Chapter 4: Results
4.9 Summary of Quantitative Findings
142
143 internationalization, with more than half of the participants selecting loss of national identity and cultural values, inequality of access to international education, overuse of foreign languages, increased foreign ‘degree mills’ and low-quality education providers as the highest risk elements. Both groups agreed that loss of national identity and cultural values, overuse of foreign languages, and the increased foreign ‘degree mills’ and low-quality education providers as the main risks of internationalization
4.9.2 Implementation
In this part of the questionnaire, only faculty and administrators were included in the survey responses regarding the policy, strategy, and process of implementing internationalization, assuming that students were not directly involved in these matters. However, the students were included in assessing the frequency of internationalization activities at their institutions.
A. Policy: More than 40 percent of faculty and administrators believed that their university has an internationalization policy for the entire institution as well as other policies and documents with international components. Moreover, explicit targets and benchmarks with international standards also existed.
Fewer than 18 percent disagreed with the above description.
B. Strategy: Almost 54 percent of faculty and administrators believed that their university has an internationalization implementation strategy, while fewer than 17 percent disagreed.
C. Process: More than 44 percent of faculty and administrators believed that their institutional process of developing policies on international activities is effective, in addition to their overall implementation strategy. Fewer than 20
144 percent believed their process of developing policies and overall implementation strategy is ineffective.
D. Activities: More than 50 percent of the stakeholders believed that recruitment of foreign faculty and visiting professors, international conferences and seminars, academic quality of international standards, international research collaboration, acceptance of foreign students, international institutional agreements, and international/intercultural campus events are the most frequent internationalization activities in their institutions. On the other hand, the stakeholders believed that international collaborative degree programs and outgoing mobility opportunities for students and staff are the least frequent internationalization activities.
4.9.3 Opportunities
A. Contribution: In the general question about the positive impact of internationalization, more than 65 percent of the stakeholders believed that internationalization makes a positive contribution to their institution, while fewer than six percent believed that internationalization made no contribution toward their institutions.
B. Opportunities: More than 70 percent of the stakeholders believed that experience and knowledge-sharing leading to improved quality of teaching and learning, strengthened institutional research and knowledge production capacity, enhanced international presence, brand profile and better world rankings, and international standard of learning leading to a globally competent workforce are opportunities brought by internationalization.
145 4.9.4 Challenges
In this sub-section of the questionnaire, only faculty and administrators were included in the survey responses regarding the challenges of implementing internationalization, assuming that students were not directly involved. However, the students were included in assessing the overall challenges of internationalization.
A. Overall challenges: Fewer than 47 percent of the faculty and administrators believed that treatment of quality assurance and accreditation as strategies for university branding purposes only, commodification and commercialization of education programs, difficulties of recognition and equivalences of qualifications, study programs, and course credits, and brain drain are serious challenges associated with internationalization, whereas more than 50 percent of the students believed that the above-mentioned items are serious challenges associated with internationalization.
B. Challenges of implementing internationalization: Fewer than 50 percent of the faculty and administrators believed that the implementation of internationalization imposes serious challenges. The following items were considered as the most encountered challenges of implementing internationalization: complicated bureaucratic procedure, lack of functional, comprehensive strategy of internationalization, and lack of human resources (appropriate skills and expertise), while lack of facility and material resources and lack of financial resources are considered the least challenges associated with the implementation process of internationalization.
146 4.9.5 Differences Between Nationals and Non-nationals
According to the independent t-test results, there was a statistically significant difference in regard to the perception of national and non-nationals among the faculty and administrators, particularly under the rationales domain, with a p-value of 0.015.
More than 90 percent of the nationals believed that accessing new knowledge and technology, establishing networks and alliances, developing an innovative curriculum, and strengthening the institutional profile and reputation are the most important rationales for pursuing internationalization. The non-nationals believed that enhancing academic quality, strengthening the institutional profile and reputation, and establishing networks and alliances are the most important rationales of internationalization with 93.1%, 89.1%, and 84.7%, respectively.
4.9.6 Differences in Perceptions, Implementation, Opportunities and Challenges of Institutional Stakeholders
According to a one-way ANOVA test, there is a statistically significant difference between the views of the stakeholders on the perceptions, implementation, opportunities, and challenges of internationalization.
A. Perception: In the perception dimension, ‘risks’ showed statistically significant differences between the stakeholder groups. Students perceived a higher level of risk when compared to faculty and administrators, with a mean score of 3.35, whereas faculty and administrators had mean scores lower than 3.00.
B. Implementation: In the implementation dimension, the mean scores of students, faculty and administrators were compared on their responses to the frequency of internationalization activities. Students perceived more internationalization
147 activities at their institutions, with a mean score of 3.7, whereas faculty and administrators had mean scores of 3.5 and 3.6, respectively.
C. Opportunities: Administrators and faculty perceived the opportunities more significant than the students, with a mean score of 4.2 and 4.3, respectively, whereas students had a mean score of 4.1.
D. Challenges: Students perceived the challenges of internationalization as more serious than did faculty and administrators, with a mean score of 3.68, whereas faculty had a mean score of 3.15 and administrators had a mean score of 3.05.