The Meso-level Professionals Approaches to Internationalization of Higher Education at the MTU
1Nurshaidah Mohamad Sari, *2Nur Sofurah Mohd Faiz
1,2Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
*E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
According to Jane Knight, in internationalizing higher education, it is best to practice the dynamic activity approach and process approach to internationalization. Giving attention to one approach alone could contribute to a less focused approach and could potentially hinder the institutions from receiving the maximum benefits of internationalization. This study is part of a larger research that explores the approaches to the internationalization of higher education in the experiences of meso-level professionals of a Malaysia Technical University (MTU, a pseudonym). A qualitative case study methodology is adopted to gain adequate information from the internationalization key actors of the institution through an in-depth interview and was analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed that the major focus on internationalization from the perspective of meso-level professionals at MTU was viewed through a list of international activities which are the recruitment of international students, the execution of international programs, and the development of collaboration with international partners or organizations. This view represents the concept of the activity approach to internationalization per se. However, internationalization experts have long promoted the ideal practices of internationalization to be in a dynamic way between the activity approach and process approach. The result of this study offers the MTU valuable information on internationalization approaches to serve as a guideline in measuring the internationalization practices, strategies, and improvement of the institution.
Keywords: Internationalization of higher education; activity approach; process approach; meso-level professionals
1. INTRODUCTION
Internationalization is a familiar process in the higher educational setting. The terminology has evolved over the centuries and its interpretations sometimes brought certain confusion, especially regarding its purpose and importance. Knight (2004) suggested that the implementation of internationalization of higher education is through the integration of international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the setting of the institution. The concept introduced is the most relevant to be adopted at all levels of execution of internationalization in the current situation. It has been used widely and benchmarked by many countries in internationalizing their education including Malaysia (Sari & Faiz, 2020). It is because the concept was viewed as inclusive and holistic due to the inclusion of the identities of a nation and the culture of a country.
According to Knight (1994), every term present in internationalization introduces different types of concepts, hence, a comprehensive understanding of the key concept of internationalization is important for clarification of the process. Besides, lacking agreement on the concept itself also could hinder the institution in its internationalizing effort. In the end, it will reflect the development of an effective strategy and approaches to internationalizing the institution (Elkin, Farnsworth, & Templer, 2008). As to effectively advocate and achieve the ideal setting of internationalization, it is needed to identify and understand the concept to be adopted into the real setting of education of a country so that the maximum benefit of internationalization is reachable.
2. THE CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Over time, internationalization has become a broader and diversified concept (Knight & De Wit, 2018). In the higher educational setting, there are two ways of internationalization being conceptualized which are the activities approach and the process approach (Knight, 2004) The activities approach was viewed through a list of international activities that consist of three main elements of the international curriculum, international scholar and student exchange, and international technical and cooperation programs. On the other hand, the process approach is focusing on the efforts to integrate the international dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of an institution (Knight, 1994).
There are also other approaches introduced over the centuries such as the national approach, institutional approach, competency approach and others (Knight, 1994; 2004; 2007).
But the activities approach and process approach are found to be highly practiced in most higher education institutions globally (Sari & Faiz, 2020). Furthermore, every approaches are practiced by different types of institutions and were executed by different levels of actors who are involved in the whole process of internationalization.
The Activities Approach to Internationalization
The activities approach portrays internationalization through international activities such as curriculum, scholar and student exchange, and cooperation programs (Knight, 1994). This approach is similar to the concept of international education during its first appearance in the educational setting. It was viewed from the perspective of an emergence of a strategy for internationalization and action taken towards the policymaking of internationalization. Thus,
the activities approach is believed to force the top-down effect on internationalization as it was demonstrated at the national, sector and institutional levels (Knight, 2004). The actors at these levels are referred to as macro and meso-level professionals who view internationalization from the aspect of policies, rationales, funding, goals, benefits, outcomes, and impact (Knight, 2007).
However, Knight (2007) argued that the practice of the activity approach alone will cause the institutions more prone to isolate international activities from their daily operations which this could lead to a fragmented and irregular approach to internationalization. It can happen when the relationship, benefits, and effects that appeared between the activities are ignored.
Besides, this approach is thought of as a highly abstract and complicated approach because of its processes of application (Sari & Faiz, 2020). Hence, the implementation of this approach may not successfully achieve the goals of internationalization because it does not take into consideration the effects and consequences of its application.
The Process Approach to Internationalization
The process approach is the process of integrating the international dimension or perspective into the major functions of the institution (Knight, 1994). This is where the international and intercultural dimensions were embedded into a wide range of activities, policies, and procedures of the institution because it needs to be centralized and sustained within the institution (Knight, 2004). Thus, this approach will focus more on the primary function of the institution which includes the curricular, extracurricular, and organizational aspects as this is where the real process of internationalization took place (Knight, 2007). This approach forces the top-down effect and bottom-up effect where it involves the actors from the meso-level professionals and individuals at the micro level.
According to (Knight, 2007), the process approach conveyed internationalization as an ongoing and continuous effort that took place at the institutional level. This approach is concerned with the institutional strategies to develop a practical mechanism for executing internationalization activities. As Sanderson (2008) and Faiz (2014) suggested that it is essential to take into consideration the purposes, practices and experiences of internationalization from the institutional level as well as from the individual level. It is because the focus on each layer of the process differs within the activities and emphasizes the experiences gained individually. The individuals involved in this approach include students, academic staff, and administrators of the department or offices.
The concept of internationalization is constantly undergoing an evolutionary and developmental in its quality (Knight, 2004). In recent years, most higher education institutions are leading towards internationalizing their institution to be in a position globally and head in line with other institutions. This effort required different approaches and strategies to accomplish internationalization. Yet, the focus is more likely on achieving the key performance indicators (KPIs) and standards set for internationalization (Sari & Faiz, 2020). In addition, the application of one approach alone in the internationalizing effort also could contribute to a less focused approach and hinder the institution from reaching the maximum level of internationalization (Knight, 2015).
Therefore, this research will further explore the nature of internationalization approaches in the experiences of the key actors of internationalization at the Malaysia Technical University (MTU). The findings then will extend a broader literature on the internationalization of higher education in improving the quality of higher education from the perspective of meso-level professionals who are the officers from the Chancellery Office, International Office, and three other international related offices as well as deans from four different faculties at MTU.
3. METHODOLOGY
This study adopted a qualitative case study methodology as to gain rich descriptive information on the internationalization of higher education at the MTU. Qualitative research is often defined as interpretive research where the interpretation is shaped by the participants’ experiences, cultural values, and understanding as well as the background of those participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). This study explores the experiences of meso-level professionals in the internationalization of higher education as these experiences will provide an in-depth description of the phenomenon that can be obtained from the semi-structured interviews.
Participants were purposively selected using specific criteria established to ensure that the participants chosen could provide rich, heuristic, and holistic information to address the research aim (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). All participants are provided with a set of interview documents as an initial overview of the study and confirmation of their detail’s confidentiality.
Then, the data were analyzed and were coded inductively where they were further gathered into central themes to the internationalization activity-process approach.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Initially, internationalization is purposely oriented to the institutional level only and it attempted to build the universality functions of an institution. Then, the evolution of internationalization throughout the centuries changed it into a process or a cycle of planned and spontaneous initiatives at both policy and program levels. Later, internationalization becomes fundamental in both the organizational structures and systems of the institutions and academic activities.
Overall findings of this study, the meso-level professionals at MTU viewed the internationalization of higher education as a list of three main activities which are the recruitment of international students, the execution of international programs, and the development of collaboration with international partners and organizations. These activities framed the themes of the findings and resonate with the ‘activities approach’ stated by Knight (1994).
The Recruitment of International Students
The Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) targets 250,000 students from abroad to study in Malaysia in the year 2025. This target is delivered to public universities as their key performance indexes (KPIs). Public universities including MTU are expected to plan strategies and initiatives to support this national agenda. To support this agenda, each year international students at MTU it is targeted to increase by 200 international students from the previous year.
According to Dean 2 of MTU, the initiative is to increase the number of international students and for this year about 1,000 students were targeted and became the key performance indexes (KPIs) for the university. For that reason, the number of international students has been the most common discussion delivered on internationalization as it is one of the major contributions to the income generation of the institution. For example, one of the chancellery officers stated that:
“…having internationalization into our shore is about having a long business, you know, plan is not a few days or a year or two years but it means a long term plan for the university.”
While the chancellery officer stated the above, Deans in the Faculty 1, 3 and 4 commented on the above claim that much of the concentration of the faculties was leading to efforts on international students’ recruitment. They commented:
“…as far as this office is concerned, normally this office focusing on the high in need matters with related to international students, the quality control and also the student affairs as well
as many other important aspects, especially for postgraduate perspectives.” – Dean 1
“…one of the criteria is how many of the international students that collaborate or had to distribute to the faculty.” – Dean 3
“…the primary function of this faculty is to comply with the university’s aspiration. Firstly, to enroll more international students, postgraduate and undergraduate.” – Dean 4
Clearly, all deans have stated the above with a similar understanding of their responsibility to recruit more international students into their faculty. All faculties at MTU understand their requirement to put forward extra effort in recruiting international students as this has been one of the ways of income generation for the institution. In addition, it is also one of the primary functions of the faculty in complying with the university’s aspiration in achieving the targeted number of international students of the institution.
Most higher education institutions are exposed to decreased public funding and increased operational costs which mostly happened in an environment of increased responsibility and competition. This phenomenon has led to the kind of for-profit internationalization of higher education, especially when recruiting international students (Knight, 2004;2015). Although, there is an argument on the purposes of income generation of an institution, many have suggested that those incomes generated from international activities should be reinvested in the aspect of internationalization (Knight, 2004). For example, in an interview with the international officers, he said that,
“…by having international students, we can have a sustainable income because they pay more fees. Not only that, by having them here, we can create many opportunities, maybe we
can be in the ranking because of international students”.
This idea is motivated by an accomplishment of a certain performance standard which includes the number of international students recruited by the institution that could secure the international visibility of the institution (Munusamy & Hashim, 2019). The international visibility can be seen through the ranking style system embarked by the institution. Although, this trend has been highly affected by the ways higher education institutions are naturally being projected (Knight, 2004). Yet, the motivation to be in the position of competitive ranking among the Malaysian institutions has been the aspiration for Malaysia in making the country an education hub of Southeast Asia (Sari & Faiz, 2020).
The Execution of International Programs
In the internationalization of higher education, the integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the service function of an institution through international programs contributes to the development of student skills, both local students and international students (Henard, Diamond & Roseveare, 2012). This process becomes central because it is associated with the organizational procedures, policy, support systems, and infrastructures that will facilitate the execution of international programs at MTU. An interview with the Dean of Faculty 1 indicated that:
“…in terms of internationalization, I would say that it is not being only captured through international students or international staff, but it also reflected through international
programs, partnership and others.”
Thus, the implementation of international programs also has become one of the main KPIs of the internationalization of higher education at MTU. Meanwhile, an officer from the International Office argued that:
“…we can increase the students if we want to but, are we ready to support what they need?
Because students, they come from different country, they come from different background.
Of course, sometimes they think they want to be in the city but we are not in the city that is why we have to do something if we really want them to come.”
Yet, other participants do not comment on the above as they are more focused on the implementation of international programs, especially in the student and scholar exchange programs. For example, they indicated that:
“Beside the international students, which is the full time students. We also would like to have more mobility students or lecturers from other universities.” – Dean 2
“For academic purposes, the activity related to this internationalization is the mobility, student mobility.” – Dean 3
“I can see now that by having online program, teaching and learning online, a lot of students have enrolled to our program through mobility.” – Dean 4
Based on the above Deans’ opinion, it shows that every faculty have made an effort in developing the international program, especially in mobility as to attract more international students and increase the visibility of the institution. Despite the challenges in developing the
mobility program, it is still feasible to promote the institution oversea just through the online program. All the deans are very welcome international students to their faculty and mobility is one of the kinds of international programs that help them in reaching to their KPIs.
It is appearing that mobility was the common program mentioned by the participants in relation to internationalization which was motivated by the KPIs set on international student recruitment. The increasing in this kind of program has been considered as an economic and politic impacts to the country because it has indirectly improved the financial stability on both sending and receiving countries (Knight, 2004). Despite many advantages of the mobility, many are still reluctant to mobile due to the current immigration, educational and social policy, and culture differences between countries involved (Kmiotek-Meier et. al., 2019). In some countries, the formation of mobility is not a regular program as its goal is commonly associated with international cooperation and exchange between the nations. Due to this, the implementation of the program become crucial for an institution in identifying the policies and practices of the countries involved prior to any involvement in mobility.
Developing Collaboration with International Partners and Organizations
Generally, many countries have made their involvement in the internationalization agenda predominantly as to improve the understanding and learning between the collaborating nations and partners (Munusamy & Hashim, 2019). The government is highly supports the initiative from the higher education institutions in developing and conducting the international programs with their partners in designated foreign countries (Kuroda, Sugimura, Kitamura, & Asada, 2019). The collaboration is expected to increase the number of students’ exchange and strengthening the mutual understanding and cooperation with the international partners.
Accordingly, this also happened in the MTU setting where internationalization has become the critical agenda for MTU to intensify its networking and collaboration with the higher education institutions globally. Although the MTU shows good achievements in establishing the collaboration between countries and partners around the world, one of the chancellery officers insisted that:
“I encouraged very much that our lecturers to have international collaboration, international projects. We need to have that sort of understanding among our lecturers or they themselves
must understand, if we don’t do that, then I don’t think we could excel international.”
Referring to the above claim, the statements relate to the above shows that the concentration of the academic staff at the faculty level leads to efforts in developing international collaboration with the rapport they have. For example, they indicated that:
“In collaboration with other universities, we have one collaboration with the university from Turkey. So, we are trying to do the inbound and outbound mobility but still in the process”.
– Dean 3
“…since his appointment as the head of the committee, he has done a lot of things which I have to praise him. I mean, he has done a lot of Mutual of Understandings (MOUs) and Mutual of Agreements (MOAs) with other universities, especially from Indonesia. So, we have a lot of MOU with foreign universities under the recognition of this committee.” – Dean 2
Based on the above comments, the Deans also considering in making networking with other partners or organizations to increase the faculty’s visibility and engagement. The deans of the faculties are very much encouraging their staff to create any collaboration or networking with the international partners or organizations that they have recognized with. This will allow the faculty as well as the institution itself to expand their collaboration with partners or organizations to the next level.
According to Henard, Diamond and Roseveare (2012) international networks among higher education institutions provide a platform to support and build trust with one another to continue efforts in internationalization. This kind of support can enable the national higher education system to deal with the complexities of a comprehensive internationalization effort.
For example, an interview with the Director of international related office 3 indicated that:
“…industry partners and international players also looking for certain solution that they want us to solve. So, we might propose to them what are the solution that we can offer, if they are
interested then we can have the engagement with that particular industries, international partners.”
An intensive networking through the cooperation and collaboration could led to a strong internationalization effort (Van der Wende, 2007) This was mentioned by the Director 1 of MTU that a high impact visit and collaboration is what a higher education institution should do in order to reach the global reputation and visibility. However, in achieving a greater internationalization, it needs a comprehensive cooperation and collaboration performed not only at the institutional level but also at the national level. Due to this reason, the development of collaboration with the international partners worldwide must considered the involvement of all rationales of internationalization as suggested by (Knight, 1994; 2004).
5. CONCLUSION
In internationalizing the higher education institutions, both forces of top-down (activity approach) and bottom-up (process approach) effect are important in determining the success of internationalization. It has been argued that the execution of internationalization need to take into consideration the purposes, practices, and experiences of internationalization at the institutional level as well as the individual level (Sanderson, 2008; Faiz, 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to shift the focus on activity approach and process approach to internationalization because it is how the ideal practices of internationalization should be (Knight, 2015). The findings revealed that the major focus on internationalization from the perspective of meso- level professionals at MTU was viewed through a list of international activities. This study has raised an important consideration that the international activities focused by meso-level professionals at MTU are the recruitment of international students, the execution of international programs, and the development of collaboration with international partners or organizations. While the implementation of internationalization of higher education must considered the practices of activity – process approach in the internationalization effort. This study calls for the importance of understanding the comprehensive of approaches to internationalization through the practices of activity – process approach with a dynamic relationship in between.
The study recommends that MTU to consider the experiences of individuals at the micro level as proposed by Sanderson (2008) to further explores the practices of internationalization of higher education at MTU. The practiced of the activity approach of internationalization at MTU have to be interconnected with the process approach as to reach the maximum benefits of internationalization as indicated by Knight (2015). Although the internationalization efforts at MTU has begun as early as in 2004, there is always spaces for MTU to make an improvement. It would be realistic if further study is conducted to explore the approaches to internationalization of higher education that being practice by the individuals at the micro level at MTU.
The findings of this study offer the MTU valuable information on ideal approaches to internationalization and serve as a guideline for measuring the internationalization practices, strategies, and improvement of the institution. It should also assist the MTU in developing a comprehensive policy of internationalization of the institution. At the same time, it would help Malaysia in achieving the targeted international students of 250,000 by the year 2025 as well as in becoming the international hub of higher education in this region.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research is carried out under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) 2022 provided by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE). The authors would like to thank MoHE as well as Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) for providing the support in making this research a success.
REFERENCES
Elkin, G., Farnsworth, J., & Templer, A. (2008). Strategy and the internationalisation of universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(3), 239–250.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540810861874.
Faiz, N. S. (2014). Internationalisation as Mutual Adjustment in the Learning and Teaching Experiences of International Students and Academic Staff : A case study in a Malaysian Technical University Setting. University of South Australia.
Henard, F., Diamond, L., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to internationalisation and their implications for strategic management and institutional practice. IMHE Institutional Management in Higher Education, 11(12).
Kmiotek-Meier, E., Skrobanek, J., Nienaber, B., Vysotskaya, V., Samuk, S., Ardic, T., Pavlova, I., Dabasi-Halazs, Z., Diaz, C., Bissinger, J., Schlimbach, T. & Horvath, K. (2019). Why is it so hard? And for whom? Obstacles to intra-European mobility. Migration Letters, 16(1), 31-44.
Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints. CBIE Research No. 7.
Canadian Bureau for International Education.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832.
Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, Complexities and Challenges. International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer, Dordrecht. 207–227.
Knight, J. (2015). International Universities: Misunderstandings and Emerging Models?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315572899.
Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, (95), 2-4.
Kuroda, K., Sugimura, M., Kitamura, Y., & Asada, S. (2019). Internationalization of higher education and student mobility in Japan and Asia. Background paper for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report: Migration, Displacement and Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (Fourth Edi). John Wiley & Sons.
Munusamy, M. M., & Hashim, A. (2019). Internationalisation of higher education in Malaysia:
Insights from higher education administrators. AEI INSIGHTS, 5(1), 21-39.
Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276–307.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299420.
Sari, N. B. M., & Faiz, D. N. S. B. M. (2020). Internationalization of Higher Education: The Activity-Process at Malaysian Technical University. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8(6). DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.d9951.038620.
Van der Wende, M. (2007). Internationalization of Higher Education in the OECD Countries:
Challenges and Opportunities for the Coming Decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303543.
