assets have been divided into the following four thematic areas:
location, organizational culture, leadership, and benchmarking and standardization. The
remainder of this chapter will focus on recommended practices for comprehensive
internationalization that can be transferable to other higher education institutions.
Transferable Practice Recommendations
Within the four major themes of CSU’s success mentioned above, there are exemplary
practices that can be duplicated or transferred to other higher education institutions wishing to
achieve a high level of comprehensive internationalization as demonstrated by CSU.
The three recommendations for transfer are:
1. Embed comprehensive internationalization into the culture of the university.
2. Empower a leadership team that demonstrates a commitment toward comprehensive
internationalization.
3. Create peer associations that serve as benchmarking measures in support of
internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 109
Each recommendation is addressed in detail below, in order of importance to an
institution’s implementation effort. Action steps for implementation are provided next, including
proposed timelines and responsibility areas for implementation. Lastly, an evaluation plan for
the transferrable practices is proposed, however, the evaluation plan is incumbent upon the
adopting university’s ability to address the plan details and the plan does not forecast all the
potential needs of an institution. The evaluation process assumes that institutions seeking to
further their comprehensive internationalization efforts have already taken an inventory of their
existing institutional landscape to assess for the viability of comprehensive internationalization at
this time. If support for comprehensive internationalization is present, the process of
comprehensive internationalization can be started. Thus, this evaluation process is intended to
measure and evaluate an institution’s comprehensive internationalization efforts once the
institutional landscape inventory has been realized.
The evaluation plans for each recommendation will be supported by Kirkpatrick’s Four
Levels of Evaluation (2007) and may be adapted by other institutions for successful
implementation. The four levels of evaluation included reaction, learning, transfer and impact.
The four levels of evaluation are described and will be applied to the recommendations contained
within this study.
Level 1: Reaction
This level of evaluation measures the degree to which participants responded to the
recommendations. Evaluation includes motivational influences such as value, self-efficacy, and
mood during the implementation, and is typically offered through a Likert-format survey or
questionnaire. Questions related to reaction may include: Has the culture on campus changed?
Do stakeholders seem interested in integrating comprehensive internationalization into campus?
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 110
Do stakeholders see the value in comprehensive internationalization? Does the SIO believe s/he
can implement comprehensive internationalization? Is staff of the OIP interested in the work
they do?
Level 2: Learning
This level of evaluation measures the effectiveness of implementation, including the
immediate modification of attitudes, perceptions, and the acquisition of knowledge and skills. It
evaluates the answers to questions such as: Did implementation result in changes in the
knowledge, skills, and motivations of the institution and its stakeholders? Did it result in
changes in the knowledge, skills, and motivations of the SIO? Did it result in changes in the
knowledge, skills, and motivations of the leadership team of the central international office?
Level 3: Behavior
This level of evaluation measures the effectiveness of new methods and determines
whether the new knowledge is acted upon. This measurement can be done by test or survey, or
through observations, but it requires that evaluation needs to be after the training.
Level 4: Impact
This level of evaluation is the ultimate result. This level measures the change in output
based on the training. This measurement is to take place at the end of the year to determine
training effectiveness. This level seeks to answer the fundamental question, such as: Did the
institution change in the desired way?
Transferable Practice One: Embed Internationalization into the Culture of the University
The number one asset of CSU was the degree to which comprehensive
internationalization was embedded into its culture. Culture is a culmination of the shared values,
identity, character and mission of a group of people or an organization (Tisdell, 2003). At CSU,
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 111
the organizational culture was developed over the course of years and is comprised of a
collection of values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions, as well as institutional history. The
behaviors of faculty, staff, and students have been guided and shaped by these norms and the
meaning and purpose of the institution are interpreted through the lens of organizational culture
(Kuh, 2008).
CSU’s institutional ethos is defined through its mission statement and strategic plan,
which demonstrates a strong commitment to comprehensive internationalization. A campus-
wide narrative, in the form of mission and strategic plan, was critical to their efforts. This
narrative is critical to any institution seeking to internationalize. An institutional narrative helps
to define and shape institutional goals and provides guidance and support for the work
individuals perform. Without it, an institutions’ comprehensive internationalization efforts will
be severely reduced and full integration into the institution cannot occur. Furthermore, during
times of institutional success or instability, culture can help support individuals and the
institution through significant change.
Comprehensive internationalization is a disruptive process whose aim is to create change.
Therefore, the first step an institution can take to develop a high level of comprehensive
internationalization is to embed a comprehensive internationalization mindset into its
organizational culture.
Implementation Plan
The Association of International Educators recommend that successful comprehensive
internationalization efforts require an organizational culture that gives strength, adaptability, and
sustainability to its purpose (NAFSA, 2018). Creating an institutional culture that supports
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 112
comprehensive internationalization is critical for attainment and it needs to be present in
institution’s goals, mission, vision, and strategic plan.
Review. In developing and defining the steps toward building institutional culture will
require an institution to first look at the scope of comprehensive internationalization and
distinguish the organizational elements associated with it. An institution must know why they are
seeking to pervade comprehensive internationalization into its culture and must understand the
significance it has to the institution. This requires an institution to next examine the elements that
help drive the institution. Such review should include the following elements:
1. Commitment by senior leadership, including the president, provost, vice-presidents,
senior international officer, and others involved in leadership positions;
2. Inventory of the involvement in international activity by faculty and staff;
3. An evaluation of the institutional operational processes, including financial resources,
organizational structures, departmental planning, and communication systems;
4. A review of support services, including registration, advising, housing.
Following a comprehensive review of the factors that drive an institution, a review of the
organizational elements that govern the institutional processes must be conducted. These
elements include a comprehensive review of the institutional goals, including its mission, vision,
and strategic plan. Following the review of institutional goals, it is recommended that the
institutional leadership team begin to assess institutional effectiveness and align the institutional
mission to include comprehensive internationalization. With alignment of an institutional
mission, an institution is better able to define and support their goals for comprehensive
internationalization, thus creating a culture and environment that has a strong comprehensive
internationalization vision.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 113
Communication. While an institutional mission provides a campus-wide vision for the
institution, the narrative for comprehensive internationalization is also important. The next
important step for institutional leaders is to develop a system to communicate clearly and
concisely about the motivations for comprehensive internationalization. This narrative engages
campus on the importance of comprehensive internationalization and advertises events,
programs, and offer initiative updates to all stakeholders. By prioritizing a campus narrative
through centered communications will help provide visibility of programs and a clear
understanding of comprehensive internationalization, which lends to building support and buy-
in.
Table 11 outlines action steps an institution may take to build institutional culture and
create a narrative around comprehensive internationalization. This table also proposes a timeline
and responsibility area but may be adjusted accordingly.
Table 11
Building Institutional Culture
Action Responsible Individual(s) Timeframe
Look at the scope of comprehensive internationalization.
President, Other VP’s 1-2 months
Distinguish the organizational elements within the scope of comprehensive
internationalization.
President, Other VP’s 1-2 months
Conduct a review of commitment by leadership President, Other VP’s 3-6 months
Review organizational elements: institutional goals, including its mission,
vision.
President, Other VP’s, Deans,
Chairs
3-6 months
Inventory all international involvement, evaluate institutional processes, review
support services.
President, Other VP’s, Deans,
Chairs
3-6 months
Begin to assess institutional effectiveness and align the institutional mission to
include comprehensive internationalization.
President, Other VP’s, Deans,
Chairs
End of first year after
inventory has been
taken
Develop a system to communicate clearly and concisely about the motivations
for comprehensive internationalization.
President, Other VP’s, Deans,
Chairs,VP-Communications
1-2 months
Assess and revise, President, Other VP’s, Deans,
Chairs
Bi-annually after the
first year.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 114
This recommendation will take the concerted efforts of multiple players found within an
institution. Attention should be paid to any competing priorities to institutional commitment and
culture that could be under review. This recommendation takes limited financial resources but
will take a commitment of time by personnel to obtain, review, and assess the documents
required for many of these action steps. A committee may be tasked with implementing these
necessary action steps. It is not recommended that any step in this process be skipped or
overlooked as each action step leads to a narrative that supports comprehensive
internationalization.
By implementing the action steps associated with organizational culture institutional
leaders can build an institutional culture that has comprehensive internationalization embedded
into its very foundation.
Evaluation Plan
Identifying clear strategic goals helps institutional stakeholders, such as institutional
leaders, faculty and staff, guide the progress of comprehensive internationalization. An
evaluation plan would allow an institution to measure the progress toward these goals. A
recommended evaluation plan is illustrated in Table 12.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 115
Table 12
Evaluation Plan
Tools for evaluating the reaction level of imbedding comprehensive internationalization
into the institution would include a pre- and post- survey to all campus stakeholders to assess
institutional culture. Furthermore, a pre- and post- survey is recommended to see the reaction of
stakeholders prior to professional development on comprehensive internationalization, which
would help understand the impact of training on creating an organizational culture. To gauge the
overall effectiveness of embedding comprehensive internationalization, a campus-wide survey
may be administered prior to beginning internationalization efforts and after the implementation
stage has occurred. Through evaluation, an in-depth look at the cultural dynamics of an
institution may be seen. This will provide valuable information on the change in values,
practices, beliefs, and assumptions of all campus stakeholders.
Transferable
Asset
Reaction Learning
Behavior
Impact/Results
Embed an
international
perspective into the
culture of the
institution.
Pre- and post- survey to all
campus stakeholders to
assess current culture
surrounding
internationalization.
Pre- and post- survey to
staff/faculty to take CI
training.
Assess pre- and post -data
regarding participation in
trainings, associate with
strategic planning,
mission alignment, and
communication practices.
Observation of campus
climate/culture.
Survey stakeholders on
campus climate and/or
improved culture.
Examine institutional
mission, vision and
strategic plans to
determine if
international
perspectives are being
included during the
planning phase.
Impact:
Aligned and
integrated policies,
programs and
initiatives.
Assurance that
opportunities to
develop
international
competencies exist.
Result:
Improved campus
culture.
Globally prepared
and globally minded
students.
More globally
oriented university,
students, faculty and
staff.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 116
Transferable Practice Two: Engage Leadership
In the current study, strong leadership was identified as a significant factor to enabling
comprehensive internationalization at CSU. Internationalization is an organizational change
process that requires a broad-based approach that allows leaders to access varying aspects of the
institution to stimulate change (Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 1998) but requires a team of
individuals who move comprehensive internationalization from an institutional narrative to
action. An effective comprehensive internationalization process, according to van de Wende
(1999), includes a leadership team that moves comprehensive internationalization through
integration, acceptance, and application through the engagement of institutional units and
functions. The connection between the leadership team and institutional units reinforces the
current position of comprehensive internationalization as an institutional endeavor.
When conducting a review of CSU’s OIP, it became very apparent that comprehensive
internationalization had not been a linear process for this institution. Over the span of 60 years,
the activities of the OIP went from being decentralized and based on faculty-driven initiatives to
one which was centralized and guided by institutional priorities. During this span, an institutional
review was conducted, ultimately leading the institution and the OIP to a strategic, coordinated
and centralized administrative structure. Currently, this centralized administrative structure is
still in place at Colorado State University and serves as the backbone and driver of CSU’s
unremitting comprehensive internationalization effort.
To apply the same approach, university leaders must actively promote comprehensive
internationalization to create an institutional culture but must also create the structure that
supports the international initiatives of an institution. A higher education institution seeking to
increase or improve upon their comprehensive internationalization efforts should take the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 117
following steps addressed below in the implementation plan. These steps may be adapted, as
necessary, but the importance of leadership cannot be underestimated should an institution want
to reach a high level of comprehensive internationalization.
Implementation Plan
Structure. When undertaking comprehensive internationalization, an institution must
first look at the structure in which they engage comprehensive internationalization to determine
its effectiveness toward the effort. If the structure poses a barrier to comprehensive
internationalization, then implementation of policies and actions that promote a centralized
system is strongly recommended. Supporting this recommendation is evidence of the 72
institutions of higher education that NAFSA has presented the Senator Paul Simon Award for
Campus Internationalization to since 2003, all 72 institutions had a centralized structure for
comprehensive internationalization.
At CSU, also a winner of the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus
Internationalization, comprehensive internationalization gained traction when the institution
moved from a decentralized to a more centralized structure. This empowered a team to work
collectively toward a common institutional goal and aided in the success of CSU’s efforts.
Although the process was not linear, each area of expertise connected with another,
demonstrating that comprehensive internationalization at CSU continues to be in a constant state
of development and change. The leadership team works collaboratively together, acutely and
actively weaving internationalization throughout the institution.
Senior level leadership. The next step to building a strong leadership team for
comprehensive internationalization is to hire or appoint a high-level administrator to lead a team
dedicated to the broad scope of comprehensive internationalization. The number of universities
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 118
employing SIO across institutions is increasing in the United States and signifies the importance
that institutions are placing on comprehensive internationalization. This position serves to further
the institutional narrative surrounding comprehensive internationalization and move the narrative
from being an institutional commitment to one that contains intentional actions. This leader has
responsibilities to engage the entire institution on its comprehensive international initiatives,
including senior administrators, faculty, students, alumni and donors. By working collaborative
with all campus stakeholders, the SIO can influence internationalization by initiating,
implementing, and sustaining a comprehensive internationalization strategy across its campus.
International team. After engaging the SIO, establishing an international team is the
next step. An international team is the group of individuals who are responsible for carrying out
the programs and activities of comprehensive internationalization. At CSU, this team was
housed in the OIP. Within this office was administration, operations and communications,
education abroad, international initiatives, international student and scholar services, and China
programs. This team holds the responsibility of furthering CSU’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts and keeps internationalization at CSU’s core by developing and
implementing new programs with a focus on internationalization.
Coordinated efforts. Lastly, to further enhance a strong leadership team, institutional
level internationalization can also be represented and sustained through various institutes,
committees and institutional groups that embody international activities of the institution. For
example, creating a steering committee and task force for comprehensive internationalization is
one way to include institutional stakeholders who can also help to advance internationalization
throughout schools, colleges, and service areas of the institution. Creating an International
Committee or Council that can act as an advisory committee for the international programs
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 119
leadership team is another way to enhance leadership. Engaging faculty can also help drive
internationalization efforts, thus aligning academics with the administrative efforts of
internationalizing the institution.
The cumulative effect of these assets working together will drive and influence
comprehensive internationalization at institutions for decades to come.
Table 13 outlines action steps an institution may take to build a leadership team focused
on internationalizing the institution. This table also proposes a timeline and responsibility area
but may be adjusted accordingly.
Table 13
Building a Leadership Team
Action Responsible Individual(s) Timeframe
Evaluate structure: move from decentralized to centralized system
President, Other VP’s Within the first 6
months
Allocate funding for one central position responsible for advancing the
narrative of comprehensive internationalization
President, Provost, Other VP’s Within 1
st
month
Hire and engage a high-level administrator whose focus is on comprehensive
internationalization
President, Provost, Search
committee
1-2 months
Hire a support team to further CI efforts Provost, Senior International
Officer
1-2 months
Create a comprehensive internationalization steering committee
Senior International Officer 3-6 months
Appoint a Task Force President, Provost, Senior
International Officer, Steering
Committee
3-6 months
Create an international Committee/Council Senior International Officer,
Steering Committee, President
3-6 months
Findings related to the importance of engaging leadership suggest that the presence of a
champion of internationalization can significantly influence how internationalization is defined
within an institution. Furthermore, the international office team holds a very central role in
carrying out the goals and vision of the senior international office and senior leadership. As
comprehensive internationalization is never the work of one individual and requires the
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 120
collaboration of many institutional actors, it is also strongly recommended that planning
committees be established to help with institutional integration. Furthermore, faculty can also
play an important role to comprehensive international, bridging academics and administration
while engaging students.
Evaluation Plan
To effectively assess the engagement of the leadership team, the following plan for
evaluation is provided in Table 14.
Table14
Team Evaluation
At the reaction level, a campus-wide review can be conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the institutional structure and whether it is conducive to comprehensive
internationalization. If the structure is fragmented and ineffective, changes to the structure may
need to occur. A change that can be tracked through the process of empowering leadership is to
track the hiring of both a SIO and staff who have the knowledge and expertise to advance
comprehensive internationalization. By having both a structure in place and a strong leadership
team an institution is providing the administrative framework to ensure successful
comprehensive internationalization.
Transferable Assets Reaction Learning Behavior Impact/Results
Employ and Engage a
Leadership Team
Review
existing
structure for
effectiveness
No evaluation
proposed at this
level.
Key individual who supports the
institutions efforts comprehensive
internationalization.
Increased number of individuals
working toward the vision of
comprehensive internationalization.
Impact:
Globally competent
team
More involvement by
stakeholders’
Result:
Internationalized
campus
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 121
Transferable Practice Three: Peer Influence and Benchmarking
Comprehensive internationalization is a complex process and the assessment of
internationalization is typically accomplished through a series of approximate and actual
measures, such as number of international students, student abroad students, faculty-driven
research and foreign language requirements (Green, 2003. Complicating this process is the
significant lack of understanding by institutions on what constitutes an internationalized
university. A review of the literature found that measurements for internationalization of higher
education are often focused on student learning outcomes, stem from personal and professional
experiences, and is largely based on an individual’s understanding of internationalization.
However, when an institution compares its own comprehensive internationalization practices to
those of its peer institutions, also called benchmarking, they are able to examine the approaches
which may lead to a higher level of internationalization.
Data from this study found that CSU relied on peers to gauge their success and helped to
set goals that would allow them to outperform other institutions. In the interview, participants
were asked whether they thought CSU would be classified as an ‘internationalized’ campus.
Almost all of the participants indicated they are continually moving toward comprehensive
internationalization but did not yet see themselves as having achieved success, despite having
been recognized by NAFSA for having achieved a high level of comprehensive
internationalization. Generally, all participants indicated there was more they could be doing to
further CSU’s internationalization and several referred to institutions that they believed were
performing better. Both the peer institutions and peer individuals who were named provided
validation for the necessity of peer benchmarking to help CSU continually improve and sustain
its internationalization efforts.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 122
By measuring its programming and activities against peers, an institution is able to help
differentiate them from the competition and elevate its level of comprehensive
internationalization. Table 15 outlines the necessary action steps an institution needs to take to
identify peer institutions and develop benchmarks to gauge comprehensive internationalization.
This table also proposes a timeline and responsibility area but may be adjusted accordingly.
Implementation Plan
Benchmarking. Effective decision-making for comprehensive internationalization is
evidence-based, and benchmarking against peer institutions can provide an objective
measurement for setting initial values, goal setting, and improvement tracking. Benchmarking
against other peer institutions allows for the structured sharing of ideas and best practices on the
strengths and weaknesses of the institution. Table 15 provides an implementation plan for
institutions wishing to use peer institutions to measure their comprehensive internationalization
efforts.
Table 15
Peer Institution Identification
Action Responsible Individual(s) Timeframe
Survey campus on what is internationalization Senior International Office and
OIP Leadership Team
3-6 months
Define internationalization President, Provost, VP’s, Senior
International Office, OIP
Leadership Team
1-2 months
Identify Formal Peer Institutions Senior International Officer,
OIP Leadership Team
1-2 months
Identify Informal Peer Institutions Senior International Officer,
OIP Leadership Team
3-6 months
Identify Aspirant Peer Institutions President, Provost, Senior
International Officer, OIP
Leadership Team
3-6 months
Identify Peer Individuals Senior International Officer,
OIP Leadership Team
3-6 months
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 123
Table 15, continued
Action Responsible Individual(s) Timeframe
Create Benchmarks/Standards for Institution Senior International Officer,
OIP Leadership Team,
International Committee,
Steering Committee, CI Task
Force
6-12 months
Evaluate achievement of Benchmarks/Standards Senior International Officer,
OIP Leadership Team
Annually at the
beginning of each
academic year.
Definitions. The implementation of recommendation three requires the definition of
comprehensive internationalization for the institution, as well as a list of formal, informal, and
aspirant institutions. This process is important to an institution because a holistic view and
common understanding of the role comprehensive internationalization will serve for an
institution are both needed. A lack of a unified understanding can hinder an institution’s efforts.
Furthermore, the list of peer institutions must also be developed in alignment with the scope and
focus of the overall comprehensive internationalization strategy and overarching goals, so the
comparison can provide a baseline for all activities that an institution is undertaking. This
baseline will be used as a benchmark or a standard to assess progress and success of an
institution’s comprehensive internationalization efforts.
Evaluation
Evaluation activities related to identifying peer institutions and creating benchmarks for
achieving internationalization-related goals would focus on the efforts of SIO and the
international programs leadership team.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 124
Table16
Evaluation Plan
The evaluation of benchmarking is important because it allows the institution to identify
the appropriateness of the chosen peer institutions and benchmarks by analyzing the gap between
the levels of comprehensive internationalization achieved in several areas and the benchmarks
established.
Institutions of higher education are competitive by nature (Hudzik, 2014). As a result of
this competitive nature, senior administration identifies a set of peer institutions against which
the benchmark their own progress. In using peer (both formal and informal) institutions to assess
one’s comprehensive internationalization efforts against creates an unofficial standard in the area
of comprehensive internationalization. This benchmark, or standard, provides for incentives for
institutions to strive for, and also serves as a basis for which they try to outperform their
competitors.
Transferable
Asset
Reaction Learning
Behavior
Impact/Results
Create Peer
Institutions to
benchmark against
Survey to program
staff to determine peer
institutions
Survey to
administration to
determine peer
institutions
Analyze board-
approved list of peer
institutions.
Survey stakeholders
about the construction
of peers.
Look for new peer
institutions
Seek new peer
individuals
Compare assessments from
board-approved list of peers
against administrative and staff
responses
Review lists to see if initial
decisions changed
Review existing CI
efforts on campus.
Review how
measurements will
be conducted.
Impact:
Maximized CI
efforts.
Improved CI
practices
Results:
Internationalized
campus
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 125
Additional Considerations
As referred to in the case study findings, participants felt CSU had invested the financial
resources needed to develop and achieve a high level of internationalization, as well as the
financial resources needed for sustainability. The financial resource aspect of comprehensive
internationalization is significant, and its utility value should not be underestimated. While the
findings demonstrated that CSU had financial resources for comprehensive internationalization,
the financial investments and resource constraints will vary by institution. The three
recommended transferable practices are dependent, to varying degrees, on the investment of
financial resources by an institution but are extremely dependent on the investment of
administrative time.
Future Research
As internationalization becomes more important to higher education, instruments for
measuring comprehensive internationalization is needed. Institutions are increasingly being
asked to provide evidence of the quality and quantity of its contribution (Green, 2012) and
despite a growing emphasis on comprehensive internationalization, little emphasis has been
given to how comprehensive internationalization is assessed and measured. Peer recognition and
peer evaluation were important factors in the CSU case, and will continue to be important for
CSU in their pursuit of comprehensive internationalization. Benchmarking is the outcome of
peer influence. Therefore, setting benchmarks for the institution, which is synonymous for
setting standards for their expected achievements, can help drive comprehensive
internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 126
Although this study validated the use of benchmarking in one institution’s comprehensive
internationalization efforts, future research regarding standardization models for comprehensive
internationalization would be interesting and complementary to this study.
Conclusion
The primary objective of this study was to focus on a gap within the existing literature
and practice in higher education. This case study examined the assets of one higher education
institution, CSU, which is widely recognized in the field of higher education for having achieved
an advanced of comprehensive internationalization. This case study focused on the experience
and perceptions of the staff of the OIP, identified the perceived rationales and motivations for
internationalization, and connected the priority CSU placed on this institutional-wide effort with
its institutional narrative. This study may be used as an example to inform other institutions of
the discovered assets for achieving a high level of internationalization while providing a process
for implementation and assessment.
The findings revealed that a strong campus narrative surrounding comprehensive
internationalization enables the stakeholders to buy-in to the endeavor. Additionally, having
strong leadership, specifically a team that is tasked with comprehensive internationalization, was
another asset that led to CSU’s success. Finally, the presence of formal and informal peer
institutions was examined and demonstrated the level to which CSU uses its peers for
benchmarking measures. Many of the assets that led to CSU’s success can be replicated at other
institutions. These assets are important to comprehensive internationalization and should be
considered and identified beforehand by institutions seeking to engage in comprehensive
internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 127
The decision to use CSU as a case study was intentional. CSU provided a unique
opportunity to examine, through the use of a promising practice study, the assets of the OIP that
led to the successful achievement of comprehensive internationalization, as demonstrated by the
NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization. CSU chose to commit to
comprehensive internationalization and remains committed to its continuous improvement. At
the time this research was being conducted, the OIP was writing CSU’s Internationalization Plan
2.0, which discusses future internationalization endeavors and strategies for sustainability,
placing CSU in a unique position to continue to elevate and provide momentum for
comprehensive internationalization in the field of higher education.
As institutions continue to expand their international reach, the findings from this study
offer important recommendations related to the institutional and individual assets that advance an
institution’s comprehensive internationalization effort. Interestingly, the value of analyzing
promising practices, the transferability of assets leading to institutional success in
internationalization, and the role of benchmarking in the case presented in this study point,
concurrently, to the importance standards can have as drivers of internationalization.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 128
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world.
Tertiary Education and Management, I, 1-20.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 290-305.
Altbach, P. G. & Peterson, P.M. (1998). Internationalize American higher education? Not
exactly. Change, 30, 36-39.
Altbach, P., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university.
Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 5, 1:5-25.
American Council on Education. (2016). CIGE model for comprehensive internationalization.
Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/CIGE-Model-for-
Comprehensive-Internationalization.aspx
American Council on Education. (2017). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: 2017
edition. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Mapping-
Internationalization-US-Campuses-2012-full.pdf
American Council on Education. (2017). Making the Case for Internationalization Retrieved
from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Making-the-Case-for-
Internationalization.aspx
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NT: Longman.
Arum, S., & van de Water, J. (1992). The need for a definition of international education in U.S.
universities. In C. Klasek, Bridges to the futures: Strategies for internationalizing higher
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 129
education (pp. 191-203). Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education
Administrators.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (n.d.) Retrieved from About AAC&U:
http://www.aacu.org/about
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2016). Retrieved from About AAC&U:
http://www.aacu.org/about
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boggs, G., & Irwin, J. (2007). What every higher education leader’s need to know: Building
leadership for international education. New Directions for Higher Education, 138, 25-45.
Byers-Pevitts, B. (2008). Innovative education for an interconnected world. The Presidency,
11(3), 24.
Carlson, J., Bum, B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1991). Study Abroad. The experience of
American undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States. New York, NY:
International Educational Exchange.
Carsello, C., & Greaser, J. (1976). How college students change during study abroad. College
Student Journal, 10, 276-278.
Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information age publishing, Inc.
Colorado State University. (2017a). Colorado State University. Retrieved from About Colorado
State University website: http://colostate.edu/about/
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 130
Colorado State University. (2017b). Institutional research, planning and effectiveness. Retrieved
from Colorado State University website: http://www.ir.colostate.edu/data-reports/fact-
publications/factbook/
Colorado State University. (2017c). Office of International Programs. Retrieved from News &
Updates website: https://international.colostate.edu/2018/02/22/csu-ranks-in-top-10-for-
peace-corps-volunteers-again/
Colorado State University. (2017d). Office of the Provost. Retrieved from Colorado State
University website http://provost.colostate.edu/strategic-plan/:
Craft, A. (1992). Quality assurance in higher education. International Conference in Hong
Kong, 1991. London: The Falmer Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education. A Comparative Study
of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: EAIE.
de Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education.
International Higher Education, 15, 2-4. Retrieved from
https://www/bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/IHEpdfs/ihe15.pdf
de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and
Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
de Wit, H., & Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 131
de Wit, H. (2013). Internationalization of higher education, an introduction on the why, how, and
what. In H. de Wit (Ed.), An introduction to higher education internationalization (pp.
13-46). Milan. Italy: Centre for Higher Education Internationalization.
Dellow, D. (2007). The role of globalization in technical and occupational programs. New
Directions for Higher Education, 138, 39-45.
Dolby, R., & Rahman, A. (2008). Research in international education. Review of Educational
Research, 78(3), 676-726.
Engberg, D., & Green, M. (Eds.). (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in
comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
European Commission. (2017). Research and Innovation: Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions.
Retrieved from European Commission website:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about_en
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty first century. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Green, M. F. (2003). The challenge of internationalization undergraduate education: Global
learning for all. Retrieved from
http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/archives/globalchallenges/pdf/greene/pdf
Green, M. F. (2012). Measuring and assessing internationalization. New York, NY: NAFSA-
Association of International Educators.
Green, M., D., L., & Burris, B. (2008). Measuring internationalization at research universities.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 132
Green, M. F., & Olson, C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education, Center for Institutional and International
Initiatives.
Harari, M. (1972). Global dimensions in U.S. education: The university. New York, NY: Center
for War/Peace Studies.
Harvey, L. & Knight, P. T., (1996). Transforming Higher Education. Buckingham, Society for
Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press.
Hayward, F., & Siaya, L. (2001). Public experience, attitudes, and knowledge: A report on two
national surveys about international education. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Intercultural
cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. (report).
Retrieved from
http://www.nafsa.ord/Find_Resouces/Internationalizing_Higher_Education/Comprehensi
ve_Internationalization/.
Hudzik, J. K. (2014). Comprehensive internationalization: Institutional pathways to success.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hunter, B., White, G., & Godbey, G. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267-285.
Institute of International Education. (2006). Open doors report on international educational
exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 133
Institute of International Education. (2016). Open Doors data. Retrieved from Institute of
International Education website: http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-
Doors/Data/Fact-Sheets-by-US-State/2016#.WJorZm8rKUk
Johnston, I., & Edelstein, R. (1993). Beyond borders: Profiles in international education.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and American Assembly of
Collegiate Schools of Business.
Kelleher, A. (1996). Learning from success: Campus case studies in international program
development. New York: Peter Lang.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher
education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher education.
Paris, France: Institutional Management of Higher Education/Organization for Economic
and Community Development.
Knight, J. (1997) Internationalization of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight
& H. de Wit (Eds.). Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries,
(pp. 5-19). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Association for International
Education.
Knight, J. (1999). Issues and trends in internationalization: A comparative perspective. A New
World of Knowledge: Canadian Universities and Globalization, (pp. 201-238). Ontario,
Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Knight, J. (2001a). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 221-236.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 134
Knight, J. (2001b). Monitoring the quality and progress of internationalization. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 5(Fall), 228-243.
Knight, J. (2003b). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33,
2-3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal
of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.
Knight, J. (2015, 07). Updated Definition of Internationalization. International Higher
Education, No. 33: Fall 2003, 2-3.
Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, 64, 14-
15.
Krane, M. (1994). Development of an internationalization index for U.S. liberal arts colleges.
Ed.D. dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi. Retrieved from
Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 9428847).
Kreber, C. (2009). Different perspectives on internationalization in higher education. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118, 1-14.
Kuh, G., & Kauffman, N. (1984). The impact of study abroad on personal development of
college students. Bloomington: Indiana University School of Education.
Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-Impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Lewis, R., & Loder, C. (1990). Quality assurance and accountability in higher education.
London, UK: Kogan Page.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 135
Maurer, D. (2010). U.S. Government Accountability Agency. United States Government
Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security. Washington, DC: US Senate.
McLean, J.J. (1990). Consortial approaches to international education, 1990(70), 47-56.
Merriam-Webster. (2018). Peer. Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved May 11, 2018 from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon
multidimensional perspective. In J.A. Mestenhauser & B.J. Ellingboe (eds.), Reforming
the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp. 3-39). Phoenix, AZ:
The American Council on education and The Oryx Press.
Mestenhauser, J., & Ellingboe, B. (1998). Reforming the higher education curriculum:
Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2013). The economic benefits of international
students to the U.S. economy. Retrieved from NAFSA website:
http://www.iie.org/en/archives/Research-and-Publications/OpenDoors/Data.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2017). Trends in US study abroad. Retrieved
from NAFSA:
www.nafsa.org/policy_and_advocacy/policy_resources/policy_trends_and_data/trends_in
_u_s__study_abroad
NAFSA. (2017). About. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/About_Us
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 136
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Task Force on International
Education. (2004). Call to leadership: The presidential role in internationalizing the
university. Washington, DC: Author.
Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalization at home: Theory and praxis. European Association for
International Education Forum, 12, 3-6.
Olson, C., Green, M., & Hill, B. (2008). What institutions can do and what students should learn.
A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive Internationalization. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Peacock, J. (2007). Grounded globalism: How the US south embraces the world. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2006). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in
today's global economy? Retrieved from The American Association of Colleges and
Universities website: www.aacu.org/leap/documents/Re8097abcombined.pdf
Peterson, P. M. (2014). Internationalization Policies: The US Perspective. AIEA 2014 Annual
Conference (pp. 25-36). Washington, DC: Association of International Education
Administrators.
Pickup, S. (2010). GAO. Retrieved from U.S. Government Accountability Office website:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-879T
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework.
Policy Futures in Education, 1 (2), 248-270.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 137
Raby, R. (2008). Expanding education abroad in the U.S. Retrieved from Institute of
International Education website: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-
Publications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-
Rumbley, L., Altbach, P., & Reisberg, L. (2013). Internationalization within the higher education
context. In Internationalizing Higher Education (pp. 3-24). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Scott, P. (1998). The globalization of higher education. Buckingham, United Kingdom: OUP &
SRHE.
Schray, V. (2005) Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Key Issues and Questions for
Changing Accreditation in the United States. The Secretary of Education’s Commission
on the Future of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the
internationalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 11 (3/4), 359-372.
Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UNESCO. (2014). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from UNESCO Institute for
Statistics website: http://www.uis.unesco.org
Van Damme, D. (2000). Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide
accreditation? European Journal for Education Law & Policy, 4 (1), 1-20.
van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing links: The relationship between national policies for
internationalization and those for higher education in general. In T. Kalvermark & M. van
der Wende (Eds.), National policies for the internationalization of higher education in
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 138
Europe (pp. 10-31). Stockholm: Hogskoleverket Studies, National Agency for Higher
Education.
Wachter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalization at home in context. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 7(1), 5-1.
Worthen, B., Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches
and practical guidelines. New York, NY: Longman.
Wright, M. G. M., & Breda, K. (2015). International Partnership for Research and Exchange:
Ethical Implications. Journal of Modern Education Review, 5(10), 962–969.
Yang, R. (2002). Third Delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. London,
UK: Routledge.
Zagalo-Melo, P., Atteberry, C., & Turner, R. (2018). Grounded globalism: Using a regional
identity hypothesis as a framework for internationalizing higher education curriculum. In
S. Dikli, B. Etheridge, & R. Rawls (Eds.), Curriculum Internationalization and the
Future of Global Education (pp. 233-250). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 139
APPENDIX A
Research Survey
University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research
STANDARDS AS DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Nancy Bjorklund, a doctoral candidate and Dr.
Tracy Poon Tambascia, Faculty Advisor, at the University of Southern California.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the factors that influence successful comprehensive
internationalization at a public research university.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a short, 20-item survey,
administered through Qualtrics. Please complete the following survey no later than April 8, 2018. The
survey should take approximately 5 minutes to complete.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no payment nor compensation for your participation in this research study. Participation is
voluntary.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. At the completion of
the study, the anonymous data may be used for future research studies. If you do not want your data
used in future studies, you should not participate.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Nancy Bjorklund
at bjorklun@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research
in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of
the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South
Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
I appreciate your help and willingness to participate in this study. I believe that the results of this study will be
helpful to other institutions in their efforts to achieve a high level of comprehensive internationalization.
Sincerely,
Nancy A. Bjorklund
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 140
Validation of Consent: yes no
RESEARCH SURVEY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS STAFF INVOLVED IN
COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONALIZATION
Directions: Please take a few minutes to answer each of the questions below.
DEFINING COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY’S INTERNATIONALIZATION
1. What is your employment status in the Office of International Programs?
o Faculty/Instructor
o Staff/Administrator
o Student Employee
o N/A
2. How long have you been employed within the Office of International Programs?
o Less than one year
o 1-4 years
o 5+ years
o N/A
3. How important has internationalization been at your institution in the last five years?
o Very important
o High
o Important
o Not important
4. I have a solid understanding of what comprehensive internationalization is?
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
5. Comprehensive internationalization is a main priority for Colorado State University?
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
6. What were Colorado State University’s main reasons for internationalizing? [Select up to five]
o Improve student preparedness for a global era
o Diversify students, faculty and staff at the home campus
o Become more attractive to prospective students at home and overseas
o Raise international reputation and rankings
o Support institutional accreditation
o Generate new revenue for the institution
o Attract global talent (faculty and researchers)
o Contribute to international development initiatives
o Participate in U.S. diplomacy efforts
o Maintain U.S. economic, scientific and technological competitiveness
o Other (please specify) ____________________
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 141
7. I value the mission of Colorado State University.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
8. Internationalization is embedded in the mission of Colorado State University.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
9. The time and effort I put into comprehensive internationalization is important to my institution?
o Strongly Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
10. The allocation of human resources, time and attention improves the culture of comprehensive
internationalization at Colorado State University.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
11. I am proud of Colorado State University winning the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus
Internationalization.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
12. The comprehensive internationalization strategies currently in place at Colorado State University can be
successful.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
13. Colorado State University’s administration needs to take into consideration the role standards and
benchmarks have in comprehensive internationalization.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 142
14. I have a solid understanding of why implementing internationalization impacts campus culture.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
15. Peer recognition affects Colorado State University’s comprehensive internationalization strategies.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
16. Other institutions use Colorado State University as a model for their comprehensive internationalization
efforts.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
17. Colorado State University’s administration does a good job of communicating the efforts and outcomes of
its comprehensive internationalization efforts.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
18. Colorado State University’s administration provides a strong campus narrative which includes
comprehensive internationalization.
o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
19. What were the main reasons that led to Colorado State University’s success in comprehensive
internationalization? Please select your top three:
o Senior administration’s involvement
o Faculty involvement
o Student involvement
o Staff involvement
o Funding allocated
o Strong institutional support
o Community support
o Knowledgeable Senior International Officer (Vice Provost)
o Office of International Programs collective efforts
o Other [please specify]
20. Receiving the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award for Campus Internationalization contributed to the
establishment of a baseline for comprehensive internationalization at Colorado State University.
o Strongly agree
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 143
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 144
APPENDIX B
Open-Ended Questionnaire for Senior International Officer
1. Please describe your role and responsibilities as the Senior International Officer.
2. How would you define comprehensive internationalization?
a. What is the main purpose of comprehensive internationalization at your institution?
b. Why is comprehensive internationalization important to your institution?
3. How does comprehensive internationalization impact a campus?
4. How do you implement comprehensive internationalization?
5. Do you think that internationalization must be part of a university’s mission and strategic plan? Y/N
6. What are the key strengths of your institution that make your comprehensive internationalization efforts
possible?
a. and successful?
7. What do you consider are the key issues that impact an institution’s comprehensive internationalization
efforts?
8. Do you think standards play a role in the quality assurance of comprehensive internationalization?
9. **What are the benchmarks or standards your institution uses for comprehensive internationalization?
10. ** How do you assess your comprehensive internationalization strategies?
11. ** It is important that peer institutions see your comprehensive internationalization efforts as successful.
12. **Do you think other institutions use CSU as a model for its comprehensive internationalization efforts.
13. ** How does peer recognition affect your comprehensive internationalization strategies?
14. ** Do you think it is important to look at other peer institutions to see how they are internationalizing?
15. **Do you have confidence that using benchmarks is beneficial for CSU to maintain a high level
comprehensive internationalization
16. **Tell me why you think comprehensive internationalization improves a student's education.
17. In your opinion, what does CSU do really well in regard to comprehensive internationalization?
18. Who were the main drivers of comprehensive internationalization at CSU?
19. Colorado State University has the financial resources needed to continue to pursue comprehensive
internationalization.
20. CSU has the organizational structure needed to implement comprehensive internationalization.
21. CSU administration does a good job of communicating the efforts and outcomes of its comprehensive
internationalization efforts.
22. What is the narrative on campus for comprehensive internationalization?
23. What helps to keep your staff engaged in comprehensive internationalization?
24. How is comprehensive internationalization funded?
25. CSU has the necessary human resources required for comprehensive internationalization?
**indicates priority questions
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 145
APPENDIX C
Open-Ended Questionnaire for Office of International Programs Staff
1. How would you define comprehensive internationalization?
2. What is the main purpose of comprehensive internationalization at your institution?
3. Who are/is the main driver (or champion) or comprehensive internationalization at CSU?
4. What intrinsic elements help drive you to be internationally engaged?
5. Is employee mindfulness central to internationalization participation?
6. How does your work apply/effect CSU’s internationalization efforts?
7. Why is comprehensive internationalization important to your institution?
8. Were you proud when CSU won the NAFSA Senator Paul Simon Award?
9. Do you think pride is a reward of comprehensive internationalization?
10. Internationalization must be part of a university’s mission and strategic plan. Y/N
11. Tell me how comprehensive internationalization impacts a campus (positively/negatively).
12. **Do you use peer institutions or peer individuals to gauge your work? (Or, motivate you to try other
things in the field)?
13. What are the benefits of using peer individuals?
14. Do you look at your peers for inspiration and guidance? Institutional and Individuals?
15. Do you think the SIO has the knowledge, experience and drive to advance comprehensive
internationalization at CSU?
16. Do you think the SIO keep up-to-date on the latest trends and developments in the field?
17. **Do you think standards play a role in the quality assurance of comprehensive internationalization?
18. **Do you have confidence that using benchmarks is beneficial for CSU to maintain a high level
comprehensive internationalization?
19. **What are the benchmarks or standards your institution uses for comprehensive internationalization?
20. **How do you assess your comprehensive internationalization strategies?
21. **I think other institutions use CSU as a model for its comprehensive internationalization efforts.
22. **Do you think it is important to look at other peer institutions to see how they are internationalizing?
23. **It is important that peer institutions see your comprehensive internationalization efforts as successful?
24. **How does peer recognition affect your comprehensive internationalization strategies?
25. **Tell me why you think comprehensive internationalization improves a student's education.
26. Colorado State University has the financial resources needed to continue to pursue comprehensive
internationalization.
27. CSU has a campus-wide narrative for comprehensive internationalization?
28. What are the key strengths of your institution that make your comprehensive internationalization efforts
possible? and successful?
29. What do you consider are the key issues that impact an institution’s comprehensive internationalization
efforts?
30. Do you participate in comprehensive internationalization activities? If so, which? [Provide list]
31. [If yes to 31] Do you believe these activities play a continuous and central role in integrating an
international dimension into CSU’s institutional activities?
**indicates priority questions
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 146
APPENDIX D
Table of Validated Assets
ASSUMED ISSUES VALIDATION TABLE
Knowledge Validated
Not
Validated
1. Institutions need to have internationalization in their mission statement and strategic plan. x
2. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to demonstrate their understanding of how standards
can relate to internationalization strategies.
x
3. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know what the key strengths are of their institution
in implementing comprehensive internationalization.
x
4. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know how peer recognition can affect their
comprehensive internationalization strategies.
x
5. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to be able understand the importance of
internationalization for the institution.
x
6. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to have a firm understanding of what comprehensive
internationalization is.
x
7. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to understand the key issues that can obstruct
internationalization efforts.
inconclusive
8. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know how internationalization can impact a
campus.
x
9. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to know how to assess internationalization strategies. x
10. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to be able to recognize why internationalization
should be a priority of the institution.
x
Motivation
11. SIOs and the international office's leadership team have to believe that internationalization can make a
difference to the campus culture.
x
12. SIOs and the international office's leadership team have to believe that they can achieve internationalization. x
13. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to value the mission and vision of the university. x
14. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to see the value of strategies employed for
internationalization.
x
15. SIOS and the international office's leadership team need to believe they can be recognized by peer institutions
and other associations for their contribution in internationalization.
x
16. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to be able to invest the mental effort to implement
internationalization.
x
17. SIOs and the international office's leadership team need to sustain their internationalization efforts. x
Organization
18. Internationalization has to be a key component in the mission and vision of the university. x
19. Senior administrators need to be involved in setting standards for comprehensive internationalization. x
20. There must be an inherent commitment from the institution's leadership toward comprehensive
internationalization.
x
21. Funding must be allocated for campus internationalization efforts. x
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 147
22. University administration needs to be able to provide a mission and vision that is in line with the concept/idea
of internationalization.
x
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 148
APPENDIX E
Executive Organizational Chart – Colorado State University
DRIVERS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 149
APPENDIX F
Organizational Chart – Office of International Programs
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Institutions of higher education are embarking upon comprehensive internationalization in an effort to prepare students to work in an increasingly globalized world. A review of the literature presents a need for higher education to establish standards in the field in which to measure internationalization. This study used a case study approach to explore the primary assets that led a public institution to achieve comprehensive internationalization. Interviews, surveys and an examination of documents were used to understand the perceptions of staff regarding the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets that led to success. Factors identified during the literature review were included throughout the design of this study. Primary components of the foundational assets focused on the importance of an institutional commitment demonstrated through an articulated institutional mission and narrative. Another foundational asset confirmed the importance of supportive and knowledgeable leadership. The primary roles and functions of the senior international officer, as well as the administrative staff tasked with leading an institutions comprehensive internationalization effort, emerged as an essential theme. Moreover, results from the current study emphasized the significance of peer influences and the use of benchmarks to assess comprehensive internationalization, further supporting the limited research on the need for the development and use of standards for measuring comprehensive internationalization. Transferable recommendations from the findings are presented and suggestions for further research are offered. As institutions seek to achieve an advanced level of comprehensive internationalization, this case study presents key assets which other higher education institutions can embrace, which ultimately can lead an institution to a higher level of comprehensive internationalization.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university
PDF
Chinese students’ preparedness for university studies in the United States
PDF
Faculty internationalization at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST): a promising practice study
PDF
Establishing domestic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs in the global market: an innovation study
PDF
Increasing international student enrollment at public research universities: a gap analysis
PDF
Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study
PDF
Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study
PDF
Faculty retention at private colleges in China
PDF
Attracting and retaining talent: improving the impact of workplace mentorship
PDF
Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study
PDF
The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice
PDF
Building 21st century skills for school-age children in Colombia: lessons from a promising practice
PDF
Intercultural integration of students at a Sino-foreign cooperative university in China: an evaluation study
PDF
Leading the country in TVET: Don Bosco Technical Vocational Education and Training Center
PDF
Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university
PDF
Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness
PDF
Learner-centered teaching in Uganda: an analysis of continuing educational needs
PDF
How socioeconomic status influences career planning for college business majors in Hong Kong
PDF
Understanding teacher burnout through a lens of hope in high-poverty schools
PDF
Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bjorklund, Nancy A.
(author)
Core Title
Standards as drivers of internationalization
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Global Executive
Publication Date
08/15/2018
Defense Date
07/19/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
benchmarking,internationalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,standardization
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Poon-Tambascia, Tracy (
committee chair
), Krop, Cathy (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bjorklun@usc.edu,nancy.bjorklund1@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-71462
Unique identifier
UC11670557
Identifier
etd-BjorklundN-6763.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-71462 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BjorklundN-6763.pdf
Dmrecord
71462
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Bjorklund, Nancy A.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
benchmarking
internationalization
standardization