Chapter 4: Results
4.10 Phase 2: Qualitative Analysis
4.10.2 Theme 2: Implementation of Internationalization
150 in one area is very challenging for the local universities. So local universities will have challenges in student recruitment”. [In1TM3] added to this point: "Yes, if we concentrate on only doing things for the institutional profile, we might end up compromising the original purpose of the institution, which is based on the local student and the local issues". With regard to national identity, [In3FA1] mentioned that "marginalizing national identity, the Arabic language and Arab values . . . may be a negative impact of internationalization”.
The overall findings of this theme indicated that the meaning of the internationalization is mainly about having international research, international faculty and students, and an international curriculum. Moreover, they valued internationalization of higher education and they considered it as an efficient process because it led to recruitment of international faculty, improved education quality and financial capacity. On the other hand, internationalization has an adverse impact on the national identity and it confronts local perspectives.
151 Table 33: Summary of results – internationalization cube
Institution Policy (P/M)
Implementation (S/A)
Support (I/O)
Position on Cube
In1 P A I 7
In2 P A I 7
In3 M A O 1
In4 P S I 8
In5 P S O 6
In6 P S I 8
In7 M S O 2
In8 P S I 8
The three categories of universities listed below indicate that a majority of the universities under study are highly internationalized. Upon document analysis it was clear that a majority of the institutions have an international dimension/component included in their institutional policy/strategic plans, focusing mainly on research collaboration and faculty and student exchanges. Some interview participants confirmed having a policy and listed their main features; some said they had no policy;
and some were unsure of the policy at their institution.
Category 1 – Highly internationalized institutions
These institutions have a top priority for internationalization (position 8 on cube), which is reflected in their policies, and their implementation of those policies is very structured. The support provided is interactive between the central and peripheral levels within each institution.
In terms of policy, [In8TM1] stated that the institution had a policy at a university-wide level and that "each program has its own activity”. [In4FA1] said: "I
152 couldn't give you a strict definitive policy… but we do more international conferences
… we have a lot of international collaborations… [and] we have the MoUs”.
In terms of strategy, [In8TM1] mentioned how their institution had a strategic plan and a budget to execute them: "It is supported by allowing faculty to participate in conferences by organizing international conferences at and by supporting [them] to publish at the international level in reputable journals”. [In4TM1] mentioned that their strategy was "based upon the rankings, so we have research collaborations, satisfaction surveys . . . that's internationalization playing a big part as far as the strategy improves our ranking within the region internationally. [In8TM1] added that the university was
"aiming for a higher QS ranking and aiming to get EQUIS [a highly-regarded international accreditation system] for the business school”. Lastly, student and faculty exchanges were an integral part of the strategy.
In terms of overall implementation, [In8TM1] described the implementation as
"fully implemented," indicating the process as starting off with strategic plans and then budget allocations for each department.
Category 2 – Progressing towards internationalization
These institutions are among the top institutions in the UAE (positions 6 and 7 on cube). While internationalization is a priority for them, and the support provided is interactive, their implementation is only somewhat structured. It was noted that, while they rank lower than the universities on position 8 on the internationalization cube, their ranking on a global scale is higher.
In terms of policy, [In1TM2] stated: "I don't recall that we have a written internationalization policy…. the recruitment is not limited to a specific geographical location, internationalization lies within the DNA of the institution... other than being
153 written in a policy…we should not be just rigidly working within a very well-defined policy that might hinder the agility of the institution”. [In2MM1] mentioned how their institution has specific quotas: "They know how many students to send. . . how many competitions are students engaged in, how many internships, how many international volunteering opportunities in all these things, [these] are delineated in the policies”.
Some participants were not fully aware of the policy but were able to confirm its effective implementation.
In terms of strategy, [In1TM1] stated the "strategy is focused on top caliber, recognized researchers who have international visibility . . . [and] will inevitably bring in international recognized networks to the university”. As for the strategy on accreditation, [In5TM1] stated: "It is part of our strategy to ensure that all our programs have international accreditation, besides the local one”. [In5TM1] also said that
"student exchange is also very important for us, so this is also fully implemented as part of our strategy . . . for visibility and providing students learning experience to complement what they learn locally”. [In5TM1] revealed that "research collaboration is very ad hoc . . . I mean faculty are in charge, but this is an area we need to focus on”. [In1TM2] stated the difference between strategies and policies thus: "When you look at the strategic plan of the university, and even the project, yes, internationalization is everywhere, but this is not really so; I cannot call it the ‘policy,’
however, but if you have a strategic goal . . . it exists”. This statement shows that the university may have an internationalized strategic goal, but to avoid rigidity, it has not drafted specific policies that dictate internationalization efforts.
154 Category 3 – Not internationalized at all
These institutions do not see internationalization as a priority (positions 1 and 2 on cube). Surprisingly, one is a public university, and the other a private franchise;
both types of universities, public and private, appear higher on the cube. Upon document analysis, it was found that [In3] does not see internationalization as a priority. The circumstances with [In7] are different. It is already an international franchise, and all its initiatives are directed by its main global franchise. It is possible [In7] has not marketed itself as a flagbearer of internationalization because (i) it is already an international university and inherently a source of internationalization; or (ii) all its policies and procedures may be listed explicitly by the main franchise rather than by the branch in UAE. In terms of policy, [In3TM1] stated that they do not have policies as such. Their internationalization is simply a part of the way they do things—
it's their business. The respondent also mentioned that having a policy meant being
‘forced’ to achieve certain things, which is not how they ran their business. Likewise, [In3FA1] mentioned: "I am not very familiar, but it is clear to me that there is an internationalization application in the university, for example, in terms of the curriculum”. [In2MM1] said that their strategy was based on the ability to attract international publishing and that it was important to be published in recognized, high- impact publications.
From these responses it is clear that the policy is either well defined and communicated to all relevant stakeholders or left unstructured. In terms of the least- rated items, having a monitoring framework committee to assess progress or an office to oversee implementation was missing in most universities. While most institutions had departments and committees to enhance international activities, an office to
155 oversee progress and implementation was missing from most institutions. As for strategies for internationalization, according to the interview participants, three major strategies were evident within the institutions: Fostering international research collaboration and establish global networks; building international credibility through accreditation of programs; and student and faculty exchanges.
The interview participants gave three broad responses on frequency of internationalization activities at their institutions, focusing mainly on student exchanges, study abroad opportunities at an international level, and recruitment of international students. [In5TM1] noted that "we have student exchanges—we have international students visiting our university and some of our students go over there during the summer”. Joint programs and international collaborations were the next most cited among the participants. [In1TM1] stated that the "universities are now partnering with variety of educational programs that allow students to participate into those jointly developed educational programs”. [In3FA1] listed the joint collaborations with external embassies as one of the most frequent activities—"our university has relations and partnerships with external institutions such as the Korean embassy”.