2....» 5..

.
.h r5» H.211!

a. 5 .3a...
.13 was." .3»:

.. ‘ Alli“.q
vi all. . ‘ :5 F , .
1- .

.p Hi

 

 

11'
'fl‘

,“W

.31. .m :1 r

. .
iii... #1

5.41.3.3... . 0;“...
, mafiflmfi

Sr

run? 2.

1b
.3. g 5?; u .n
5.3!)...nuwt"! . a...
a «u is 34.

.

dug. , . . .3. .
and. :32. 36.9.1! 3......"

lanowaéflv niJe
. In!

2' r U
45L I ‘1. ’4:
5 55.0.. 2....
..V 5.. $112.;
. k . i 5......
“St”... Tilt...

Jaw»: .

it‘xal

‘ .r . t l.
. iflfignwu W

 

LIBRARY
MiChlgan State This is to certify that the
UHIVGTSIty dissertation entitled

 

 

 

FACULTY ENGAGED lN INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP:

A STUDY OF WHEN, HOW, AND WHY

presented by

CHRISTOPHER J. VIERS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong

Education
\

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

- _.-.-.----o-.----

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAYJ
. m 175.20%

 

PR‘. °aa§
A a 4:131:19

 

'qi- 951 Q) 0i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

FACULTY ENGAGED IN INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP: A STUDY OF
' WHEN, HOW, AND WHY

By

Christopher J. Viers

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE)

2003

ABSTRACT

FACULTY ENGAGED IN INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP: A STUDY OF
WHEN, HOW, AND WHY

By

Christopher J. Viers

This is a qualitative study using interviews to explore faculty involvement
in international scholarship in an Area Studies Program at Central State
University (pseudonym). Seven faculty affiliated with the Area Studies Program,
and actively engaged in international scholarship were interviewed, along with
.the Director of the Area Studies Program, and the Dean for International
Programs. In addition to providing a summary of data gleaned from the faculty
interviews, life story portraits of three of the faculty interviewed are presented to
provide unique insights into the factors that contribute to and sustain their
involvement in international scholarship.

The majority of faculty interviewed brought the commitment to
international scholarship with them to the faculty role. While institutional factors
helped facilitate and promote this form of scholarship, five of the seven faculty
interviewed were committed to intemational scholarship prior to study at the
graduate level. Faculty actively engaged in international scholarship became so

engaged as a result of their childhood influences, undergraduate opportunities,

graduate school education and training, adult living and working abroad
experiences, mentors and advisors, and intellectual development.

Faculty interviewed became involved in international scholarship because
of their internal make-up, the intrinsic rewards and to a lesser extent extrinsic
rewards this form of scholarship brings, and other external factors. Factors found
that facilitate, encourage, and promote faculty engagement in international
scholarship include an institutional ethos of internationalization, a diverse array of
foreign students and scholars, like-minded colleagues, strong study abroad and
institutional exchange programs, and supportive spouses.

Factors found that constrain faculty involvement in international
scholarship include the faculty role as it is currently defined, personal and family
demands, and institutional roadblocks. Finally, as a means of further promoting
involvement in international scholarship, faculty recommend: more funding to
support international scholarship as well as broader campus internationalization
efforts, stronger networking and collaboration among the professoriate, and more
resources for international education professional assistance and support at the

school/department level.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project simply would not have been possible without the selfless love
and support from my dear wife Keri Melynn, and daughters Laura and Emily. I
also must express my deepest gratitude to my close friend and mentor, John E.
Greisberger, Director of the Office of International Education at The Ohio State
University; and to Professor Roger Baldwin, who stepped in as my committee
chair at just the right moment, and has provided sage guidance and support ever
since. Special thanks also to members of my committee: Ann E. Austin, Steven
Weiland, and Jack Schwille whose astute advice and counsel helped guide and
frame this study. Also, to Patrick O’Meara, Dean for International Programs at
Indiana University, whose assistance and support kept me motivated during the
crucial months of project completion. Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to
mention my mentors, friends, and colleagues at Wheaton College, Ohio State
University, Central Michigan University, Michigan State University, Wayne State
University, and Indiana University; as well as the thousands of international
students and visiting scholars l have had the pleasure of serving during my

career in higher education.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

CAMPUS INTERNATIONALIZATION AND THE ROLE OF FACULTY...............1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 3
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS .................................................................. 4
lntemationalization ................................................................................ 4
Scholarship ......................................................................................... 4
. lntemational scholarship ......................................................................... 5
PERSPECTIVE AND NEED FOR THE STUDY .................................................... 5
ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 7
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 9
INTERNATIONALIZATION: A BRIEF HISTORY .......................................... 9
THE MOTIVATION TO INTERNATIONALIZE TODAY ................................. 12
KEY COMPONENTS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION ......................................... 14
Mission and Leadership ...................................................................................... 15
Curriculum ........................................................................................................... 1 8
Faculty ............................................................................................................. . 21
Faculty Motivation ............................................................................................... 25
Study Abroad ...................................................................................................... 27
lntemational Students ......................................................................................... 29
Outreach and lntemational Development ............................................................ 33
Models of Implementation ................................................................................... 34
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION .......... 37
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................... 37

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 39

GENERAL APPROACH ...................................................................................... 39
Exploration of my Beliefs Regarding Qualitative Forms of Inquiry ...................... 39
Assumptions of Qualitative Modes of Inquiry ...................................................... 43
Life History .......................................................................................... 45
TYPE OF DESIGN .............................................................................................. 46
Site Selection ...................................................................................................... 47
Selecting Interviewees ........................................................................................ 48
Interviews ............................................................................................................ 51
Public Document Analysis ................................................................................... 52
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 52
Confidentiality ...................................................................................................... 54
Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................ 55
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................................................................... 56
Researcher Bias .................................................................................................. 56
Issues of Validity and Reliability .......................................................................... 58
CHAPTER 4: THE INTERNATIONAL EFFORT AT CSU .............................. 61
An Overview of CSU and lntemational Programs ........................................ 61
Area Studies Program ........................................................................... 63
Challenges to lntemational Scholarship at CSU .......................................... 64
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY FINDINGS ....................................................... 7O
WHEN................' ................................................................................ 70
HOW ................................................................................................. 74
Childhood

Influences ........................................................................................... 75
Undergraduate Opportunities ................................................................... 78
Graduate School Education and Training .................................................. 78
Adult Living and Working Abroad Experiences ........................................... 79
Mentors and Advisors ........................................................................... 80
Adult Intellectual Development ................................................................ 81
WHY ................................................................................................. 82
Intemal Make-Up of the Individual ............................................................ 82

vi

Intrinsic Rewards .................................................................................. 83

Extrinsic Rewards ................................................................................. 84
External Factors ................................................................................... 85
FACILITATORS ................................................................................... 86
Institutional Ethos of lntemationalization ................................................... 86
Diverse Array of Foreign Students and Scholars ......................................... 91
Like-Minded Colleagues ........................................................................ 92
Strong Study Abroad and Institutional Exchange Programs ........................... 92
Supportive Spouses .............................................................................. 93
CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................... 93
Faculty Role as Currently Defined ............................................................ 94
Personal/Family Demands ..................................................................... 96
Institutional Roadblocks ......................................................................... 96
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FACULTY INTERVIEWED ........................... 98
More Funding ...................................................................................... 98
Networking and Collaboration ................................................................ 100
lntemational Education Professional Expertise at School/Department Level... 102
SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 103
CHAPTER 6: THREE FACULTY PORTRAITS ........................................ 106
HAROLD SLESSENGER ..................................................................... 107
RUTH

ADAMSON ....................................................................................... 1 16
EVELYN FREEDMONT ....................................................................... 122
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ............................................................... 130
WHEN ............................................................................................. 130
HOW ................................................................................................ 131
WHY ................................................................................................ 1 33
FACILITATORS ................................................................................. 134
CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................. 1 35

vii

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE ....................................... 135

Create a Campus Ethos of lntemationalization .......................................... 136
Provide Tangible Support for lntemational Scholarship ............................... 137
Foster Faculty Development in lntemational Scholarship ............................ 138
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................ 139
APPENDIX A
Contact Letter to Director of Area Studies Program ................................... 143
APPENDIX B
Contact Letter to Faculty ..................................................................... 145
APPENDIX C
Consent Form: Faculty Involvement in lntemational Scholarship .................. 147
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol: lntemational Scholarship ........................................... 148
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 153

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
How Faculty Engaged in lntemational Scholarship Became so Engaged ......... 74
Table 2
Why Faculty Became Involved in lntemational Scholarship ........................... 82
Table 3

Factors that Contribute to Faculty lnvolvementin lntemational Scholarship ...... 86

Table 4

Factors that Constrain Faculty Involvement in lntemational Scholarship .. ......... 94

Chapter 1: Introduction

CAMPUS INTERNATIONALIZATION AND THE ROLE OF FACULTY

The call to intemationalize American higher education is proclaimed on
college and university campuses throughout the United States. Driven by
dramatic developments in technology, profound changes in global economic,
social, and political sectors have created a climate in which the international
dimension of American higher education is no longer a luxury but a necessity
(Davis, 1995). These changes require that individuals have a better
understanding of the world and world affairs (Barker and Hoemeke, 1995). As
Ping states, “in our times, the right reading of the environment clearly directs the
internationalization of higher education (1995, p. 68).”

Yet, American higher education continues to be criticized for not helping to
meet the challenges faced by individuals participating in today’s global
environment. For example, the American Council on Education (ACE) calls for
major changes in how colleges and universities educate students about the
world. The ACE’s Commission on lntemational Education’s 1996 report notes,

' “Unless today's students develop the competence to function effectively in a
global environment, they are unlikely to succeed in the 21 st century (American
Council on Education, 1996, p. 1).” The report goes on to state, “...if our nation
and its people are to prosper in the new environment of the 21st century, our
colleges and universities must truly become institutions without boundaries.
Their leaders must rethink what is taught, how it is taught, where it is taught, and

who teaches it (American Council on Education, 1996, p. 4).”

Scholars agree that successful internationalization efforts require intensive
involvement from a committed and knowledgeable faculty. Many believe faculty
are the key factor in campus internationalization efforts (Aigner, Stimpfl & Nelson,
1992; Blodgett, 1995; Lim, 1995; and Liverpool, 1995). However, a National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges study found that
faculty perceive international engagements as damaging to their careers
(NASULGC, 1993). The report states, “...the vast majority of university
promotion criteria, while not intentionally hostile to international service and
research, were very definitely focused on the domestic milieu (p. 3)."

As Lim (1995) notes, the importance of rules and requirements to foster a
level of global activity for tenure and promotion purposes, as well as specific
assignments to develop and teach courses addressing global issues, are critical
to the campus internationalization effort. However, institutional leaders generally
do not create incentives to encourage and reward greater intemationalism
among faculty (Altbach & Peterson, 1998).

While it seems logical that requirements and incentives to incorporate an
international dimension in faculty scholarship would foster a certain level and
type of such activity, an understanding of when, how, and why faculty who are
actively involved in international initiatives became so involved may help campus
administrators develop opportunities for other faculty which would result in
meaningful growth and development. As opposed to including requirements to
intemationalize among the already demanding list towards promotion and tenure,

administrators may better impact campus lntemationalization efforts by first

understanding when, how, and why faculty actively involved in a certain facet of
internationalization became so involved.

Even still, one wonders whether such attempts on the part of academic
administrators to impact international scholarship will have measurable effects on
faculty involvement in this regard. As Tenant (1997) indicates, most theories of
adult development either explain learning and development in terms of the
internal make-up of the person or the external forces impinging on the person. If
involvement in international scholarship is primarily a result of the internal make-
up of a given faculty member, then efforts on the part of academic administration
may have little impact on learning or involvement in this domain.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

What factors contribute to and sustain faculty involvement in international
scholarship? This is a key question for college and university administrators
interested in advancing faculty involvement in international scholarship. Knowing
when, how, and why faculty become involved in international scholarship will help
determine the extent to which faculty involvement in such efforts is initiated and
sustained more by intrinsic, or extrinsic factors. If extrinsic factors are found to
play a key role in determining faculty involvement in international scholarship,
then administrative intervention (such as rewards and incentives for such activity)

may significantly enhance these efforts.

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

lntemationalization

lntemationalization is defined “as the process of integrating an
international perspective into a college or university system. It is an ongoing,
future-oriented, multidimensional, interdisciplinary, leadership-driven vision that
involves many stakeholders working to change the internal dynamics of an
institution to respond and adapt appropriately to an increasingly diverse, globally
focused, ever-changing external environment (Ellingboe, 1998, p. 199).”
Similarly, English (1995) defined lntemationalization within the context of
American higher education as, “. . .institutional strategies for the purpose of
educating students to live responsibly and work effectively in an increasingly
diverse society and global world (p. 2)."
Scholarship

The work of the professorate includes four separate, yet overlapping,
functions (Boyer, 1990). These are: the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship
of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.
The scholarship of discovery, “comes closest to what is meant when academics
speak of ‘research’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 17).” The scholarship of integration involves
giving meaning to isolated facts and putting them in perspective. Such work
makes connections across the disciplines, and places specialties within a larger
context. Scholarship of application moves toward engagement as the scholar
applies knowledge to consequential problems. And finally, the scholarship of

teaching “both educates and entices future scholars (Boyer, 1990, p. 23).” Thus,

as Boyer (1990) notes, “a recognition that knowledge is acquired through
I researCh, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching (p. 24),” I
provides an inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar.
lntemational scholarship

For the purpose of this study, then, “lntemational scholarship” will be
defined as the integration of an international perspective into the work of the
professorate including the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and
teaching in order to equip students for responsible citizenship in an increasingly
diverse society and global world. Faculty actively involved in international
scholarship will likely be in regular contact with colleagues in other countries.
They are likely to present papers at conferences abroad, be actively involved as
advisors and mentors to lntemational students, and lead groups of domestic
students on study, research, and service projects abroad. After all, “...great
teachers...stimulate active, not passive, learning and encourage students to be
critical, creative thinkers, with the capacity to go on learning after their college
days are over (Boyer, 1990, p. 24).” In addition, they will consistently incorporate
perspectives of other countries and cultures in classroom instruction, and
encourage students to do the same in projects and assignments.
PERSPECTIVE AND NEED FOR THE STUDY
This study is primarily directed at three audiences. The first audience

includes administrative practitioners, particularly those charged with responsibility
for overseeing key academic functions (provosts and vice presidents for

academic affairs, college deans, and department chairs) and lntemational affairs

(vice presidents and deans for international affairs, and directors of international
education). While these administrators are often charged with facilitating,
promoting, and encouraging various forms of lntemational scholarship, they often
have little to no resources to do so. And perhaps more importantly, these
campus leaders have little data to help guide and direct the allocation of limited
resources. This study may identify specific administrative strategies that help
spark the initial impetus towards faculty involvement in international scholarship.

Faculty members comprise a second audience for this study. During my
career in higher education I have worked with a number of faculty who feel
compelled to become more actively involved in lntemational scholarship, but
have no idea where or how to begin. Many faculty work at institutions that either
do not value involvement in international scholarship, or have few faculty role
models to serve as mentors. Learning when, how, and why faculty actively
involved in international scholarship became involved may help other faculty who
are interested in pursuing similar forms of scholarship. In addition, as a result of
participating in this study, faculty participants may better understand the factors
that have contributed to and/or constrained their involvement in lntemational
scholarship. As a result, they may be better prepared to serve as advocates for
this facet of scholarship, and as a resource for others.

Finally, scholars interested in campus internationalization efforts, as well
as those interested in faculty motivation and professional development are a third
audience for this study. This study will contribute to our understanding of the key

processes and components of internationalization by revealing factors outside of

the control of the administration that have contributed to faculty involvement in
international scholarship. In addition, the study will likely highlight the role
administrators can play in advancing lntemationalization efforts through
administrative intervention.
ASSUMPTIONS
Three key assumptions have been made in thinking about and designing
this study. First, I have assumed that individual faculty members are an
appropriate unit of analysis for the purpose of better understanding factors that
initiate and sustain their involvement in international scholarship. A second,
related assumption is that drawing a sample of faculty from within an area
studies center known for its successful internationalization efforts is appropriate.
The third, and perhaps most important assumption, is that faculty involvement in
international scholarship is an important topic of study.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Noncognitive and cognitive theories of motivation provide a general
conceptual framework for this project and have helped shape the research
questions in this study. However, this study does not seek to test a specific
theory of motivation. As Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) note, characteristics of
individuals and their employing institutions combine and lead to variations in
faculty motivation, behavior, and productivity. This complex interaction of
multiple variables has not been studied in the context of international scholarship.

This study seeks then to understand the context in which faculty engage in

forms of international scholarship. More specifically, when, how, and why do

faculty become involved in efforts to incorporate a global perspective in their

teaching? The following key questions will be addressed:

9 When do (did) faculty actively involved in international scholarship become so
involved?

0 How do (did) faculty actively involved in international scholarship become so
involved?

9 Why do (did) faculty actively involved in international scholarship become so
involved?

9 What factors contribute to faculty involvement in international scholarship?

o What factors constrain faculty involvement in international scholarship?

o What recommendations do faculty actively engaged in international
scholarship have to further encourage and promote international scholarship

among other faculty?

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In this chapter, I review the literature used to frame my study and to
develop my research questions. In order to better understand what is currently
known regarding the process and components of internationalization, I begin with
a brief historical review of the lntemationalization of American higher education.
Various motivations to intemationalize higher education are then addressed,
followed by an analysis of seven key areas, including the role of faculty,

, important to the lntemationalization process as defined by the literature.
Immediately following the review of literature pertaining to faculty involvement in
internationalization, theories of faculty motivation are explored. The chapter
concludes with a discussion regarding the need for additional research.
INTERNATIONALIZATION: A BRIEF HISTORY

English (1995) defined “internationalization” as, “...institutional strategies
for the purpose of educating students to live responsibly and work effectively in
an increasingly diverse society and global world (p. 2).” Such activity first
appeared on college and university campuses in the United States after World
War II in response to arguments of national schrity and political advantage from
the country’s new role as “leader of the free world.” The United State’s history of
isolationism and suspicion of foreign influences fueled this drive (Gardner, 1990).
During the first twenty years following World War II, major funding for initiatives
such as area studies centers and language programs came from agencies like
the United States Agency for lntemational, Development (AID), the National

Defense Education Act (NDEA), the Fulbright Scholar Program, and private

foundations. “Highly effective over the years, these programs still remain the
federal govemment’s primary mechanism for supporting the development and
maintenance of a higher education infrastructure that produces the nation’s
expertise in foreign languages, area and other international studies, including
international business (O’Meara, 1997)." However, “Although impressive, this
activity was oriented largely to the graduate.level production of specialists and
did little to make entire institutions more international in character or outlook
(Johnston & Edelstein, 1993, p. 9).” Such programs were clearly designed for
the elite few.

Federal and private support for international education declined during the
1970s and 19803, in part because the United States became suspicious of
lntemational activity following the Vietnam War. In addition, between 1967 and
1987, the number of undergraduate students who majored in a foreign language
declined by half. In 1979, however, the federal Commission on Foreign
Language and International Study issued a stunning report which caught the
attention of politicians by documenting the low foreign language competency and
grasp of world affairs of American students (President’s Commission on Foreign
Language and lntemational Studies, 1979). The balance-of-trade crisis of the
mid-19803 also caused political leaders to begin focusing on improving the
nation’s educational system. Congress then provided new support for as many
as one-hundred university-based area studies centers. Again, however, such
programs tended to be very specific in nature and focus, and benefited a very

limited number of students. According to Green (2002), the number of four-year

10

institutions with language degree requirements is down 22 percent since 1965,
less than 1 percent of college students participate in study abroad programs, and
only 40 percent of postsecondary institutions include international education as a
goal within the institution’s strategic plan.

' Federal funding for international programs has declined dramatically in
recent years as resources for Title VI programs remains roughly 25% below the
fiscal year 1967 level as expressed in 1997 constant dollars (O’Meara, 1997).
However, more and more institutions are beginning to state the importance of
developing a global perspective among their students, and the focus has shifted
to include all students. “Perhaps in part because students began to see their
own economic self-interest in lntemational education, the late 19803 and early
1990s have brought higher enrollments in language programs and other
internationally oriented courses and a continued steady increase in
undergraduate study abroad (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993, p. 10).” As Green
(2002) notes, President Clinton promulgated a national international education
policy but declined to allocate fiscal resources in support of the stated objectives.
Green stated:

...in 1999, a memorandum from President Clinton on lntemational
education policy committed the federal government to supporting international
education. It recommended that educators encourage lntemational students to
study in the United States; promote study abroad by US. students; support ex
changes for faculty, students, and citizens; enhance programs at US. institutions
that build international partnerships and expertise; expand foreign-language
learning and knowledge of other cultures; support the preparation of teachers
who can interpret other countries and cultures; and use technology to aid the

spread of knowledge. The list is complete and admirable, but without any
accompanying funding, its impact was limited.

11

THE MOTIVATION TO INTERNATIONALIZE TODAY

Today, the motivation to intemationalize American higher education
comes in many forms. Constant media attention regarding American ignorance
of the world has fueled interest on the part of many campuses to intemationalize
the curriculum (Jemigan, 1991 ). Some have chosen to focus on the international
dimension as a strategic plan to address falling enrollments and increased costs
(Scott, 1987). For example, out-of-state tuition revenue that foreign students
bring to most public institutions is seen as having the potential to solve many
fiscal woes. Similarly, a higher profile for international programs has been
established by some with the goal of attracting support for existing and future
research, attracting more international students, and encouraging more students
to study abroad (Stone, 1995).

Others believe that the best argument for intemationalizing higher
education is that it will ensure the nation’s economic competitiveness because
approximately one-third of American corporations currently conduct business
abroad, and more than 80 percent of American goods and services compete
against foreign sources (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). The importance of
internationalization as related to issues of national security, and in order to foster
human understanding across national boundaries is also noted (Aigner, Stimpfl &
Nelson, 1992). I

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York,
Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the public’s overall support for international

education has not diminished, yet strengthened according to a recent American

12

Council on Education Public Opinion Poll (American Council on Education,
2002). As Green states, “...the existence of widespread public support for
international education should encourage campuses to forge ahead in bringing
global perspectives to their students. The strong support for foreign language
learning should be especially heartening, and the priority given international
learning among young people, especially with regard to foreign language study
and study abroad, is good news indeed for colleges and universities (American
Council on Education, 2002, p. 2).”

In discussing three new global realities for higher education, Smuckler
(1995) first agrees that our national economy is global in its nature and potential
for expansion and argues that university graduates who are prepared for that
new reality will be at an advantage over those who are not. Second, the new
global reality is “political.” That is, since decisions are made in a global context,
they have become more complicated and complex. The new context requires
global and not just local knowledge and expertise. The third new reality is that,
“...the very moment the global landscape demands greater sophistication from
our citizens and leaders, many of the federally sponsored programs that support
international education are endangered in the drive to balance the federal budget
(Smuckler, 1995, p. 21 ).’~' We are entering a period of diminishing federal
resources (Blodgett, 1995). Smuckler (1995) argues that these new realities
mean that we must accelerate the internationalization of academic programs.

Lim (1995) notes that there are two answers typically given in response to

the question, why intemationalize? The first is called the “competition model of

13

globalization.” In other words, we need to know about the world in order to
successfully compete in the global marketplace. The second is called the
“utilitarian model of globalization." Lim (1995) states, “If we know more about
lntemational issues, foreign languages, etc., we can earn more money in the job
market (p. 26)." Lim (1995) then offers a third model, which is termed,
“humanistic globalization.” This model builds on the primary mission of
educational institutions: to generate, distribute, and utilize knowledge for human
betterment. The internationalization of universities must be guided by humanistic
values (Lim, 1995; Johnston and Edelstein, 1993). Lim (1995) states,
“...investment in globalfintemational education has-more than an immediate
practical value. It can serve to nurture a new generation of people who can
combine the bestof the East and the West—people who think holistically, I
intuitively, rationally, and scientifically at the same time. Such people will
facilitate understanding across different cultures and deepen global
understanding (p. 32).” In short, they will be educated.
KEY COMPONENTS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION

How does an institution of higher leaming intemationalize? Does it
happen as Meszaros (1995) states? “My experience tells me that the change
that needs to happen is the change that occurs daily, by individual faculty,
students, and administrators who have a strong commitment to intemationalizing
programs (p. 1)." Or, as noted by English (1995) above, does internationalization

require specific institutional strategies designed to educate students to live

14

effectively in today's global village? That is, is a carefully planned, directed
approach important?

A review of the literature highlights seven key areas to be addressed when
formulating plans to intemationalize an American college or university. It should
be noted, however, that scholars disagree on the role and importance of each
component, and the extent to which each component contributes to
internationalization is not known. Yet, a synthesis of the literature suggests the
following key components: (1) mission and leadership; (2) curriculum; (3) faculty;
(4) study abroad; (5) international students; (6) outreach and international
development; and (7) models of implementation. Each of these areas is
discussed in more detail below.

Mission and Leadership '

“Mission” comes from the Latin word mittere, meaning “to throw, let go, or
send.” Similarly, the word “purpose” means to declare.” Thus, the mission or
purpose of an institution declares the fundamental reason for the organization’s
existence (Senge, Kleimer, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994). Effective .
organizations center their work around a clearly defined and broadly supported
mission statement. Therefore, the first step towards intemationalizing a college
or university is to incorporate an lntemational dimension in the institution’s
mission statement as it provides important institutional guidelines in order to
intemationalize/globalize activities (Lim, 1995).

In the spring of 1995, the American Association of State Colleges and

Universities (American Association of State Colleges and Universities [AASCU],

15

1995) surveyed its member presidents regarding international activity on their
campuses during the 1994-95 academic year and obtained a 74.7% response
rate. Data indicate that over half of the institutional mission statements include a
specific commitment to intemationalizing the campus. Nearly one-half of the
mission statements specifically set goals for intemationalizing the curriculum,
with the majority focusing on the integration of international perspectives into
existing curriculum. One-third of the mission statements included goals
pertaining to faculty involvement in lntemational activities.

In addition to the importance of a mission statement with an international
focus, several scholars argue that committed and visible presidential leadership
plays an important role in strengthening an institution’s international dimension
(Arum, 1987; Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). “Efforts to intemationalize face
significant barriers, and there is little unity among participants as to either the
essential elements or the main thrust. Such disunity spotlights the critical role
presidents, as institutional leaders, can play in clearly defining the mission and
character of the university and in forging and maintaining support for them
(Nieman, 1997, p. 66).“

Five presidential actions are recommended in order to encourage and
facilitate internationalization: (1) be visible in support of international programs
and activities; (2) allocate appropriate resources to support such activity; (3)
fund-raise specifically for international efforts; (4) have an international focus in
outreach efforts; and (5) establish hiring decisions which award

lntemationalization (Arum, 1987). The importance of the use of skills in moral

16

persuasion by presidents is also addressed (Lim, 1995). Such persuasion
includes normative statements about global education made in speeches and
discourse at the personal level. While many advocate for the importance of
committed and supportive presidential leadership, challenges such leaders face
when trying to intemationalize have also been recognized.

Six challenges leaders face in their efforts to intemationalize their

institutions have been noted (Rhodes, 1990). The first is a challenge of balance.

That is, the process of determining the appropriate combination of local, state,
national and lntemational opportunities in which to address. The second
challenge is to find the appropriate scale and limits. As it is not possible to
pursue every potential international venture and tackle all of the world’s
problems, determining where to focus institutional efforts, especially given the
varieties of strength within institutions, can become very difficult. The third
challenge is that there currently is no funding formula regarding
internationalization efforts. How much should an institution spend on
international faculty development, overseas study programs, and curricular
reform? The challenge of persuading constituencies of the necessity, and value,
of nurturing an international focus is also noted (Pacheco & Fernandez, 1992).

Some believe that to think and act globally is to betray the states that
support public institutions (Rhodes, 1990). This poses particular challenges
when attempting to justify tax supported resources allocated for international
efforts. The fourth challenge relates to how to maintain communication and

community when the institution is involved in a variety of programs that are

17

literally around the world. As borders expand, how is the mission and purpose of
the institution maintained? The fifth challenge relates to the undergraduate
curriculum. How to best intemationalize the curriculum is seen as an
overwhelming task. And finally, what is the most appropriate means to support
these new activities?

Although many have addressed the importance of a mission statement
which includes internationalization as a priority, as well as strong support from
leadership, studies addressing these issues were absent in the literature.
Studies have not been done to explore the potential correlation between mission
statements that include an international focus and the amount of international
activity on campus, for example. In addition, while many state the importance of
strong presidential support, no data exist to either support or challenge this claim.
Curriculum 1

A key ingredient to intemationalizing the university can be found in the
curriculum (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993; and Mestenhauser & .Ellingboe, 1998).
Aigner, Stimpfl and Nelson (1992) note that the focus should be on ensuring that
general education includes an lntemational component. The United States
Department of Education (USDOE, 1984) states, “lntemational education is a
fundamental part of general and professional studies. It is the preparation for
social, political, and economic realities that humans experience in a culturally
diverse and competitive interdependent world (p. 6).” As Wheeler (1990) states,
“The curriculum should enable individuals to develop competencies and

sensitivities for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and behaving within the

18

complex human and ecological interactions that characterize the globe ( p. 5).”
However, studies regarding the internationalized curriculum are notable by their
_ absence in the literature.

Foreign language curriculum is seen by many as a critical component to
the lntemationalization of colleges and universities. However, many questions
remain regarding the languages taught, and their actual usefulness to students
even after several semesters of study. Among the so-called Less-Commonly
Taught Foreign Languages (LCTFL’s) are Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and
Russian—arguably among those most important for Americans to know in the
coming decades. However, these languages account for only 5 to 8 percent of
enrollment in college and university foreign language programs. French,
German, and Spanish account for 90 to 95 percent of all language enrollments,
even though these languages are only spoken by 14 percent of the world's
population (AASCU, 1995). The problem with language study is that most
college learners receive two to four years of grammar and basic exposure to the
language, but they remain unable to speak it (National University Continuing
Education Association, 1989).

In addition to concerns mentioned above regarding foreign language
study, low correlation has been found between foreign language competence
and transcultural knowledge (Barrows, 1980). Research regarding foreign
language study is, “...rather slim...there have been only a few empirical studies

and their conclusions are unclear (Lambert, 1989, p. 70).” Lambert (1994)

19

questions if foreign language competence is even required for global
competence.

The problem with placing an emphasis on the curriculum, versus on those
that create and sustain the curriculum, the faculty, is that most faculty are not
trained to incorporate global perspectives into their courses. “No one person is
born internationalized. She must research her field, borrow or invent creative
applications and be constantly updated. This requires time, enthusiasm and
collaboration with experts in the field. The majority of faculty are not trained to
encompass an lntemational perspective into their courses. Often they do not see
or understand the value of such knowledge (Raby, 1995, p. 4).” The important
question becomes, then, how to structure an environment that facilitates faculty
competence and engagement in global issues.

This process begins with professional development activities that promote
the creation of new classes and programs that introduce innovative teaching
methodologies. To counter apathy, faculty must be encouraged through
enrichment grants, sabbatical leaves, and promotional incentives to reform the
curriculum (Raby, 1995). “The responsibility for the curricula is in the faculty
domain. We in administration can only encourage and create incentives for this
process to occur (Liverpool, 1995, p. 8).” Curricula and disciplines can only be
changed by the faculty, and they must have strong lntemational interests and

appropriate support in order to do so (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993).

20

Faculty

A review of the literature as further explored below reveals three important
issues regarding the role of faculty in the internationalization process. First,
many believe that faculty are the key ingredient to the intemationalizatio‘n
process. Second, while this claim is frequently made, no such study was found
which either confirmed or denied its validity. And third, while faculty are viewed
by many as the key component to internationalization, they also apparently face
the greatest challenges. In addition, “America’s faculties also lack lntemational
consciousness and involvement (Altbach & Peterson, 1998, p. 39).”

In addressing what American institutions should be doing to promote
internationalization, The United States Department of Education (USDOE, 1984)
states, “The faculty are a major determinant of the substance and quality of
general, professional, and graduate studies and engage in research to develop a
global knowledge base. The institution recruits and supports faculty whose
teaching, research, and service will enhance its international mission (p. 9).”
Liverpool (1995) states, “At the core of all of our internationalization efforts is our
faculty...in more and more fields, our scholars will find it essential to keep up with
developments abroad by traveling to conferences and collaborating with scholars
from other countries on joint projects (p. 12)." Similarly, “The contribution of the
individual faculty member—as scholar, teacher, and campus opinion leader—is
critical to the international enterprise (Blodgett, 1995, p. 52).”

Research with an lntemational focus is said to be some of the most

interesting (Stone, 1995). Regardless of the discipline, the pursuit of knowledge

21

obliges scholars to cross geographical and academic boundaries (Pacheco &
Fernandez, 1992). Such activity leads to additional opportunities for the larger
campus community. “Time and again, as one looks at lntemational linkages or
overseas connections across a campus, it is readily apparent that they have their
origins, their initial impetus, in an individual faculty exchange experience. Many
university programs are built upon the dozens of small activities conducted by
individual faculty and subsequently moved forward by their departments
(Blodgett, 1995, p. 53)."

However, of the 14-nation Carnegie Foundation study of the academic
profession, American faculty were found to be largely uncommitted to
lntemationalization. “While 90 percent of the faculty in 13 foreign countries
believe that a scholar must read books and journals from abroad to keep up with
scholarly developments, only 62 percent of American faculty believe the same.
Upwards of 80 percent of the faculty in 13 countries value connections with
scholars in other countries; a little over half the American professoriate agree
(Altbach & Peterson, 1998, p. 39).” In addition, only 45 percent of American
faculty agree that further steps should be taken to intemationalize the curriculum,
and the large majority report no foreign trips for study or research in the last three
years. American faculty ranked last on this and every other similar measure
among the 14 countries surveyed.

Yet, over forty-five percent of institutions that responded to the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU, 1995) survey indicated

that their faculty hiring practices encourage international and/or foreign language

22

expertise. Sixty-six institutions indicated that this hiring policy extends beyond
the department level and has been adopted as a campUs-wide policy.
Unfortunately, however, according to a National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges study, faculty perceive lntemational engagements as
damaging to their careers (NASULGC, 1993). The report states, “...the vast
majority of university promotion criteria, while not intentionally hostile to
international service and research, were very definitely focused on the domestic
milieu (p. 3).” . The importance of rules and requirements to foster a level of
global activity for tenure and promotion purposes, as well as specific
assignments to develop and teach courses addressing global/lntemational issues
are critical to the campus lntemationalization effort (Lim, 1995).

Eight obstacles to faculty international involvement have been noted: (1)
when external funding is provided to faculty for international projects or
opportunities, such as serving as a visiting faculty member at a foreign institution,
frequently fringe benefits such as health insurance are not maintained by their
home institution; (2) for faculty on sabbatical or other paid leave, health and
retirement contributions may be limited while abroad; (3) restrictions on the
commingling of sabbatical pay with external funding may end up penalizing the
individual for accepting a prestigious international grant; (4) many institutions rely
too heavily upon sabbatical leaves as the main opportunity for faculty to have
extended periods of time abroad to teach and conduct research; (5) upon return
to campus, many faculty members lose out in merit pay raises and

tenure/promotion evaluations because they do not receive adequate credit and

23

recognition for their work abroad; (6) faculty often lose retirement income while
abroad; (7) it is difficult to do research abroad and publish results immediately
due to increase logistical challenges; and (8) some overseas opportunities are
only possible if faculty retain their current salary while abroad, and no
replacement funds are available for the academic unit from which a faculty
member departs, causing harm to relationships with the department chair and
colleagues (NASULGC, 1993).

Given the above disincentives to incorporating lntemational perspectives,
institutional policies including hiring, promotion, tenure, and curriculum must be
revised (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993; Aigner, Stimpfl and Nelson, 1992). “Career
rewards, hiring, and financial/administrative support are absolutely necessary to
drive internationalization and to convincingly portray it as an institutional goal and
direction (Aigner, Stimpfl & Nelson, 1992, p. 5).” Faculty can only play an active
role if an environment is created that promotes professional development,
scholarship, and public service in the international setting. “To a large extent,
past efforts at intemationalizing the campus have proceeded without formal
direction or even a high level of institutional support...As we move into the next
and more comprehensive phase of lntemationalization, developing an
internationally knowledgeable and active faculty is a critical determinant of
success (NASULGC, 1993, p. 5).”

Successful internationalization efforts have in common strong faculty
development components (Liverpool, 1995). For example, intensive workshops

and seminars designed to help faculty members build on existing bases of

24

language study would allow faculty to use foreign language in their research and
teaching, if their skills were thus improved (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993).
Administrators are encouraged to find ways to support faculty leave time in other
countries, participation in lntemational development projects and foreign
conferences, and research with foreign scientists.

While it seems logical that barriers must be removed in order to
encourage and involve more faculty in the internationalization process, no
articles were found which specifically addressed this issue. That is, no study has
attempted to correlate the lntemational activity of faculty and the lack of
institutional barriers. It has not been shown, for example, that faculty personnel
policies that encourage and support lntemational activity foster more international
activity on the part of the faculty. While many assert the importance of various
forms of institutional support, no data exists to tie these efforts to outcomes. Nor
has it been shown that un-supportive policies have discouraged faculty
participation in international activity. A great deal of research and further study is
needed regarding these and other faculty related issues.
Faculty Motivation

Explaining individual tendencies to initiate and sustain a given activity is of
concern for researchers in many fields, including higher education (Blackburn
and Lawrence, 1995). Noncognitive theories of motivation assume, “...that
internal needs, personality dispositions, and external incentives and rewards will
cause an individual to behave 'in predictable ways (Blackburn and Lawrence,

1995, p. 19).” On the other hand, cognitive theories of motivation, “. . .assume

25

that people make decisions about how to behave by evaluating their capacity to
respond to situations and estimating their possible losses and gains (Blackburn
and Lawrence, 1995, p. 21).”

Noncognitive theories of motivation include stage theories of personality
and career development as well as reinforcement and dispositional theories of
motivation. Reinforcement theory asserts that behavior is caused by the
environment. In other words, the environment serves as the stimuli, and the
behavior is the response to the environment. Different factors in the environment
motivate different responses (Atkinson, 1977). Behaviorist researchers have
concluded that the selective reinforcement of desired behavior (contingent
reinforcement) motivates people to behave in ways that are socially and
organizationally desired (Staw, 1983).

Critics of the contingency reinforcement model to behavior modification
assert that many activities are intrinsically motivating. They note, for example,
that many scholars engage in research because they find the process to be
innately rewarding (Deci, Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbet,
1973). Therefore, the extrinsic rewards for research, such as salary incentives,
can diminish the influence of intrinsic incentives. “The concern is that once the
extrinsic rewards are removed, or not increased, individuals may no longer
engage in the desired activity (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995, p. 20).”

Cognitive theories of motivation assert that motivation is a function of an
individuals' estimate of the probability of success (expectancy) and of the

consequences of their actions (value). In other words, “cognitive theories of

26

motivation assume that people make decisions about how to behave by
evaluating their capacity to respond to situations and estimating their possible
losses and gains (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995, p. 21 )." Maehr and
Braskamp’s (1986) personal investment theory asserts that people are constantly
making decisions about how to invest their time and energy. “Motivation to
perform a task varies in relation to the meaning it has for an individual. Meaning
is determined by a person's sense of self and by personal incentives that evolve
and change over time as a result of social learning (Blackburn and Lawrence,
1995,p.22)”

As Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) note, characteristics of individuals and
their employing institution combine and lead to variations in faculty motivation,
behavior, and productivity. That is, a close nexus exists between individual
faculty characteristics and their employing institutions. Faculty motivation,
behavior, and productivity stem from a complex interaction of a variety of
variables. The most effective means of ensuring broader faculty support and
I involvement in lntemationalization efforts is therefore quite complex.

Study Abroad

The number of US. college students enrolled in study abroad programs
has been steadily increasing since the mid-19903. As noted by Davis (2001),
“Over the last five years, study abroad activity from US. institutions of higher
education increased 61% (p. 17).“ During the early years of the 1990’s,
enrollments increased only 2% a year on an annualized basis until 1994-95,

which saw a strong 10% increase over the previous year (Davis, 1998, p. 89).“

27

Research institutions send the largest number of students abroad each year with
majors in the humanities and social sciences predominating (34%). In terms of
duration, 74% of the students who study abroad do so for one semester or less,
and less than 10% study abroad for an academic year. Forty-one percent (41%)
of students who go abroad make the sojourn during their junior year, and most
are still female (65%) and white (84%). Western Europe was by far the favorite
destination for American students who studied abroad in 2000-2001 as over 50%
studied there. Of these, the United Kingdom enrolled 20.4.7% (Davis, 2001).

Nearly sixty-six percent of all institutional linkages abroad include student
exchanges (Darvich-Kodjouri, 1995). Such exchanges allow each student to pay
home college or university tuition and fees, as well as room and board in some
cases, and attend a foreign institution. Thus, the students effectively trade
places. However, study abroad is seen as a marginal activity on most
campuses—under encouraged, unsupported, unprepared for, and unconnected
with students’ work after they return (Johnston & Edelstein,- 1993). More
students need the unique experience that can be gained by living and studying in
another country (Gardner, 1990).

The importance of the involvement of faculty in the leadership and design
of study abroad programs is also noted (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). Liverpool
(1995) states, “...it (the curriculum) should be complemented by cross-cultural
and practical experiences abroad that educate students about problems and
issues that cut across specific disciplines and regions of the world (p. 8).” A

more practical approach to the study of foreign cultures is needed, such as the

28

. study of current political systems, religions and traditions, lifestyles, educational
systems, gender roles, dress, business methods, beliefs and attitudes (Pacheco
& Fernandez, 1992). Further, Liverpool (1995) states, “If we are to provide our
students with a global education, we must move beyond Europe as a destination
point for our study-abroad experiences. We must create opportunities for
students in the sciences and other technical and professional disciplines to study
abroad. And we must link the lntemational exchange experience with the
curricula and as part of the normal uninterrupted process of acquiring a degree...
(p. 10).” The importance of including study abroad in the academic goals of the
institution, and in the long-range planning of the university is also noted (Aigner,
Stimpfi and Nelson, 1992).

While studies have shown the importance ofsuch experiences to the
personal and academic development of individual students, studies are lacking
which demonstrate the relevance of study abroad programs to the
internationalization of colleges and universities. For example, studies that
demonstrate the impact of the study abroad experience on the student’s home
campus, after he or she has returned, were not found. Data that support the
importance of a foreign study experience to the infusion of global perspectives in
the student’s courses at the home campus are also not to be found.
lntemational Students

(The number of foreign students studying in the United States during
academic year 2000—2001 totaled 547,867 (Davis, 2001). This number

represents an increase of 6.4% over 1999-2000, and builds on the previous

29

year's 4.8% increase in foreign student enrollments. Enrollment patterns during
the previous years appear to have reversed a six-year trend of decelerating
foreign student enrollments. However, given the discussion above regarding the
numbers of students from the United States who study in other countries, note
the imbalance of nearly six to one. That is, for every six students who come to
the United States to study, only one student from the United States goes to
another country to study. In addition, the majority of students who come to the
United States to study do so in order to obtain a degree, while the vast majority
of students from the United States who go abroad to study do so for short
periods. While students coming to the United States to study arrive mainly from
Asian countries, the majority of students who go abroad from the United States
go to Western Europe.

“One measure of the impact international students have on a host
country’s educational system is the share they hold of the entire higher education
population (Davis, 1995, p. 1).” Despite the increases in foreign student flows
since 1954-55, these students“ share of the overall US. higher education student
population increased only from 1.4% to 3.6% in 1998-99. Asian students make
up over half of the international student population in the United States (55%).
Most Asian students come from China (59,939), India (54,664), Japan (46,497),
the Republic of Korea (45,685), and Taiwan (28,566). By contrast, students from
Europe make up 15% of all of the international students in the United States.
Most European students originate from Germany (9,568), the United Kingdom
(7,765), Russia (6,609), and France (6,241). Roughly 13% of all US. students in

30

higher education are enrolled at the graduate level, yet over 43% of all
lntemational students in this country are graduate students.

As the number of foreign students in the United States has grown, so too
has their contribution to national, state and local economies. During the 2000-
2001 academic year, for example, foreign student expenditures on living
expenses, college tuition and fees exceeded $11 billion in non-U.S. funds. Well
over 100,000 full- and part-time jobsgwere created by these expenditures. Over
two-thirds (66%) of all foreign students receive most of their funding for US.
study from personal and family sources (Davis, 2001). _

'While the financial benefits are certainly attractive to many college and
university administrators, “...our goal must transcend the economic incentive of
recruiting international students. These students enrich the lives of our domestic
students, faculty, and our community. They contribute to the intellectual strength
and extend the global horizons of American students, both in the classroom and
through social interactions...we need to employ a more deliberate strategy to
better integrate lntemational students into the overall life of the campus
(Liverpool, 1995, p. 11).” Sharma and Jung (1985) demonstrated that the higher
' the interaction level US. students have with international students, the more
positive the attitude of US students towards cosmopolitan world outlook, cultural
pluralism, world mindedness, understanding of their own culture, support for
intemationalism, overseas career aspirations, and political liberalism. However,
the interaction between American and lntemational students in fact appears to be

quite limited (Paige, 1983).

31

The lack of the use of foreign students attending US. colleges and
universities as a resource for language instruction is highlighted noting that most
foreign students attending US. colleges and universities can be assured that
their native language skills will go unused (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). A clear
statement of purpose that defines reasons for enrolling foreign students, and
adequate support services to meet their special needs is needed. In addition,
foreign student enrollments should reflect diversity and balance, and the students
should be used as a resource (Aigner, Stimpfl 8 Nelson, 1992). “Foreign
students are a resource only if they can be convinced of the utility and personal
benefit of that role. Students spending huge amounts of money to attend a
foreign university often have little interest in programs that benefit the university
(Aigner, Stimpfl 8 Nelson, 1992, p. 7).”

The influence of international teaching assistants on the global
competence of their American undergraduate students has yet to be explored
(Lewis, 1995). Additionally, the contributions international students make on the
global competence of their professors and fellow classmates is also yet to be
studied. It is not safe to assume that just because an institution enrolls a
sizeable number of lntemational students that that institution infuses global
perspectives in the curriculum, campus events and activities, and the like. It may
just be that the campus is diverse, but not necessarily global in content or focus.
Further study is required to appropriately ascertain the impact of foreign student

enrollment to the internationalization process.

32

Outreach and lntemational Development

~ Of the seven key components addressed in this paper, outreach and
international development was clearly the least understood and written about in
the literature, as the importance to faculty of this mode of scholarship is not
addressed. However, the importance of such efforts in the overall campus
internationalization effort was clearly stated by a couple of authors. Kopp (1995)
states, “Outreach acts as a conduit for two-way exchanges between the
university and the larger world society. It increases access for a diverse global
society with multiple needs. It facilitates collaboration with other scholars, other
disciplines, other public and private sector organizations in this country and
abroad (p. 59).” Thus, outreach expands opportunities for the larger campus
community to get involved in lntemational activity. In addition to the importance
of international outreach activity to the campus, such activity is seen as important
for the surrounding community as well.

Liverpool (1995) states, “We must ensure that the international aspect of
our outreach is sufficient to meet the communityfs needs. One way to do this is
through public conferences and forums involving business, industry, and other
sectors (p. 14)." In this way the college or university can serve to educate the
community about the—world. Such seminars and conferences would also be
useful to the professional development of faculty and staff. The types of
programs and outreach activity which best contribute to the lntemationalization of
colleges and universities are not well understood, and certainly require further

analysis.

33

Models of Implementation

A review of the literature suggests six key factors for consideration when
planning a strategy to intemationalize an institution of higher learning: (1)
programs and activities should be institutionalized; (2) focus should be
multidimensional and well-integrated across curricular and administrative areas;
(3) a depth and intensity is necessary to allow all members of the campus
community adequate opportunity for involvement and participation; (4) a high
profile administrator with direct access to the chief academic officer and
president of the institution; (5) a centralized office which coordinates all aspects
of the international effort; and (6) observable change.

In a study of 15 institutions with successful international programs, three
similar characteristics were found: (1) their programs were institutionalized—they
did not depend on one person or source of funds and their continuance was
widely assumed and supported; (2) the programs were multi-dimensional and
well-integrated; and (3) they had a depth and intensity sufficient to provide
substantial numbers of students and faculty with international competence
(Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). It should be noted, however, that “successful
international programs“ was not defined, other than recognition by the authors
that these institutions were “active” internationally.

Institutions need a high profile administrator to act as a leader in the
international realm (Aigner, Stimpfl & Nelson, 1992). Most believe that
administrators responsible for the internationalization of the campus should have

direct access to the Provost and President of the institution (Stone, 1995). The

34

importance of giving the individual charged with the primary responsibility for
intemationalizing the institution the appropriate status and authority is also noted
(Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). However, Johnston and Edelstein (1993) also
state that the individual must have, “...the respect of colleagues necessary to
develop support for the program—and that they know how to build commitments
and coalitions across the campus. Gaining the support of a diverse group of key
individuals at different levels and in different disciplines is one of the most salient
ingredients of successful programs (p. 77).” This is especially true since
administrators responsible for international activities are expected to constantly
coordinate the flow of information on international topics (Stone, 1995).

Over sixty-one percent of institutions responding to an American
Association of State Colleges and Universities survey have a centralized office
for international programs (Darvich-Kodjouri, 1995). However, as Harari (1984)
states, “...we see time and again the foreign student adviser working separately
from the international admissions office and from the study abroad office and all
three working separately from those responsible for a program of English as a
Second Language, or an lntemational development contract overseas, or from
committees focusing on intemationalizing the curriculum or developing
partnerships with the business community or the K-12 schools in the international
area (p. 7).” The integration and mutual reinforcement of a centralized office
makes a positive impact on the lntemational ethos of an institution (Harari, 1984).

The importance of observable change is noted by Alutto (1990) who

states, “It is important to have symbols of change—publicity, new titles and

35

administrative units, the distribution of public relations material, conferences, etc.,
to give people the impression that a change is taking place. Too much can be
counterproductive because it looks hollow, but you need enough high-profile
symbolic actions to give momentum (p. 8).”

The American Council on Education’s Commission on lntemational
Education’s report (1996) recommends ten ground rules in order to frame a plan
of action for lntemationalization. The ground mles are as follows: (1) require that
. all graduates demonstrate competence in at least one foreign language; (2)
encourage understanding of at least one other culture; (3) increase
understanding of global systems; (4) revamp curricula to reflect the need for
international understanding; (5) expand study abroad and internship
opportunities for all students; (6) focus on faculty development and rewards; (7)
examine the organizational needs of international education; (8) build consortia
to enhance capabilities; (9) cooperate with institutions in other countries; and (10)
work with local schools and communities.

There is no one best approach to lntemationalization (Johnston &
Edelstein, 1993). Success in intemationalizing efforts will depend on four things:
(1) service; (2) coordination; (3) cooperation; and (4) small-scale change (Aigner,
Simpfl & Nelson 1992). “Administrators who hope to effect change must prove
their worth and worthiness through service to faculty, students and the
community outside the university. This service must be submissive, supportive
and readily available (Aigner, Stimpfl & Nelson, 1992, p. 10).“ Service includes

such activity as providing sufficient administrative support to facilitate the flow of

36

scholars around the world, and working with faculty to help make important
lntemational projects and activities a success. Coordination is important as often
times department a will be involved with a major project in country c, while
department b is involved in the same country. Neither department is aware of
the activity of the other, and providing overall support and coordination will not
only likely reduce cost to both departments, but likely enhance the project overall.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMPONENTS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION

A summary of key points regarding the internationalization process as
defined by the literature is as follows: (1) strong leadership that flows from a
clearly defined mission statement which includes specific references to the
importance of internationalization; (2) an infusion of global perspectives across
the curriculum; (3) a campus ethos which encourages, develops and supports
faculty involvement in lntemational education; (4) study abroad programs that are
well integrated into the academic programs of the institution; (5) the presence of
a diverse set of international students who are well integrated into campus life;
(6) international outreach programs that are relevant to the needs of the campus
and surrounding community; and (7) a well-coordinated, centralized office with a
top level administrator that works with a faculty oversight committee.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As noted above, many believe faculty are the key ingredient to the
internationalization process. Yet, the reasons why faculty become. and remain
involved in forms of lntemational scholarship have not been studied. What

factors contribute to and sustain faculty involvement in international scholarship?

37

This is a key question for college and university administrators interested in
advancing faculty involvement in international scholarship. Knowing when, how,
and why faculty become involved in international scholarship will help determine
the extent to which faculty involvement in such efforts is initiated and sustained
by intrinsic, or extrinsic factors. If extrinsic factors are found to play a key role in
determining faculty involvement in international scholarship, then administrative
intervention (such as rewards and incentives for such activity) may significantly
enhance such efforts. The literature is silent regarding these important

questions.

38

Chapter 3: Methodology

GENERAL APPROACH
This is a qualitative study using interviews to explore faculty
involvement in international scholarship in an Area Studies Program at
Central State University (pseudonym). As little theory has been generated
regarding faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship, a research method
was needed that would function inductively rather than deductively as it is
important to generate ideas rather than to test them. Qualitative research
methods that use life stories proved helpful. As Faraday and Plummer (1979)
note, methods that use life stories such as portraiture and life history are at
their best when they are used to help generate concepts, hunches, and ideas.
To solicit the life stories of faculty members, I used an interpretive approach.
An interpretive approach to inquiry asserts that the inquirer constructs a close
. and careful reading of the people he or she studies (Geertz, 1973).
‘ Exploration of My Beliefs Regarding Qualitative Forms of Inquiry
Questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm in
educational inquiry. Paradigms serve as basic belief systems that guide the
process of inquiry and discovery not only in regards to method, but also in
ontologically and epistemologically significant ways (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Although I have always felt more inclined towards qualitative versus
quantitative forms of inquiry during my graduate studies, I have realized in

formulating plans for a diSsertation that my commitments to qualitative forms

39

of inquiry were neither well constructed nor defended. In particular, I have
realized that I had really no sense of place or fit within the qualitative
continuum. Thus, the process of formulating plans for research within the
broad framework of faculty involvement in international scholarship first
required that I explore my own belief system as it relates to educational
inquiry.

As suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1994), “Inquiry paradigms define
for inquirers what it is they are about, and what falls within and outside the
limits of legitimate inquiry (p. 108).” While there is no way to establish the
ultimate truthfulness of a given paradigm, they are important since they guide
the investigator in significant ways. “A paradigm may be viewed as a set of
basic beliefs (or metaphysics) that deals with ultimates or first principles
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 107).”

Such paradigms are defined by responses given to three fundamental
questions. The first is an ontological question. “What is the form and nature
of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it?” The
second is an epistemological question. ‘What is the nature of the relationship
between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known?” The third
question, a methodological one, follows naturally from the first two. “How can
the inquirer
(would-be knower) go about finding out whatever he or she believes can be

known (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 108)?“

40

As | contemplate my belief system in regards to the three questions as
stated above, I find myself oddly inclined in the direction of postpositivism as
well as constructivism as defined by Guba and Lincoln (1994). I wrestle most
with the ontological question. Specifically, while tempted, I’m not sure that I
want to go so far as to agree with the position held by constructivists that
reality is apprehendable in multiple, intangible mental constructions which are
purely socially and experientially based. Yet, an analogy used by Eisner
(1992) makes a great deal of sense to me. He states, “What we come to see
depends upon what we seek, and what we seek depends upon what we know
how to say. Artists, Gombrich reminds us, do not paint what they can see,
they see what they are able to paint. An empty mind sees nothing (p. 12).”
Thus, constructions held by individuals are not more or less “true,” but more
or less informed and/or sophisticated. To an extent, this conforms to my
worldview. I

Perhaps I become a bit hesitant when presented with similar views
stated more dogmatically. As Phillips (1990) notes, “It is now recognized that
there is no absolutely secure starting point for knowledge; nothing is known
with such certainty that all possibility of future revision is removed. All
knowledge is tentative (p. 21 )." I’m not necessarily willing to go this far. I
tend to be more comfortable with the ontological question as addressed by
the postpositivist view. While the postpositivist view assumes an objective
reality, it grants that such reality can only be apprehended imperfectly—as

well as probabilistically. In short, while intrigued with much of the ontological

41

argument as presented by constructivists, I’m not willing to dismiss the notion
that there actually isan objective reality to be known and understood.

Concerning the epistemological question, while I believe the
relationship behrveen the investigator and the subject to be transactional to a
great extent, I am not inclined to believe that all knowledge is created through
interaction among investigator and respondents. Eisner (1992) notes, “...all
experience is transactive; hence all we can know is the result of a transaction
between our sentient and intelligent selves and a world we cannot know in its
pristine state (p. 14).“

While I support the notion that renders obsolete the view of researcher
solely as detached observer, I’m not ready to place as much emphasis and
importance on the creation of knowledge through the relationship between
researcher and subject. That is, I strongly agree with Rosaldo (1989) who
states, “In my view, social analysts can rarely, if ever, become detached
observers (p. 169).”

I am comfortable, however, with the transactional nature of researcher
to subject as stated by Guba and Lincoln (1994), “...the notion that findings
are created through the interaction of inquirer and phenomenon (which, in the
social sciences, is usually people) is often a more plausible description of the
inquiry process than is the notion that findings are discovered through
objective observations ‘as they really are, and as they really work’ (p. 107).”
Perhaps the tone, which allows for other alternatives, suits me here (i.e.,

“often a more plausible...”). Thus, even though I find myself vacillating within

42

and between these paradigms, thinking through such issues has reinforced

my preference for interpretive and dialectical methods in educational inquiry.

Assumptions of Qualitatlve Modes of Inquiry

Qualitative research design can be traced back to cultural

anthropology and seciology, and has relatively recently been adopted by

educational researchers (Borg & Gall, 1989). Scholars contend that

qualitative research can be distinguished from quantitative forms by unique

design characteristics. Merriam (1988) notes six major assumptions:

1.

Qualitative researchers are concerned primarily with process,
rather than outcomes or products.

Qualitative researchers are interested in meaning—how people
make sense of their lives, experiences, and their structures of
the world.

The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data
collection and analysis. Data are mediated through this human
instrument, rather than through inventories, questionnaires, or
machines.

Qualitative research involves fieldwork. The researcher typically
goes to the people, setting, site, or institution to observe or
record behavior in its. natural setting.

Qualitative research is descriptive in that the researcher is
interested in process, meaning, and understanding gained

through words or pictures.

43

6. The process of qualitative research is inductive in that the
researcher builds abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, and
theories from details (pp. 19-20).

Thus, there are five particular research purposes especially suited for
qualitative studies: (1) understanding the meaning participants give events,
situations, and actions; (2) understanding the particular context in which
participants act, and the influence the context has on their actions; (3)
identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences; (4) understanding the
process by which events take place; and (5) developing causal explanations
(Maxwell, 1996). The researcher therefore makes sense of a social
phenomenon by contrasting, comparing, replicating, cataloguing and
classifying the object of study (Miles & Hubennan, 1984).

This study does not seek to test a specific theory of faculty involvement
in lntemational scholarship. However, it is shaped by noncognitive and
cognitive theories of motivation, as well as Blackburn and Lawrence’s (1995)
notion that characteristics of individuals and their employing institution
combine and lead to variations in faculty motivation, behavior, and
productivity. As Morse (1991) states, “Characteristics of a qualitative
research problem are: (a) the concept is ‘immature' due to a conspicuous lack
of theory and previous research; (b) a notion that the available theory may be
inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, or biased; (c) a need exists to explore

and describe the phenomena and to develop theory; or (d) the nature of the

phenomenon may not be suited to quantitative measures (p. 120).” Thus, this
study is well suited for a qualitative design.
Life History

Qualitative research methods that focus on stories encourage subjects
to explain the importance of historical factors and constraints in their lives.
“The life history, life story, biographical method presents the experiences and
definitions held by one person, one group, or one organization as this person,
group, or organization interprets those experiences (Denzin, 1989, p. 183).”
“Narratives ‘get at’—and I use that phrase consciously—what can neither be
said in numbers nor disclosed in literal text (Eisner, 1997, p. 264).” “Human
behavior, unlike that of physical objects, cannot be understood without
reference to the meanings and purposes attached by human actors to their
activities (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 106).”

The life history research method became popular initially among
sociologists trained at the University of Chicago in the early 19003. They
were interested in recording, “an anthology of experience in people’s own
words (Kotre, 1984, p. 25).“ As Denzin (1989) notes above, the writer of life
history seeks to portray the subject almost exclusively through their own
words. In this sense, then, the researcher must rely almost exclusively upon
what he or she is being told by the subject. The researcher accepts at face
value the subject’s account and recollection of events. While similar, this
method differs in this way from biography, in which the validity of a research

subject’s story is authenticated by outside sources.

45

Life stories are studied by researchers within large contexts, or plots.
“'Plot’ is the chain of causation which dictates that these events are somehow
linked and that therefore they are to be depicted in relation to one another
(Weiland, 2003, p. 5).” Since the researcher cannot possibly portray the
entire life of a subject, plot helps the researcher select which events to
include, as well as order them into a process leading to a conclusion. In this
study, faculty engagement in international scholarship serves as the plot.

“Just as life story telling is done by the subject and the scholar, so too
is interpretation a shared activity (Weiland, 2003, p. 6).” The account told
serves as the subject’s interpretation of what has transpired in his or her life.
As Byron (1992) notes, “Every person accumulates his or her own
individualized fund of cultural knowledge and social experience, the product
of a lifetime of cultural acquisition and social interaction: a biography. One’s
biography is, for all practical purposes, one’s social persona (p. 175).” Yet,
because this method presents individual experiences as defined by the
subject, the objectivity of these interpretations provides the primary data for
analysis (Denzin, 1989).

TYPE OF DESIGN

This study utilizes the qualitative comparative case study design and
an interpretive interview method to explore faculty involvement in international
scholarship in an Area Studies Program at Central State University. Through
interviews, the phenomenon of lntemational scholarship is explored as it is

played out in the lives of those being studied. Data from all faculty interviews

46

are presented in summary form, followed by a richer description of the lives of
three faculty interviewed. These are presented in the form of brief life story
profiles.

Site Selection

The study takes place in the context of an Area Studies Program at
Central State University (CSU). CSU is a large research intensive institution
recognized for its excellence in the internationalization effort. The history of
this effort is further described in Chapter 4. Since I have experience with the
institution and am familiar with its operations and issues, I knew whom to
approach in order to obtain approval for conducting the study. In addition, I
knew enough about the institution in order to interact comfortably with
administrators and faculty. Yet, my lack of intimate familiarity with individual
faculty helped eliminate bias and distortion of my findings.

I chose to select faculty from an Area Studies Program at Central State
University based on its exemplary record of outstanding service as a national
resource center on the study of a major world region, as well as its
multidisciplinary approach to scholarship. I was interested in interviewing
faculty who shared much in common in terms of the context of their work, yet
still from a wide range of disciplines, and known for their international
scholarship. As further described in Chapter 4, faculty in the Area Studies
Program at CSU represent seventeen departments, and five professional

schools and colleges. Given the program’s designation as a National

47

Research Center since 1965, affiliated faculty are recognized experts in
international scholarship.
Selecting Interviewees

A letter was sent to the director of the Area Studies Program
requesting a meeting to discuss participation in my study (see Appendix A).
After obtaining approval from the director to pursue my study, I began
identifying faculty from the area studies program for participation in the study.
In order to select faculty for interviews, I reviewed 85 faculty profiles as
contained in the area studies program’s proposal for 2003-2006 funding
submitted under Title VI, Higher Education Act of 1965 for a National
Resource Center and Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships.

Faculty initially reviewed represented the following schools, colleges,
and departments. From the College of Arts and Sciences, faculty
represented African Studies; African-American and Diaspora Studies;
AnthrOpology; Art History; Communication and Culture; Comparative
Literature; English; Folklore 8 Ethnomusicology; Geography 8 Center for
Institutions, Population and Environmental Change; History; Linguistics; Near
Eastern Languages and Cultures; Political Science 8 Workshop in Political
Theory and Policy Analysis; Sociology; Spanish and Portuguese; and Theater
and Drama. From the professional schools, faculty represented Education,
Journalism, Law, Medicine, and Public and Environmental Affairs. Others

included African Language instructors, Librarians, Museum Curators, other

48‘

Center directors, and faculty from Central State University’s regional

campuses.

From this distinguished group of faculty, I first identified those who met

the following criteria:

1.

3.

no more than 25% faculty appointment within Area Studies at
Central State University;

no administrative appointment with the Area Studies Program;
and

no administrative appointment within the University.

Based upon this initial review, I eliminated 63 faculty from consideration, and

was therefore left with 22 faculty for further review. ,

Since I was interested in interviewing 8 faculty from the Area Studies

Program best suited for the purposes of this study, I then reviewed the

following characteristics of the initial 22 faculty in an attempt to further

delineate my sample:

1.

2.

courses currently taught with an lntemational focus;

the number of dissertations supervised with an international
focus;

international distinctions received;

foreign language competence;

overseas experience;

lntemational research and teaching specialization;

recent publications with an international focus;

49

8. institutional grants received related to international projects; and

9. international service.

Based upon this additional review, I was unable to identify
distinguishing factors that seemed appropriate cause to further delineate the
sample. In addition to the above criteria, I sought a sample of faculty diverse
in gender, ethnicity, and disciplinary background.

In order to identify the 8 faculty best suited to this study, I sought the
assistance from the Director of Central State University’s Area Studies
Program; and the University’s Dean for lntemational Programs. I met
individually with each of them, explained my selection criteria, and requested
their assistance in further refining the pool based on their knowledge of the
faculty. Interestingly, the Director and Dean were unanimous in their
endorsement of 8 of the 22 faculty I had identified. The remaining 14 faculty
from the initial group of 22 were eliminated for various reasons, including the
assumption of a new administrative appointment, marginal activity in the Area
Studies Program, and retirement.

I then sent an e-mail to each of the eight faculty members identified
describing the study and inviting each to participate (Appendix B). One week
after sending the e-mail, I phoned the faculty members and asked if they had
received the letter, if they had any questions, and if they would be interested
in participating in the study. Interview dates and times were established with

those who agreed to participate. Seven of the eight faculty members selected

50

agreed to participate in my study. In addition, I interviewed the Director of the
Area Studies Program, as well as the Dean for lntemational Programs.
Interviews

I initially interviewed seven faculty, as well as the Director of the Area
Studies Program and the Dean for lntemational Programs. As noted by
Creswell (1994), “The idea of qualitative research is to purposefully select
informants (or documents or visual material) that will best answer the
research question. No attempt is made to randomly select informants (p.
148).” In the case of this study, participants needed to be selected based on
their involvement in international scholarship in order to best answer the
research question. A random sampling of faculty was not suited to this study.

After establishing an interview date, time, and location, I conducted
face-to-face, one on one, in-person interviews with each subject. All
interviews took place in the private offices of the subjects. The interview
protocol as outlined in Appendix D was utilized. I took field notes during the
interviews and audiotaped them for subsequent transcription.

Following this first round of interviews and subsequent data analysis, I
identified three faculty from the initial sample of seven to study further. I was
interested in presenting brief life story profiles of these faculty as a means of
providing a richer description and context to my findings. In order to portray
their life story profiles using their involvement in lntemational scholarship as
plot, I conducted a second interview with each, and obtained additional

information concerning their involvement in this domain of scholarship. These

51

three faculty were chosen for a number of reasons. First, I was interested in
offering a variety of experiences with lntemational scholarship in regards to
discipline, gender, and time spent in the faculty role. Second, they were
amazingly gifted scholars, with an incredible passion and enthusiasm for their
werk. And perhaps as a result of their passion, they were happy to give me
additional time and information about their involvement in lntemational
scholarship. Their stories are presented in Chapter 6 of this paper.
Public Document Analysis
In addition to interviews, public documents (e.g., the institution's

mission statement, promotion and tenure criteria, memos, minutes, and
archival material from the Area Studies Program and Office of lntemational
Programs) were analyzed. I also used departmental review and planning

documents and university required planning documents to assist in a general
description of the program. The analysis of public documents helped
establish institutional factors that impact faculty involvement in lntemational
scholarship.
Data Analysis

As suggested by Creswell (1994), data analysis was conducted as an

activity simultaneously with data collection, data interpretation, and narrative
report writing. Creswell (1994) notes, “In qualitative analysis several
simultaneous activities engage the attention of the researcher". collecting

information from the field, sorting the information into categories, formatting

52

the information into a story or picture, and actually writing the qualitative text
(p. 153).”

The process of data analysis was based on reduction and
interpretation as defined by Marshall and Rossman (1989). In this process,
the researcher takes a large amount of information and reduces it to patterns,
categories, and/or themes and then interprets the data by using a schema.
“While much work in the analysis process consists of ‘taking apart’ (for
instance, into smaller pieces), the final goal is the emergence of a larger,
consolidated picture (T esch, 1990, p. 97).”

Following data coding suggestions as provided by Tesch (1990), I
used the following eight steps:

1. Get a sense of the whole. Read through all of the transcriptions

carefully. Perhaps jot down some ideas as they come to mind.

2. Pick one document (one interview)-—the most interesting, the

shortest, the one on the top of the pile. Go through it, asking
yourself, What is this about? Do not think about the ‘substance’
of the information, but rather its underlying meaning. Write
thoughts in the margin.

3. When you have completed this task for several informants,

make a list of all topics. Cluster together similar topics. Form
these topics into columns that might be arrayed as major topics,

unique topics, and leftovers.

53

4. Now take this list and go back to your data. Abbreviate the
topics as codes and write the codes next to the appropriate
segments of the text. Try out this preliminary organizing
scheme to see whether new categories and codes emerge.

5. Find the most descriptive wording for your topics and turn them
into categories. Look for reducing your total list of categories by
grouping topics that relate to each other. Perhaps draw lines

between your categories to show interrelationships.

6. Make a final decision on the abbreviation for each category and
alphabetize those codes.
7. Assemble the data material belonging to each category in one

place and perform a preliminary analysis.

8. If necessary, recode your existing data. (pp. 142-145).
Confidentiality

In order to protect the identities of the faculty who participated in this
study, I have not revealed their identities, or the identity of the University.
Thus, in reporting my findings, I use the pseudonym Central State University
(CSU) to denote the University. To further protect the identities of study
participants, l assigned a pseudonym, “Area Studies Program,” to the unit of
common affiliation among faculty interviewed. Data are stored on a password
protected computer in my home office. Interview transcription tapes are

stored in a locked fire-safe in my home office.

I also assigned pseudonyms to all faculty members bearing no
resemblance to their actual names. These pseudonyms were assigned to
participants prior to the first interview. Cassette tapes and interview notes
were labeled using the pseudonyms. Finally, prior to data collection, I
ensured that Michigan State’s University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) approved my study.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are discussed by most scholars who address
issues pertaining to qualitative designs (Locke, Spirduso 8 Slivennan, 1982;
Marshall 8 Rossman, 1989; Merriam, 1988; Spradley, 1980). The researcher
is obliged to respect the rights, needs, values, and desires of the informants.
In order to do so, the following safeguards were employed in this study: (1)
the purpose and objectives of the study, and an indication of how data were
to be used, was clearly articulated to the informants both verbally and in
writing; (2) written permission was obtained from the informant in order to
proceed with the study as described; (3) a research exemption form was filed;
(4) informants were notified of all data collection devices and activities; (5)
verbatim transcriptions and written interpretations were made available to the
informant; and (6) the inforrnant’s rights, interests and wishes were
considered first when choices were made regarding reporting of the data

(Creswell, 1994).

55

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Researcher Bias

“Qualitative research is interpretative research (Creswell, 1994, p.
147).” Thus, the biases, values, and judgment of the researcher must be
clearly understood. Yet, these factors are not necessarily detrimental to the
study as the investigator’s contribution to the study can be useful and positive
(Locke, Spirduso 8 Silverrnan, 1987).

My perceptions of higher education and international scholarship have
been shaped by my personal experiences. From 1989 to 1993 I served as a
Foreign Student Advisor and Program Coordinator in the Office of
lntemational Students and Scholars at a large Research I institution that
enrolled approximately 3,500 foreign students. I was responsible for advising
foreign students and scholars on immigration, personal, financial, and cultural
issues and concerns, and coordinated the new student orientation program
for approximately 1,500 students per year. I then served five years as
Director of the Office of lntemational Education at a mid-sized
Comprehensive I institution where I had oversight responsibility for foreign
student recruitment, admission, programs and services, and study abroad
and faculty exchange. I then served from 1999 to 2002 as Director of the
Office of lntemational Students and Scholars at a large urban Research I
institution that enrolled approximately 3,200 foreign students and hosted 600
visiting scholars each year. I currently serve as Associate Dean for

lntemational Programs and Director of the Office of lntemational Services at a

56

large Research I institution that enrolls approximately 3,300 foreign students,
and hosts approximately 600 visiting scholars per year.

Particularly in my role as Director of the Office of lntemational
Education from 1994-1998, I was involved in top level administrative activities
and decisions regarding campus internationalization efforts. The President
and Vice President for Academic Affairs were keenly interested in creating a
campus environment that helped domestic students thrive in our global

society. During my tenure in this role I worked closely with faculty, and senior
academic and student affairs administrators with the goal of
“intemationalizing” the institution.

During my involvement in this effort I realized that definitions of ‘

, internationalization varied widely across campus. To some, the term simply
meant providing more study abroad opportunities for students. To others, it
meant having more faculty who regularly teach, conduct research, and
present papers abroad. Others believed that a radical transformation of the
core curriculum was necessary. There was also very little agreement on
where the institution should focus its limited resources.

In addition, there was never a dearth of competing priorities which one
could easily argue were just as, if not more important than
internationalization. Given that resources were limited, determining where to
focus those rescurces was especially challenging. Do you increase the
admission office’s budget for international student recmitment with the goal of

bringing more lntemational students to the institution, or do you increase the

57

budget of the international student office in order to provide better programs
and services with the goal of retaining more international students? Or, do
you provide incentives for faculty such as release time to revamp the
curriculum with the goal of incorporating a global perspective?

Such questions motivated me to pursue the literature. I began my
quest interested in finding out how internationalization efforts’were
conceptualized and defined. Given my experience in the field of lntemational
education and exchange, I knew what my colleagues believed to be the key
components of campus lntemational efforts, but I was curious to learn more
about outcomes related to these components. From an administrative
perspective, I was interested in learning more about those areas in which the
institution could potentially have the greatest impact. As my review of the
literature indicates, while seven key areas have been addressed in the
literature, outcomes are little known and understood. Interest in this study
was a direct result of my desire to serve as a knowledgeable resource for my
institution, and potentially other institutions as well. Given the above
discussion, the void of theory regarding faculty involvement in international
scholarship, as well as my desire to generate data rich in detail and
embedded in context, qualitative research methods were selected for this
study. A
Issues of Validity and Reliability

Merriam (1988) notes that internal validity is the accuracy of the

information and the degree to which it matches reality. To ensure internal

58

validity in this study, data were collected through multiple sources to include
interviews and document analysis. In addition, informants provided feedback
by reviewing findings as they emerged throughout the analysis process. An
ongoing dialogue regarding my interpretations of information provided by
informants ensured the truth and value of the data. This was accomplished
by sharing interview transcripts as well as interpretations of information
provided and document analysis with participants.

I interacted with faculty significantly involved in international
scholarship through interviews. My primary goal was to understand when,
how, and why faculty became involved in international scholarship. Yet, in
addition to working toward a diligent understanding of my subject, my
experience in the field of lntemational education played an important role as
well. This is because I am most comfortable with forms of inquiry where
knowledge is elicited and refined through interaction between and among the
researcher and subject. In this sense, I agree with the constmctivist position.
I am not comfortable in the detached observer role, nor do I believe this is a
particularly meaningful way to conduct social inquiry. My own biases have
been articulated under the heading “The Role of the Researcher.”

The quality of this research is therefore based heavily on my own
trustworthiness as a researcher, as well as on the authenticity of my work. As
Guba and Lincoln (1994) note, “T he issue of quality criteria in constructivism
is nevertheless not well resolved, and further critique is needed (p. 114).” As

the intent of qualitative research is not to generalize findings, but to form a

59

unique interpretation of events, the generalizability of this study is limited
(Merriam, 1988). And given the uniqueness of the study, replication in
another context would be difficult (Creswell, 1994). “Unlike with quantitative
designs, few writers agree on a precise procedure for data collection,

analysis, and reporting of qualitative research (Creswell, 1994, p. 143).”

60

Chapter 4: The International Effort at CSU

An Overview of CSU and lntemational Programs

Central State University (CSU), founded in 1824, is an eight campus
system with a total enrollment of more than 98,000 students. The largest
campus is a Research I university, with an enrollment of 38,908 students
(33,540 full-time). Of the 38,908 students enrolled on Central State’s largest
campus, 79 percent are undergraduates.

Recently regarded as a model of effective campus lntemationalization
efforts by two prominent higher education associations, Central State
University has been building its reputation as an international university for
more than 50 years. The institutions” influential president from 1938 to 1962
foresaw the post-war leadership role that the United States would assume
and its implications for US. higher education. While clearly understanding
the role of the university in relation to the service it provided the state, the
president believed the university also had a responsibility to connect students
to the world.

During the 19403 and 19503, a foundation was built under the direction
of this visionary president to support an incredible array of interdisciplinary
language and area studies programs and international centers that form the
core of the university‘s expertise in global knowledge, understanding, and
expertise today. Over the years, the university has enabled thousands of

students to have educational experiences abroad while attracting a steady

61

flow of international students and visiting scholars to itscampuses. In fact,
the University is one of our nation’s leading hosts to international students
and visiting scholars.

The Office of lntemational Programs provides central oversight for
international initiatives, activities, and resources for the eight campus system.
The office is headed by a dean with a faculty appointment, who reports
directly to the president. In terms of proximity, the Office of lntemational
Programs is immediately adjacent to the Office of the President in the main
administration building, providing the unit with prominent presence and
visibility.

The dean for international programs directs an administrative staff of
45, including four associate deans and two assistant deans. Three of the
associate deans are based on the main campus, whereas the fourth is based
at the largest of the branch campuses. The three associate deans on the
(main campus provide oversight and direction to three major sub-units within
lntemational programs: the Office of lntemational Services which provides
immigration and other support services to international students and visiting
scholars; the Office of Overseas Study which manages the University’s study
abroad and exchange programs; and lntemational Research and
Development which guides and directs federal grants in support of
lntemational education and exchange to the tune of 30 million dollars
currently. Through the Office of lntemational Programs, grants are available

to support research abroad, lntemationalization of the curriculum,

62

lntemational professional development, travel for overseas conferences,
short-term exchange development, and more.
Area Studies Program

Central State University’s lntemational reputation rests on the strength
of its 12 internationally focused multidisciplinary centers. An impressive 30
percent of the university’s 1,615 FTE (full-time equivalent) faculty specialize in
international studies research and teaching. When totaled, more than 500
courses with an international, foreign language, and/or world cultural content
are available to undergraduate students. Areas of international concentration
within the curriculum include 11 language and literature majors, four distinct
area studies majors, six area studies certificate programs, seven area studies
minors, and an international studies minor focusing on global and
transnational perspectives.

The Area Studies Program at Central State University has been a US.
Department of Education National Resource Center every year since 1965.
Recognized as one of the leading centers for the interdisciplinary study of a
major world region, the prominence of the program rests firmly on the
expertise of its distinguished faculty who represent 14 academic departments
and 5 professional schools, offering more than 150 courses related to the
continent. The program also prides itself on the recruitment of outstanding
students specializing in the study of the continent. More than 330 PhD.

dissertations conceming the continent have been completed at Central State,

63

and degree recipients have taken academic positions in 32 states and 20
foreign countries.

The Area Studies Program draws on a strong Central State University
faculty who specialize on the continent, an outstanding program in languages
and linguistics, and an excellent collection in the University archives, libraries,
and other units to organize a program focusing on interdisciplinary research
and teaching in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and the professional
schools. The number of courses taught ranges from 135 to 155 per year.
Nearly 40% of the total courses offered are 100% specific to the continent in
terms of content. In the last three years alone, 47 new courses dealing with
the continent have been added, with 19 (40%) having 100% content specific
to the region of specialization. In addition to new courses, 11 existing
courses within the university have been modified to include content specific to
the world region. These include first-year survey courses in Folklore 8
Ethnomusicology, Linguistics, Sociology, and Comparative Literature.
Challenges to lntemational scholarship at CSU

As is further discussed in Chapter 5, faculty interviewed in this study
spoke of three barriers to engagement in lntemational scholarship at CSU.
These included the faculty role as currently defined, personal/family
demands, and institutional roadblocks. In terms of the faculty role as
currently defined, faculty interviewed were primarily concerned that the
institution was becoming increasingly restrictive in regards to foreign travel

during the academic year. While strong support exists for international

64

engagement and associated foreign travel within certain segments of the
institution, many still view these activities as superfluous to the essential
elements within the faculty role. Faculty interviewed were also more broadly
concerned that the role of a faculty member in the US. is defined in large
measure by close proximity to the home campus, and its students.

Given a renewed emphasis on the importance of teaching at this major
research institution, faculty interviewed are feeling increasingly pressured by
CSU administrators to engage in foreign travel only when classes are not in
session. Such travel is necessary to remain engaged in international
associations, to attend meetings and present papers at conferences abroad,
to establish as well as reaffirm partnerships with foreign colleagues, and to
engage in research in othercountries. Given other competing priorities within
the faculty role, limiting foreign travel to semester breaks and the summer
makes active engagement in international scholarship a major logistical
challenge.

This is especially true when one considers the incongruence of
academic calendars around the world, and the additional challenges brought
to bear depending on the time of year and/or season one travels (when it’s
summer in East Lansing; it’s winter in Brisbane). While faculty interviewed
understand and support the importance of their teaching responsibilities at
home, they would benefit from further cooperation from their colleagues in

covering a missed class or two, as well as additional institutional support in

65

the form of graduate assistants or temporary instructors available to cover
teaching responsibilities during an extended absence.

While CSU will probably not be able to completely mitigate the barriers
to international scholarship that come from personal/family demands,
increased flexibility and support for foreign travel during the academic year
will go a long way in supporting this important form of scholarship. That is,
when faculty are having to balance the needs of their personal and/or family
demands with restrictive policies or expectations in terms of foreign travel,
this makes an already challenging endeavor even more difficult. In order for
faculty to take extended periods abroad to effectively participate in
lntemational scholarship, both professional and personal factors need to align
in almost perfect harmony. Otherwise, the challenges seem too difficult to
overcome.

Another challenge to international scholarship at CSU concerns
institutional roadblocks which come primarily in the form of departmental
norms and expectations for appropriate faculty behavior. While many of the
faculty interviewed in this study benefit from colleagues and administrators
supportive of their international endeavors, some do not enjoy such support.
In fact, certain departments at CSU discourage participation in international
scholarship, and can be quite hostile to movements by faculty towards this
form of scholarship. Still other faculty interviewed feel isolated from the
broader campus community, as they interact almost exclusively with those

who understand and support their commitment to international scholarship.

66

Continued efforts are needed to weave the international dimension within the
overall fabric of the institution, extending far beyond the reach of a specific
area studies program or project as coordinated by the Office of lntemational
Programs.

In addition to the above challenges as discussed by faculty, several
issues will likely dominate the future direction of the overall effort to
intemationalize at CSU, as well as their impact on faculty engagement in
lntemational scholarship. For example, along with 200 other US.
universities, CSU is actively engaged in the public-private effort to develop
and implement lntemet2. Put simply, lntemet2 is a faster version of the
lntemet, which among other things offers expanded possibilities and
opportunities for the utilization of technology in education delivery.

While the utilization of such technology may further enhance and
promote the lntemational effort at CSU, new methodologies will likely also
challenge existing institutional norms and values concerning faculty
engagement in international scholarship. Some may argue, for example, that
given limited fiscal resources, face-to-face contact can be legitimately
replaced by screen-to-screen contact as a means of engagement in
international scholarship. CSU, like many other institutions, will wrestle with
finding the appropriate balance and utilization of exciting new technologies
when coupled with campus internationalization initiatives.

Another major challenge facing CSU in terms of its ongoing

commitment to faculty involvement in international scholarship is the aging of

67

its faculty in the interdisciplinary area studies programs. Many of the faculty
associated with the Area Studies Program in this study, for example, are
nearing the age of retirement. While finding faculty with equivalent
international expertise will be a daunting task in itself, there is also no
guarantee that departments with hiring authority with replace retiring faculty
with others who have similar expertise.

The traditional interdisciplinary area studies approach to global inquiry
is also being challenged by some for its relevance and applicability, as
professional schools are doing a better job of intemationalizing their
curriculum and preparing students for an increasingly complex world. In other
words, as institutions like CSU continue to weave lntemational issues and
concerns throughout the curriculum, the need for centers which specialize in
a given region may be further questioned and challenged. The challenge for
CSU will be to remain respon3ive to interest and growth throughout the
institution, while continuing to build upon the strengths of the regional
expertise of many of its area studies centers and faculty.

Finally, diminishing resources pose difficult challenges for CSU and its
efforts to further facilitate and promote faculty involvement in international
scholarship. While utilization of the fiscal management model Resource
Centered Management (RCM) has given greater fiscal control to academic
deans and department chairs, programs with declining student enrollment
face extremely difficult choices as funding is tied more directly to tuition

revenue generated from student enrollments. Since many courses in

68

international studies are housed within the arts and humanities, declining
enrollments in these majors only further challenge the existence of these
courses . Funding from the central administration to continue to encourage
and promote international scholarship among CSU faculty is a key factor to

the ongoing growth and development of its expertise in this domain.

69

Chapter 5: Summary Findings

This study utilized the qualitative comparative case study design and
an interpretive interview method to explore when, how, and why faculty
engaged in international scholarship at Central State University became so
engaged. The study also explored with faculty committed to international
scholarship factors that facilitate and support their efforts, as well as those
that constrain this form of scholarship. Finally, faculty offered
recommendations to assist colleges and universities interested in facilitating
and promoting international scholarship among the faculty. This chapter
presents in summary form findings related to the above key questions, and is
followed in Chapter 6 by life story portraits of three of the faculty interviewed.
WHEN

The first key question in this study sought to explore when faculty
engaged in lntemational scholarship began pursuing this particular facet of
the faculty role. This question was of interest because knowing the initial
impetus for lntemational scholarship within the faculty role may help
determine factors important to facilitate this form of scholarship among faculty
not currently involved in this domain of scholarship. As the analysis below will
demonstrate, the majority of faculty interviewed in this study were already
committed to international scholarship upon assuming the faculty role. Thus,
for the majority of faculty interviewed, their employing institutions played no

role in initiating their involvement in international scholarship.

7O

Five of the seven faculty interviewed in this study brought the
commitment to international scholarship with them to the faculty role. They
specifically trained for careers that encompassed an lntemational perspective,
and each of them pursued graduate school education and training in
disciplines which were by their nature comparative, and/or international in
scope and focus. Of the remaining two faculty members involved in this
study, one began involvement in international scholarship mid-career when
she was introduced to an lntemational, visiting scholar on campus, and the
other engaged internationally late-career as a result of her own intellectual
development and frustration with her discipline’s lack of a global perspective.
Portraits of these two faculty are presented later in this paper, along with the
story of one faculty member who brought the commitment to international
scholarship with him to the faculty role. I

Thus, in only one case did the faculty member’s employing institution
play a key role, albeit very indirect, in lighting the spark that lead to a global
focus in the faculty role. And in this case, by matter of principle the faculty
member believed it was first important to learn and explore her own culture
prior to seriously studying another. She stated that her intention even prior to
graduate study was to engage in lntemational scholarship, but philosophically
this could not be an area of interest early on in her career as it would
compromise her belief that in order to understand another culture, you must
first understand your own. In her words, “...I had every intention of working in

another culture and working intemationally...but I tried not to from the

71

beginning...because I really did feel strongly that I would be more comfortable
working with other cultures if I had looked at my own (R. Adamson, interview,
April 15, 2003).” Professor Adamson’s life story portrait, particularly
instmctive from the perspective of learning about the influence an institution
can have in facilitating and promoting faculty involvement in international
scholarship, is presented in Chapter 6.

The remaining faculty member's beginning in lntemational scholarship
had nothing to do with her employing institution. As Professor Freedmont
recalled rather bitterly, “There was nothing here at this particular setting that
would have encouraged me in that direction (E. Freedmont, interview, April
21, 2003).” Professor Freedmont’s developing world view, and growing inner
conviction of the inadequacies of her discipline in this regard lead her to
believe that she was providing a disservice for major segments of the
population of kids in American schools by excluding music from their
increasingly diverse cultures in the introduction to music text she was
compiling. It wasn’t until Professor Freedmont was inclined by matter of her
own professional standards and convictions to engage the world of music in
her teaching that she came to be aware of the tremendous resourCes to
facilitate and support international scholarship at Central State University. In
order to better understand factors that contributed to Professor Freedmont’s
commitment to international scholarship, her life story portrait is presented in

Chapter 6.

72

The majority of faculty interviewed in this study, then, were already
committed to involvement in international scholarship upon assuming the
faculty role. To further highlight this notion, Professor Slessenger’s story is
presented in Chapter 6. Like Professor Slessenger, most faculty interviewed
in this study are engaged in international scholarship primarily as a result of
their intemal make-up and life experiences prior to the faculty role. In all but
two cases, they brought a commitment to international scholarship with them
to their positions as junior faculty. They were highly selective of their
employing institutions, and gave priority to those institutions which provided
the best opportunity to incorporate an lntemational dimension in the faculty
role. 7

As will be discussed later in this paper, however, factors external to the
personal dispositions of these faculty have also played a role in their on-going
interests and level of commitment as international scholars. These factors
include ongoing support from their employing institutions. As will be
demonstrated later in this paper, one could argue that the employing
institution played a central role in the ongoing facilitation and development of
the initial interest in international scholarship for the two faculty interviewed
who engaged in international scholarship later during their careers in
f academe. Had these faculty been at a different institution, their interests may

have fizzled out.

73

HOW

The second key question in this study sought to explore how faculty
actively engaged in lntemational scholarship became so engaged. This
question was important as faculty experiences in this regard may help
scholars better understand factors that promote international scholarship. In
addition, a better understanding of the factors which contributed to the current
level of engagement internationally among the faculty interviewed may help
guide and direct limited university resources allocated for faculty development
and similar initiatives intended to advance international scholarship.

As represented in Table l, six themes emerged in regards to the
question of how faculty engaged in international scholarship became so
engaged. The themes include: childhood influences; undergraduate
opportunities; graduate school education and training; adult living and working
abroad experiences; mentors and advisors; and adult intellectual
development. Each of these factors is further described below, and are
further illuminated in the faculty portraits as presented in Chapter 6.

Table 1: How Faculty Engaged in lntemational Scholarship
Beéame so Engaged

 

Childhood Influences

 

Undergraduate Opportunities

 

Graduate School Education and Training

 

Adult Living and Working Abroad Experiences

 

Mentors and Advisors

 

 

Adult Intellectual Development

 

74

 

Childhood Influences

I Childhood influences were discussed more often and in more contexts
than any other factor by faculty when probed about influences that lead to
their interests in international scholarship. Two faculty specifically referred to
being raised by parents whose interests went against the norm. Professor
Wilkerson stated, “My parents were both artists. . .they had interests that took
them outside of the usual ways of doing things. . .we always had interests in
things that were different from other people (M. Wilkerson, interview, April 24,
2003).”

Another common theme discussed by faculty was the notion of being
raised to be open-minded. Professor Griffith recalls, “We were raised to be
open minded...to go in the direction we wanted...my background was open to
the world in general (S. Griffith, interview, May 21, 2003).” Similarly,
Professor Wilkerson stated, “I’ve noticed that even among my colleagues, I
embrace change more easily than a lot of people and did even when l was
young...and I do think an openness and a receptiveness is necessary to be
able to adapt to cultures (M. Wilkerson, interview, April 24, 2003).”

Six of the seven faculty interviewed were raised by well educated
parents, with at least one parent in each home having completed the
minimum of a Bachelor’s degree. From teachers and ministers to aerospace
engineers, the majority of faculty interviewed had highly educated parents.
Similarly, the overall level of sophistication in the home, interest in learning

generally and more specifically about the world, and a commitment to social

75

justice issues were discussed by five of the faculty interviewed as significant
factors leading to their global interests. As Professor Sullivan recalls proudly,
“My parents were very active politically. . .and I learned early a commitment to
social justice (L. Sullivan, interview, April 23, 2003).”

In general, the faculty interviewed were raised by parents who were
actively involved in their communities, interested in socializing with others,
and getting to know not only their own country and culture, but others as well.
Three of the seven faculty interviewed shared at length about regular
opportunities to interact with people from around the world in their own homes
as their parents enjoyed hosting and entertaining visitors. This exposure in
early childhood to people and places different from one’s own, as well as the
feeling of being somewhat unique or different themselves, played an
important role in the general openness and receptivity faculty had towards
other people, countries and cultures. As Green (2003) notes, “The value that
individuals place on intemational/intercultural learning often correlates with
their personal experiences in interacting with people from other cultures.”
Data from three of the faculty interviewed also suggests that feeling different
may also play a role in an individual’s openness to others who are viewed as
different by the predominant culture.

Travel both domestically and internationally was the norm for five of
the faculty interviewed, and foreign travel in particular was viewed as
somewhat routine. ‘When I was growing up I was around people for whom

going to Africa was no big deal (S. Griffith, interview, May 21, 2003).” Two of

76

the five faculty interviewed discussed travel domestically, but specifically to
areas of diversity within the United States. When asked to pinpoint the
impetus for his interests in lntemational scholarship, Professor Slessenger
stated, “I guess the interest could be traced to local travel and seeing some of
the different cultures (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

In addition to the above factors, four of the seven faculty discussed the
importance of living in a diverse community during their formative years as a
key contributing factor for their interest in lntemational scholarship. For
Professor Crestvvell, living abroad as a missionary kid was the key factor in
her interest and concern for the world. As another eXample, Professor
Sullivan grew up in Seattle, a diverse city with a large Asian population. She
believed this exposure at an early age to people from other countries and
cultures helped facilitate her interest in the world.

Finally, social justice issues were modeled by the parents of two
faculty interviewed, and this commitment was viewed as a key factor in
shaping their world views. Two other faculty had childhood interests and
hobbies related to the world such as collecting foreign stamps and coins,
tracking changes in country leadership, borders, and the like. “I became
interested in Africa on a quite romantic level...stamp collections, stories of
. crocodiles, and so on (S. Griffith, interview, May 21, 2003).” For faculty
interviewed in this study, then, the initial impetus for engagement in
international scholarship had a great deal to do with family upbringing and

childhood experiences.

77

Undergraduate Opportunities

While undergraduate opportunities were mentioned by some of the
faculty interviewed as a contributing factor in their development of interests in
lntemational scholarship, reference to these experiences was made almost in
passing. Two faculty interviewed mentioned that they studied abroad during
their undergraduate days, two mentioned participation in foreign language
study courses as an undergraduate student, and one mentioned the influence
of an undergraduate course with international content. However, none of the
faculty interviewed made a direct connection from these experiences to their
interest in lntemational scholarship, or viewed them as playing a key role in
their interest in international scholarship. On the contrary, they seemed to be
viewed simply as appropriate experiences given the lntemational interests
they had at the time. While study abroad and foreign language study .
experiences may indeed be transformative experiences for many
undergraduate students, for the faculty interviewed in this study, it was simply
a factor consistent with their interests as young adults.
Graduate School Education and Training

Five of the seven faculty interviewed pointed to the importance of their
graduate school education and training as a key factor that contributed to
their current level of involvement in lntemational scholarship. Thus, graduate
school education and training helped facilitate, develop, and sustain the
international interests these faculty brought with them to graduate school, but

did not serve as the impetus for engagement in international scholarship. As

78

Professor Crestwell recalls, graduate school helped launch her career in a
number of important ways. She stated, “The chance to meet major scholars
in the field in the Area Studies Center generally...the core group of students
doing the same thing that l was doing. . .these were all things I had here at
Central State (A. Crestwell, interview, April 25, 2003).”

Of importance to note, however, is that five of the seven faculty
interviewed pursued graduate programs with an international and/or
comparative focus as they had international interests prior to graduate study.
“I went into Anthropology with a concentration in Folklore, and I had every
intention of working in another culture and working internationally (R.
Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).” None of the faculty interviewed
indicated that their engagement in lntemational scholarship today was a result
of their graduate school experience. In addition, the two faculty members
who engaged internationally at some point following graduate study both
discussed the inadequacy of their graduate education and training in terms of
its recognition of global issues and concerns within the discipline.

Adult Living and Working Abroad Experiences

In addition to childhood travel experiences, experiences as an adult
living and/or working abroad also played an important role in the formation of
the global interests and concerns of faculty interviewed. This factor was
common among all faculty interviewed. While not all faculty interviewed had

foreign travel experiences prior to their involvement in international

79

scholarship, they all spoke of the importance of adult experiences abroad to
their on-going interests and commitment.

As noted by Professor Freedmont, “It was first hand contact that was
transforming for me (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).” Three of the
seven faculty interviewed lived abroad prior to their faculty role, and four
faculty interviewed spent time working abroad either sometime during or
before their faculty role. As Green (2003) notes, “Not surprisingly, faculty and
students who have already had international experience are more likely to
support and participate in international education.” For Professor Sullivan,
“...my experience living and working abroad really made the difference (L.
Sullivan, interview, April 23, 2003).” Following a two year assignment abroad,
Sullivan decided to attend graduate school for the purpose of engaging
internationally within the faculty role.

Mentors and Advisors

Mentors and advisors played an important role in the ongoing
development and facilitation of international scholarship for four of the seven
faculty interviewed. These faculty frequently made reference to the
importance of encouragement and support gleaned from mentors who
introduced them to foreign visitors, included them in foreign research projects,
or simply made them aware of an international opportunity within their domain
of scholarship. For Professor Griffith, her current lntemational interests and
world-renowned expertise stems from what at the time seemed like a very

simple, and somewhat casual invitation from her dissertation advisor. She

80

recalls, “My advisor said, ‘Why don’t you move down the coast and join me,’
so I thought, “why not‘ (S. Griffith, interview, May 21, 2003).” This seemingly
casual invitation at the time set the course for Professor Griffith’s expertise in
her discipline pertaining to her country and region of specialization.

Adult Intellectual Development

Green (2003) found that, “Comprehensive internationalization affects
“the hearts and minds’ of faculty and staff, requiring that they change
voluntarily.” For three faculty interviewed in this study, their experiences lend
support to this assertion, as they spoke of their own personal and intellectual
development as a key contributing factor towards their involvement in
international scholarship.

While a variety of factors likely influenced this development, faculty
who spoke of their personal growth in this regard struggled with the task of
attempting to identify an impetus for it. Professor Freedmont described her
development as, “...a process of realizing that the way music from many
cultures is done strips us from any knowledge of the culture. . .I began to
realize that multi-cultural wasn‘t something you just did, but it was something
you had to commit to for the reasons of making a better world and helping
people understand each other (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).”
This growth was characterized as a gradual evolution of thought, having little
to do with a specific event, but the accumulation of a lifetime of experiences.

When probed to further consider significant factors leading to their

development intellectually, three faculty also spoke of the importance of the

81

Fulbright program. With full financial support and the freedom to engage their
research topic with little dismption, Fulbright support enabled these faculty to
engage their lntemational interests with an intensity and focus that is difficult
to muster given the competing priorities of the normal faculty routine. For
these faculty though, the Fulbright experience served primarily to further
enhance and support an existing commitment to lntemational scholarship.
WHY

The third key question explored in this study seeks to better
understand why faculty became involved in international scholarship. This
question is important as faculty experiences in this regard may help
determine the relative value of rewards and incentives sometimes used to
entibe faculty to engage in international scholarship. As indicated in Table 2,
upon exploration of this question, four important themes emerged from the
interviews: the internal make-up of the individual; intrinsic rewards; extrinsic
rewards; and external factors. Each of these factors is further described
below.

Table 2: Why Faculty Became Involved in lntemational Scholarship

 

Intemal Make-up of the Individual

 

Intrinsic Rewards

 

Extrinsic Rewards

 

 

Extemal Factors

 

Intemal Make-Up of the Individual
Many of the faculty interviewed actively engaged in lntemational
scholarship view themselves as adventurous risk-takers, always ready for the

next challenge. All of the faculty interviewed described themselves as open-

82

 

minded. As a group, they enjoyed comparing themselves to their colleagues,
and were keenly aware of their uniqueness in terms of their disposition to
change, and their openness to new experiences and opportunities for cross-
cultural learning and understanding. Professor Griffith best summarized the
feeling of the faculty interviewed. “T hose that go on overseas study really
take risks...so I think that just might be the type of person we are, none of my
friends in the peace corps or whatever were just sitting around. . .they were
game for anything (8. Griffith, interview, May 21 , 2003).”
Intrinsic Rewards

In addition to the motivation that comes from an individual’s internal
disposition as described above, faculty involved in international scholarship
also find the work to be an incredibly exciting form of scholarship, and spoke
of the intrinsic rewards the work brings to their lives. While rewards and
incentives for international scholarship may be scarce at home, having the
world so to speak as your domain, and being highly regarded and respected
by colleagues worldwide brings tremendous gratification for these faculty. As
has been previously noted, many scholars engage in research because they
find the process to be innately rewarding (Deci, Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981;
Lepper, Greene, & Nisbet, 1973).

Professor Freedmont stated, “I’m on one of the most exciting journeys
anyone could be on because I encounter people, I go places, I make
connections, I get to go and be part of music making (E. Freedmont,

interview, April 21, 2003).” In reference to what international engagement

83

gives the average faculty member, Professor Slessenger noted, “It gives
these folks a bigger domain of operation (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29,
2003).” As Stone (1995) notes, research with an international focus is said to
be some of the most interesting scholarship a faculty member can pursue.
And seeing the world of opportunities avail itself to students brings
tremendous satisfaction as well. “I have a group of students who are highly
committed to what I am doing...who carry the bond the lntemational
experience brings, to do important work out there that excites me to see (E.
Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).”
Extrinsic Rewards

While intrinsic rewards for their work in international scholarship were
prominent in the thinking of faculty interviewed, extrinsic rewards were
desired but not realized. As Altbach and Peterson (1998) indicate, institutions
generally do not create incentives to encourage and reward greater
intemationalism among faculty (Altbach & Peterson, 1998). None of the
faculty interviewed believed that they have obtained extrinsic rewards for their
commitment to international scholarship. Only two stated that they believed
their engagement internationally was an expectation for promotion and
tenure, and only one faculty member stated that international scholarship was
valued by the institution. Concerning promotion and tenure, Professor
Slessenger stated, “It's not a requirement but for me I think it would be a large
failure if I didn’t (Slessenger, 2003).” Similarly, Professor Sullivan stated, “It’s

appreciated, but I don’t think you get any special recognition. . .everybody

84

knows that it's a good thing and that it contributes to the school but I don’t
think that it is particularly valued (L. Sullivan, interview, April 23, 2003).”

None of the faculty interviewed mentioned salary, promotion and
tenure, or rewards and bonuses as motivating factors to their engagement in
lntemational scholarship. While they make recommendations along these
lines to encourage broader involvement and support among the faculty
(discussed later in this chapter), external rewards did not play an important
role in their own commitment to international scholarship. These findings
question previous assertions that rules and requirements to foster a level of
global activity for tenure and promotion purposes are “critical” to the campus
internationalization effort (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993; Aigner, Stimpfl and
Nelson, 1992; and Lim, 1995).

External Factors

Faculty interviewed in this study were keenly aware of current world
events, global issues and concerns. As a group, they actively participate in a
number of international associations, read a multitude of international
publications and journals, and monitor major media outlets, both foreign and
domestic.

Three faculty made casual reference to the role major world events
played as a motivating factor towards their interests in lntemational
scholarship, but they didn’t view these events as significant contributors. On
the contrary, they were viewed as deterrents for other faculty. As Professor

Crestwell noted, “All of the wars and coups all over. I had that with my own

85

research in Liberia in 1989, it was a war zone. And you really have to make
some hard decisions about going back there...and even my travel back and
forth to Saudi Arabia after September 11'". . .it’s not going to keep me from
travel but I think for some people that would be a deterrent from doing
international travel (A. Crestwell, interview, April 25, 2003).”
FACILITATORS

The fourth key question in this study sought to explore factors that
contribute to faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship. As represented
in Table 3, five themes emerged as faculty reflected on factors that contribute
to faculty involvement in international scholarship: an institutional ethos of
internationalization; a diverse array of foreign students and scholars; like-
minded colleagues; strong study abroad and institutional exchange programs;
and supportive spouses. Each of these factors is further described below,
and provide insight into ways in which institutions may help encourage and
, promote lntemational scholarship among the faculty.

Table 3: Factors that Contribute to Faculty Involvement in International
Scholarship

 

Institutional Ethos of lntemationalization

 

Diverse Array of Forgqn Students and Scholars

 

Like-Minded Colleagues

 

Strong Study Abroad and Institutional Exchange Programs

 

 

Supportive Spouses

 

Institutional Ethos of lntemationalization
Faculty interviewed frequently made note of the importance of the
institutional culture at Central State University, and its reputation for

excellence in international programs. In addition to serving as a prominent

86

 

base for their work, this reputation helps them make connections and open
doors to prominent individuals, agencies and organizations worldwide. As
Professor Slessenger notes, “T he university plays a role in that it's a

platform. . .I have found that to be amazing. . .the CSU shadow has gotten me
into places that I probably wouldn’t have gotten into (H. Slessenger, interview,
April 29, 2003).” Professor Adamson described the university in this regard
as an, “...institutional force...it just goes and goes and goes (R. Adamson,
interview, April 15, 2003).” The institution’s reputation for excellence in
international programs and initiatives also serves to validate the work of
faculty committed to lntemational scholarship among their colleagues.

In addition to noting the international reputation of the institution and its
importance in facilitating, promoting, and valuing lntemational scholarship, all
seven of the faculty interviewed specifically discussed the strength of the
Office of lntemational Program's efforts at CSU as a key factor as well. In
regards to the professional staff working in various units within lntemational
programs, Professor Crestwell states, "They were really the people who
provided the leads as it were to establishing those contacts and to helping
facilitate the connections that came (A. Crestwell, interview, April 25, 2003).”
Faculty interviewed spoke of the overall spirit of cooperation and dedication
among staff within international programs. They discussed the important role
these staff members play in terms of providing overall coordination and /
coherence to a diverse array of programs and opportunities, while at the

same time helping faculty navigate obstacles.

87

While the organizational structure within the Office of lntemational
Programs is complex, faculty interviewed knew the names of key staff, and
they understood the essential functions of units within the department. As
Green (2003) notes, “Whatever structure is used, it must facilitate coherence
and coordination among the many threads of international education
(curriculum, international students, study abroad, and campus life) and have
sufficient resources and personnel to accomplish its mission.”

. In addition to praising a number of specific units and individuals within
lntemational Programs, two faculty interviewed specifically made reference to
the role of the current Dean in validating the importance of lntemational
scholarship. As a distinguished and highly respected faculty member, the
Dean enjoys tremendous support from faculty and administrators alike at
CSU. Speaking of the current dean, Professor Slessenger said, “It’s good to
have that strong voice that’s backing you (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29,
2003).” The importance of the overall structure and individual leadership
necessary to advance an internationalization effort is noted by Green (2003)
who states, “lntemationalization can only be more than a loose collection of
activities if a coherent, widely understood strategy is not in place. Creating
such a strategy requires leadership from the top. The president and provost,
as well as other senior |eaders...are key players. As leaders, they must
consistently articulate the importance of internationalization, keep attention
focused on the issue, secure and allocate resources for it, provide symbolic

support, engage external groups, and cultivate on-campus leadership and

88

support.” Many of the faculty interviewed have benefited from the
international strategy in place at Central State, and appreciate the leadership
and support which comes from senior level administrators at the institution.

Lim’s (1995) assertion that the use of skills in moral persuasion,
including normative statements about global education made in speeches and
discourse at the personal level by senior level administrators, was supported
as a key factor in validating international scholarship by two faculty
interviewed in this study. The importance of high profile proclamations and
endorsement for international scholarship was perhaps best highlighted by
Professor Slessenger as he discussed trying to muster support and
recognition for international initiatives among his colleagues. Slessenger
noted that many of these individuals serve on important departmental
committees responsible for faculty evaluation and promotion, and they have
no lntemational experience. Discussing his colleagues, Professor Slessenger
stated:

We’re back where things go on in terms of them (his faculty
colleagues) agreeing to let me take off or let me teach the second eight week
course, or a promotion that is being reviewed by the salary committee and it’s
not just the salary committee here, it's the evaluation committee and they see
that I am doing something that doesn’t really connect for them.

Otherwise, they would have difficulty making a bridge to it...but if
they’ve already got it in their heads that this is a valued thing—then there is a
connection there...and there’s been a good deal of communication about the
value of it... part of that is communicating to faculty that there are lntemational
opportunities there, not just one guy who is involved in it (H. Slessenger,
interview, April 29, 2003).

Faculty have benefited from the legitimacy, coherence, and visibility for

internationalization given the institution by the current dean and other senior

89

level administrators at CSU. Speaking broadly about the overall culture of the
institution, and the strength of the international effort specifically, in reference
to Professor Adamson’s engagement internationally, she noted that, “It was
all these pieces here coming together that led me to going ahead with it and
also to be successful (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).”

In addition to the overall culture within the institution, and the important
role played by staff within lntemational Programs, the strength and support of
the Area Studies Center was also praised by six of the seven faculty
interviewed. As noted by Green (2003), “Academic disciplines, which serve
as the organizing principle for the institution as well as for scholarship, are a
second institutional barrier to internationalization. Academic departments are
the keeper of the curriculum, faculty lines, teaching assignments, and
resources. Disciplinary divides prevent many faculty members from working
across disciplinary boundaries—one of the critical intellectual dimensions of
an internationalized curriculum." All faculty interviewed were associated with
the Area Studies Center, and spoke highly of the importance of the
interdisciplinary nature of the program. In reference to the interdisciplinary
strength of the Area Studies Program for students, Professor Adamson
stated:

“I tell students this all the time, when they are thinking about not
coming here (CSU) or getting a Ph.D. or whatever. I tell them we don’t have
a huge amount of money here but because we have the Area Studies
Program your chances of doing well, of having good people to work with you,

your chances of having your application to Fulbright or whatever are going to
be good (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).

90

The above findings call into question Johnston and Edelstein’s (1993)
assertion that language and area studies programs have done little to make
institutions more international in character or outlook. The Area Studies
Program at CSU has done a great deal to facilitate and promote broad
campus internationalization.

Institutional overseas travel grants designed to encourage and
promote international scholarship were also noted by five of the faculty
interviewed as key factors used to encourage international scholarship among
faculty. As Raby (1995) noted, “No one person is born internationalized. She
must research her field, borrow or invent creative applications and be
constantly updated. This requires time, enthusiasm and collaboration with
experts in the field. The majority of faculty are not trained to encompass an
international perspective into their courses (p.'4).” An institutional ethos of_
internationalization, and strong administrative support structures in place to
facilitate and promote faculty involvement in international scholarship, play a
cmcial role in an institution’s effort in this regard.

Diverse Array of Foreign Students and Scholars

Six of the seven faculty interviewed mentioned the important role
played by international students and scholars in facilitating their international
scholarship. As Liverpool (1995) noted, international students enrich the lives
of domestic students, faculty, and our communities. lntemational students
and scholars often serve as valuable resources for US. faculty interested in

teaching or conducting research abroad. Many international students and

91

visiting scholars come to specific institutions within the United States upon the
recommendation from a faculty advisor or colleague in their home country.
These individuals often play important roles in helping U.S. faculty make
and/or continue important connections, and establish joint research projects
in venues otherwise difficult to engage without a personal connection.
Like-Minded Colleagues

Professional associations and other opportunities to interact with like-
minded colleagues also played a key role in facilitating the international
scholarship of four faculty interviewed. “The members are international and
the interests are, of course, international. So through these associations I
keep very lively and good connections with people in international wOrk (L.
Sullivan, interview, April 23, 2003).” Also mentioned were the importance of
professional networking and collaboration, professional publications with an
international focus, foreign media, and library holdings. ”The value among
colleagues is high. . .but in another university setting it can feel like you’re sort
of an odd man out (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).” As Slessenger
implies, these connections are particularly important for faculty who find
themselves on campuses with little to no support for international scholarship.
, Strong Study Abroad and Institutional Exchange Programs

The importance of study abroad programs and students was discussed
by three faculty interviewed. As Professor Wilkerson stated, “Having study
abroad programs is a good way to get faculty to begin to be interested in

international things if they don't have that interest (M. Wilkerson, interview,

92

April 24, 2003).“ An additional three faculty interviewed mentioned the role
institutional exchange agreements play in facilitating and promoting
international scholarship. “I’ve found that if someone can sort of hand you a
connection, which the (lntemational Program) did for me...and all you have to
do is e-mail the guy to get the ball rolling...it was so valuable (H. Slessenger,
interview, April 29, 2003).”
Supportive Spouses

Two faculty noted the importance of a supportive spouse. “My
husband enjoys international travel and working abroad (A. Crestwell,
interview, April 25, 2003).” As will be discussed further below, personal and
family demands were discussed by many of the faculty interviewed as an
inhibiting factor to involvement in international scholarship. While personal
and family responsibilities remain challenging to balance when coupled with
engagement in intemational scholarship, supportive spouses help mitigate
those obstacles, and their enthusiasm for foreign travel played an important
role in the scholarly pursuits of these faculty.
CONSTRAINTS

The final key question in this study sought to explore factors that
constrain faculty involvement in international scholarship. As noted by Green
(2003), “Barriers can be institutional in nature, caused by policies, practices,
and traditions, or they can be individual, resulting from administrator, faculty,
and student attitudes.” As reflected in Table 4, three major themes emerged

in this study as constraints to international scholarship: the faculty role as

93

currently defined; personal/family demands; and institutional roadblocks.
Each of these factors is further discussed below.

Table 4: Factors that Constrain Faculty Involvement In
lntemational Scholarship

 

Faculty Role as Currently Defined

 

Personal/Family Demands

 

 

Institutional Roadblocks

 

Faculty Role as Currently Defined

Five faculty discussed the difficulties encountered with foreign travel
during the academic year, and the limits associated with the traditional faculty
role. Reflecting on the difficulty of lining up overseas opportunities with the
academic calendar in the US, Professor Slessenger noted, “So much of the
international idea is about coming and going, and the teaching load is
sometimes different from the teaching load in terms of timing overseas (H.
Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).” As many institutions encourage
faculty to utilize sabbatical time for international scholarship, Professor
Wilkerson cautioned, “You can’t take advantage of any of the projects that
happen during the regular academic year...not everything fits neatly into a
sabbatical (M. Wilkerson, interview, April 24, 2003).”

Four faculty interviewed also discussed the time demands required for
active engagement in international scholarship, and stated that at times these
demands were simply too much to bear. Other inhibiting factors noted were
tenure and promotion pressures, and the sometimes disenfranchising nature
of international scholarship. For example, while Professor Slessenger found

benefits from strong collegial support for his efforts in international

94

 

scholarship, he noted that, “Everybody that I interact with almost is doing
things international (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).“ However, at
times his international work leaves him feeling disconnected from the majority
of faculty on campus who are not engaged in international scholarship.

The competitive nature of funding opportunities in support of
international scholarship, given the relatively small .pool available, was also
seen as a constraint by several faculty interviewed. Given that there are few
extrinsic incentives, the majority of faculty interviewed believe the task of
encouraging colleagues not inclined to engage internationally to be very
challenging. “T here’s not always so much reward, but there’s a lot of
competition (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).“ In addition, some of the
faculty interviewed believe that lntemational scholarship, especially prior to
tenure, can hurt a junior faculty member’s opportunities for tenure, and in fact
may be damaging to their careers. This belief is consistent with findings from
a 1993 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
study, in which faculty were reported to perceive international engagements
as damaging to their careers (NASULGC, 1993). As Professor Sullivan
noted, “It’s not really counterproductive to tenure, but it is harder to maintain
(L. Sullivan, interview, April 23, 2003).“ That is, given the barriers to
international scholarship as discussed above, faculty who pursue this form of
scholarship as a significant part of their overall portfolio, face more challenges
and obstacles along the way to tenure. These factors make the pursuit of

tenure more difficult to maintain.

95

Personal/Family Demands

The difficulties of international scholarship, coupled with small children
and other personal responsibilities, was discussed by four faculty interviewed
in this study. In order for faculty to take extended periods abroad to
effectively participate in international scholarship, both professional and
personal factors need to align in almost perfect harmony, otherwise the
challenges seem too difficult to overcome. For example, as one female
professor observed, “I’ve been a mentor for other women. . .and they are
scrambling for tenure but they also want to have their family (8. Griffith,
interview, May 21 , 2003).” This notion was supported by Professor Sullivan
who stated, “Having a three year old is one of the biggest disincentives to
travel because he’s not quite old enough to come along (L. Sullivan,
interview, April 23, 2003).”
Institutional Roadblocks

The overall lack of school, college, or department support for
international scholarship was discussed as a constraint by three faculty
interviewed in this study. As Green (2003) notes, “If international scholarship,
teaching, and service are not recognized, or worse yet, considered a
distraction from the more ‘important’ work of faculty, this will serve as a
powerful disincentive to faculty, especially untenured faculty.” The following
quotes from faculty interviews highlight the potential impact on faculty
motivation when international scholarship is not valued within their

departments or employing institutions.

96

Professor Sullivan is critical not only of her own department at CSU,
but of the field of Education in general. “You know, I spent some time
working in a faculty role, I spent some time working for non-profit
development and frankly, there’s something about, particularly Education
schools, that are not generally very open to international scholarship and I
think this is true around the world. They tend to be focused on teaching
centered for the country that you are in (L. Sullivan, interview, April 23,
2003)." In essence, then, if your work is focused on the international realm in
the field of Education, you are working outside of the expectations and
traditions of your discipline.

For Professor Freedmont, the lack of commitment to international
scholarship was a key factor in her decision to change departments from
Music Education to Music in General Studies. She states, “...one of the
reasons I’m in this department instead of where I was is that they didn’t
acknowledge the research I was doing on international music as relevant
because it wasn't published in the music journals and didn't take the form of
their research. . .there was nothing here.at this particular setting that would
have encouraged me in that direction (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21,
2003)”

Similariy, Professor Wilkerson states, “They've never seen this as
particularly important...there’s also a certain attitude in my field (journalism)
that anybody can do lntemational research, it’s something that I’ve felt over

my whole career...there is still the attitude that you can transfer

97

methodologies and theories to anyplace you please and just set up Shop and
conduct the study and have it work (M. Wilkerson, interview, April 24, 2003).”
While faculty in general pride themselves on the benefits academic freedom
brings to their work, professional standards and practices within one’s
discipline and employing institution clearly play a role in determining the
extent to which faculty embark on intemational scholarship.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FACULTY INTERVIEWED

Finally, when faculty were asked to share their ideas and
recommendations to better encourage, promote, and facilitate international
scholarship, three themes emerged: more funding; stronger networking and
collaboration; and more resources for international education professional
expertise at the school/department level.
More Funding

Speaking for more institutional resources in support of campus
internationalization efforts, Professor Adamson declared, “If you want to go
international, you have to have the money to help people get around (R.
Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).” Of all of the suggestions offered by
faculty interviewed, the need for more funding opportunities to facilitate and
promote lntemational scholarship was the most frequently mentioned factor.
This finding is consistent with key barriers as identified by Green (2003) who
states, “Among the most prominent institutional barriers are insufficient
resources, lack of incentives, rigid disciplinary structures, and lack of

leadership. Funding for course development and for international travel and

98

work is usually in short supply—a deficit exacerbated by the marginal status
of internationalization on most campuses (Green, 2003).”

While faculty interviewed offered multiple examples of ways to fiscally
support campus internationalization efforts, the most commonly mentioned
examples included: more funding to support visiting scholars; more funding to
support international hospitality; more funding to hire research assistants to
support lntemational research; more funding for international travel grants to
support research, establish institutional linkages abroad, and attend
international conferences; more funding to attract the best graduate students
in language and area studies programs; funding to support faculty-release
time to infuse an international perspective in'existing coursework; and funding
to provide a pool of temporary instructors to cover missed class time for
faculty engaged in lntemational scholarship abroad. .

Discussing the need for temporary instructors to cover classes when
faculty need to be out of the country during the academic year, Professor
Slessenger shared the following example from the experience of a colleague.
“In order to give their professors more time overseas, they have a large pool
even at the department level of lecturers, so that when someone needed to
take off it was never a problem, never an argument, you just bring in the
lecturer to teach that course that year...because the timing issue is so great
(H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

While speaking for the need for more funding devoted to international

research travel grants, Professor Crestwell advocated for the need for a

99

simplified, less competitive process as well. “I think there is some money
available but sometimes it takes a lot of work to write up these proposals, and
compete for grants. It just seems like it would be nice if when faculty wanted
to go, they would have a research fund that they could dip into and take that
travel that they need to take (A. Crestwell, interview, April 25, 2003).” And as
Professor Sullivan noted, “In an ideal world, the institution would say this is so
important that they will buy out part of your time (L. Sullivan, interview, April
23,2003)"
Networking and Collaboration

Faculty interviewed also discussed important steps institutions can
take to better facilitate and promote networking and collaboration as a means
of helping faculty make international connections within their disciplines. For
example, CSU maintains a database of institutional affiliations by country and
institution. The purpose of this list is to help ensure that faculty are aware of
opportunities currently underway, and to promote collaboration and
cooperation among academic departments on campus. Almost every
seasoned international education professional has a story or two about being
in country x, only then to learn that a faculty member or administrator from the
institution was just there the day before. Providing a centralized database of
international connections not only alleviates embarrassing situations like the
example above, but also promotes these opportunities among interested

faculty.

100

For the average faculty member not currently engaged internationally
though, this database is relatively meaningless from the perspective of
several faculty interviewed. As Professor Slessenger noted, “I’m sure that
when faculty see this list of countries, or essentially, universities overseas,
there’s still a big obstacle (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”
Professor Crestwell suggests, “. . .trying to connect them with something in
terms of their own research or teaching interests (A. Crestwell, interview, April
25, 2003).” In other words, such databases need to also include brief
descriptions about specific projects underway, as well as specific
opportunities available for others by discipline. And opposed to simply
making the database available to those who request it, or happen to stumble
across it on a website, these faculty recommend that staff in lntemational
Programs use the information to promote specific opportunities at the
department level. Administrators responsible for international activities are
expected to constantly coordinate the flow of information on international
topics (Stone, 1995).

Connecting visiting scholars to the resources of the institution, as well
as to faculty, staff, and students was noted by several faculty interviewed as a
means of facilitating international scholarship. Many faculty interviewed
regularly host visiting scholars from abroad, but struggle with ways to
integrate them into the campus. The lack of resources to provide hospitality
makes even the planning of a simple welcome reception a major challenge.

Many faculty provide food and beverage from their personal funds for such

101

events, or simply choose to do nothing at all due to the lack of institutional
support. “The social part of events is really important. It is just appalling that
we don't have something better for these people here (R. Adamson,
interview, April 15, 2003)."

When the international resources of institutions are minimal, two
faculty interviewed recommended looking to the greater community for
opportunities to make international connections. “lntemational groceries and
restaurants or Indian doctors or whoever that happens to be in your
community can be used to maximize the international connections (M.
Wilkerson, interview, April 24, 2003).“

lntemational Education Professional Expertise at School/Department
Level

Having benefited from the knowledge and expertise of staff in the
Office of lntemational Programs at CSU, two faculty discussed the desire for
dedicated professional staff resources at the school/college and/or
department level to work alongside faculty in the facilitation of lntemational
scholarship. Support at this level from lntemational education professionals,
perhaps who maintain a dual reporting to the Dean of lntemational Programs,
and the Dean of the School of College, would help facilitate and support
department specific goals and objectives for internationalization. Especially
for large institutions, with highly decentralized systems and structures, these
individuals would serve in similar capacities to human resource professionals,
business professionals, student affairs professional and others who work

within a school, college, or department.

102

Summary

This study utilized the qualitative comparative case study design and
an interpretive interview method to explore when, how, and why faculty
engaged in lntemational scholarship became so engaged. The study also
explored with faculty committed to international scholarship factors that
facilitate and support their efforts, as well as those that constrain this form of
scholarship. Finally, faculty offered recommendations to assist colleges and
universities interested in facilitation and promoting international scholarship
among the faculty.

The first key question sought to explore when faculty engaged in
international scholarship began pursuing this particular facet of the faculty
role. Data from faculty interviews revealed that the majority of faculty brought
the commitment to lntemational scholarship with them to the faculty role.
Their involvement in international scholarship was primarily a result of their
internal make-up and life experiences prior to the faculty role.

The second key question in this study sought to explore how faculty
actively engaged in international scholarship became so engaged. Seven
major themes were found to be factors that contributed to the process of
faculty pursuing international scholarship, including childhood influences,
undergraduate opportunities, graduate school education and training, adult
living and working abroad experiences, mentors and advisors, and adult

intellectual development.

103

The third key question explored in this study sought to better
understand why faculty became involved in international scholarship. In
terms of factors that motivate faculty to sustain their involvement in
lntemational scholarship, four themes emerged including the internal make-up
of the individual, intrinsic rewards, extrinsic rewards, and external factors.

The fourth key question in this study sought to explore factors that
contribute to faculty involvement in international scholarship. Five themes
emerged as faculty reflected on factors that facilitate, encourage, and/or
promote involvement in international scholarship, including an institutional
ethos ofintemationalization, a diverse array of foreign students and Scholars,
like-minded colleagues, strong study abroad and institutional exchange
programs, and supportive spouses.

The final key question in this study sought to explore factors that
constrain faculty involvement in international scholarship. In terms of
constraints to engagement in international scholarship, three major themes
emerged including the faculty role as currently defined, personal/family
demands, and institutional roadblocks.

Finally, in order to better encourage, promote, and facilitate faculty
involvement in international scholarship, faculty recommend more funding,
stronger networking and collaboration, and more resources for lntemational
education professionals at the school/department level.

As a means of providing a richer description and analysis of the above

findings, the life stories of three of the faculty interviewed in this study will be

104

presented in the form of brief portraits in Chapter 6. The life story portraits of
these faculty will help illuminate many of the major themes and patterns that
emerged from faculty interviews, and offer additional insights into they key
questions as explored in this study.

Professor Harold Slessenger’s story offers insights into the life of an
individual who brought the commitment to international scholarship with him
to the faculty role. The life story portrait of Professor Ruth Adamson offers
insights into the role an institution can play in encouraging and promoting
international scholarship. Finally, Professor Evelyn Freedmont’s portrait
offers insight into the role that an individual’s personal and intellectual

development plays in initiating engagement in international scholarship.

105

Chapter 6: Three Faculty Portraits

This study utilized the qualitative comparative case study design and
an interpretive interview method to explore when, how, and why faculty
engaged in international scholarship at Central State University became so
engaged. The study also explored with faculty committed to international
scholarship factors that facilitate and support their efforts, as well as those
that constrain this form of scholarship. Finally, faculty offered
recommendations to assist colleges and universities interested in facilitating
and promoting lntemational scholarship among the faculty. Summary findings
from the interviews of seven faculty are presented in Chapter 5 above.

As a means of providing a richer description and analysis of the
summary findings as presented in Chapter 5, this chapter provides life story
portraits of three of the faculty interviewed. The following three faculty were
chosen for a number of reasons. First, I was interested in offering a variety of
experiences with international scholarship in regards to discipline, gender,
and time spent in the faculty role. Second, they are amazingly gifted
scholars, with an incredible passion and enthusiasm for their work in
international scholarship. Perhaps as a result of their passion, they were
happy to give me additional time and information in order to tell their stories.

Each brief portrait helps illuminate many of the major themes and
patterns that emerged from faculty interviews, and offers additional insights

into the key questions as explored in this study. Professor Harold

106

Slessenger‘s portrait offers insights into the life of an individual who brought
the commitment to international scholarship with him to the faculty role. The
life story portrait of Professor Ruth Adamson offers insights into the role an
institution can play in encouraging and promoting international scholarship.
And finally, Professor Evelyn Freedmont’s portrait offers insight into the role
that an individual’s personal and intellectual development plays in initiating
engagement in international scholarship.
HAROLD SLESSENGER
“I wanted a job where I could travel a lot and do lots of different things as
opposed to making money to then do what you want (H. Slessenger,
interview, April 29, 2003).”

Growing up in a home where both of your parents are teachers has its
advantages—and perhaps, some disadvantages as well. For Harold
Slessenger, the three months mom and dad had off during the summer
afforded wonderful opportunities for travel, both domestically and
intemationally—a significant factor in the development of his world view and
professional aspirations. As will be further explored in this chapter, Professor
Slessenger traces his interest in international scholarship back to childhood
travel experiences.

As a biologist, Slessenger’s father had quite a bit of field experience in
Ecology and Ecosystems, and enjoyed commingling this experience with local
level agricultural issues. His mom, an elementary teacher, particularly

enjoyed the leisure travel affords. In addition to multiple trips to rural areas

within the United States during hisformative years, at age thirteen Slessenger

107

made his first trip to Mexico, and from that point on, he has been outside of
the United States at least once per year.

As an undergraduate college student majoring in Ecology, Slessenger
followed in his father’s footsteps and worked as an intern responsible for
taking watershed gauging station readings to monitor groundwater flow and
reservoir conditions in Idaho; as a field course participant in Guatemala,
assisting in the acquisition of field data on bat diversity, foraging habits, and
community structure; as a biological assistant in the development of
management techniques for the utilization of a hybrid species of Asian grass
carp as an economically effective and environmentally acceptable method of
aquatic vegetation control in impounded waters; and as a laboratory
technician responsible for dissection and taxonomic preparation of mammal
specimens. During his junior year, Slessenger received a scholarship to
participate in a foreign study program at the Universidad de Costa Rica. He
conducted individual research with the Department of Biology at the
Universidad de Costa Rica on the environmental impact of harbor facilities on
a mangrove ecosystem. As a young man, Slessenger had already combined
his interest in Ecology with interesting forms of lntemational scholarship.

‘ During the first year of his Master's program, Slessenger served as a
research assistant concerning Agro forestry in the Northeast Peruvian
Amazon to assess the process of abandonment of swiddens and the
management of fallow plants as supplementary sources of food, cash,

firewood, building materials, medicines and fibers. Second year Master’s

108

study afforded him the opportunity to serve as a project assistant as part of a
research group investigating the importance of air pollution in residential
homes. .

Following completion of his Master’s degree, Slessenger served briefly
as a consultant for the preparation of a Land Tenure Center project in
Somalia and also as a consultant assisting a rural development firm with
background research, contacts, and writing of technical material in connection
with the preparation of a proposal to the United States Agency for
lntemational Development (USAID) for an irrigation improvement project in
Somalia. He then served for approximately two and one-half years as an in-
country project manager and research specialist for a USAID project in
Somalia. Slessenger then returned to the United States to assume a
research assistant position as part of a group responsible for research into
land use and land cover change in Massachusetts.

During doctoral studies, Slessenger served as a research associate
assisting in the analysis of remotely sensed video data of Malawi to conduct
environmental assessments, and analyzed land use and vegetative change
over time in southern Arizona. He then spent two years as a project manager
and associate researcher on a major USAID grant in Mozambique on land
tenure issues. He used this experience for his dissertation. Finally, he spent
a semester as a teaching assistant responsible for the upper division course

at his institution on Environmental and Resource Geography.

109

Upon completion of his Ph.D. in 1997, Slessenger spent just over a
year as part of a university group put together to review, evaluate, and
research various methodologies for conducting food security work in Ethiopia.
He then served for. several months as an Instructor, then as a Postdoctoral
Fellow before joining the faculty ranks in January of 2000. As he states, “It
wasn’t a straight evolution to a faculty position (H. Slessenger, interview, April
29, 2003).“ Yet, his path to the professoriate represents an impressive
combination of education and experience in the international milieu.

Now an Associate Professor in the Department of Geography at
Central State University, Slessenger has over twenty years experience in
designing and implementing development and research projects on land
tenure, food security, natural resources and agriculture in Latin America,
Africa and the Middle East. Slessenger holds a Ph.D. in Geography and
Regional Development, an MS. in Environmental Studies — Land Resources,
and a BA in Environmental Studies. Slessenger is an Adjunct Faculty
member in the Center for Latin American Studies, as well as an Adjunct
Faculty member for the Area Studies Program at Central State University. He
is an Executive Board Member of the Area Studies Program, and serves as
chair of the programs' technology committee.

Slessenger has also served as a consultant to a USAID project in East
Timor, and is the recipient of two major sponsored research grants. The first
was a USAID grant for $600,000 to study economic growth and resource

security. The second is a National Science Foundation grant for $200,000 to

110

study migration and environmental change in a Zambian frontier. He is the
author of more than 30 refereed articles, four book reviews, and has
presented 30 papers at professional conferences around the world. He is a
member of the Association of American Geographers, and is active in the
following specialty groups: Africa, Cultural Ecology, and Human Dimensions
of Global Change. Slessenger is also a member of the lntemational
Geographical Union, the African Studies AssOciation, the International
Association for the Study of Common Property, the Academic Council on the
United Nations System, the American Council of the United Nations
University, and the American Association of University Professors. He is
fluent in Spanish, and has language facility in Portuguese.

Slessenger entered graduate school with an interest in research and
teaching world development problems from an international perspective. As
noted above, he traces this interest to, “...local travel and seeing some of the
different cultures (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).” People, places,
and practices different from those of the Slessenger family were “seen and
promoted“ as “interesting and exciting and exotic (H. Slessenger, interview,
April 29, 2003)” by his parents. This enthusiasm for learning about the world,
commingled with his interest in ecological systems resulted in his interest in
looking at problems in the developing worid with the realization that the notion
of development is viewed differently depending on an individual’s perspective.

As Slessenger states, “. . .it was that sort of interest in seeing the different

111

 

ways of doing agriculture. . .from the Amazon to the Ivory Coast of Africa (H.
Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

Intrigued by the notion of perspective, Slessenger recalls being
interested at a relatively young age in the way in which his parents viewed
land as compared with his grandparents. As German immigrant farmers, he
states, his grandparents:

“...had this perspective that the land is something to be conquered and
you shew the animals off it and try to grow wheat crop in central Kansas
where they lived with a large colony of similar immigrants. Their perspective
means you never really engage rural areas in fun. Whereas, just one
generation away, my father and mother have a very different perspective—like
we go camping, and fishing and all these things that my grandparents would
flee from and go to the city for fun. That sort of odd change I found
interesting (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

Initially during graduate school his interests were in Latin America, in
advancing his Spanish language skills, and looking at development issues
within the region. “I’d been living in Costa Rica and went back to graduate
school for the purpose of getting a degree for an international career in some
way (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).” These interests were
encouraged and promoted by a faculty member at Slessenger’s graduate
institution who involved him in a project in Peru. Graduate studies also
helped him expand his interest to looking at different people, systems, and
livelihoods beyond Latin America to Africa. “Graduate school allows you to
sort of expand on that and look at where else in the wor1d are similar issues at

play...so, where do the things in Latin America occur elsewhere (H.

Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003)?”

112

5.;

Drawn to Central State University by the quality of the institution and in
particular, the strength of the Area Studies Program, Slessenger was hired by
the Geography Department with the understanding that he would have a
focus in a major world region. “I came into the Geography Department with
the understanding that I would have a focus there and I very much needed

the Area Studies Program that Central State University has; it is well-known,

7".

that's part of what drew me here (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

He typically teaches courses on political ecology, rural development,

I” 2“
,.

environmental change, and climate change, using examples from where he
has lived and worked. Slessenger is actively involved in mentoring
international students, and leads research in a major world region for a
multidisciplinary research center on campus. This summer he heads
overseas with three students to study environmental change. Slessenger is
also involved in helping to establish exchange agreements with foreign
institutions within the Department of Geography.

Slessenger distinguishes himself from many of his faculty colleagues
as follows. “They're not really well traveled, or even if there’s a particular
view of the world as outside, it’s dirty and it’s strange food and all those things
can be seen as resistant or can be seen and presented as exciting, alluring,
colorful, and interesting (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003)." From
Slessenger‘s perspective, presenting the world to today's college student is
most effective when it is presented as exciting, alluring, and colorful. He

models for his students the world view presented to him as a child.

113

Slessenger believes he has played an important role within his
department over the past three years in helping to educate colleagues
concerning the unique interests, needs, and concerns of international
students. He states, “...the reality of having an international student come on
board and load them up the first semester with things that you could load up
an American with like heavy statistics and calculations and 15 credit
semesters is just overwhelming...with international students you have to ease
them into it. So, there’s some education on my part within the department
which seems to me that the lntemational perspective hasn't been high (H.
Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

Yet, the Geography Department has been particularly supportive of
Slessenger’s desire to spend time in the field, which for him, typically means
in another country. He has been given permission to teach second 8 week
courses (while CSU is on a semester system, some departments offer
intensive eight week courses during the sixteen week semester), allowing an
opportunity for lntemational research during the first 8 weeks of the term. He
also credits the Dean for lntemational Programs, “...it’s good to have that
strong voice that’s backing you up. So, if you’ve got this strong idea from
outside (the department) that says, “this is valuable,” that has a lot of clout (H.
Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”

The motivation for Slessenger to continue pursuits in international
scholarship comes in, “...belonging to a bigger picture...the topics you

engage in overseas are global level issues...for me it’s the environmental

114

change, agricultural development...with these issues in mind you have a
large profile to lntemational trends (H. Slessenger, interview, April 29, 2003).”
In summary, as one of five faculty interviewed in this study who

brought the commitment to international scholarship with them to the faculty
role, Professor Slessenger's story reflects the powerful force family
background and childhood play in the lives of the majority of faculty
interviewed. More than anything else, early childhood experiences put these.
faculty on the path towards active engagement in international scholarship.

- Slessenger's initial interests were then further enhanced and facilitated during
undergraduate and graduate school education and experiences, which helped
propel his research interests beyond Latin America. Slessenger’s story also
reveals the importance of institutional strategies and structures that serve to
facilitate and promote campus internationalization efforts, referred to in this
study as an ethos of internationalization on campus. The support gained from
Professor Slessenger’s home department, although many of his colleagues
are not engaged internationally, is crucial to his ongoing scholarly pursuits.
Central State University benefits from Slessenger's commitment to
international scholarship, and he in turn benefits from the international
strengths of the institution as a whole, and the support he engenders from his

employing department.

115

RUTH ADAMSON

“I wanted to be in the United Nations. That was my goal for a long,
long time (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).”

Growing up in the 1950’s on a ranch in Texas meant that people from
all over the world would regularly visit, “...so they could see a ranch and ride
a horse” recalls Ruth Adamson (R. Adamson, interview, April 15,2003).
Adamson believes this experience helped shape her worldview in significant
ways as early on in her development she felt as though she and her family
' were exotic. “I had experiences where Americans would say, ‘wow, how did
you ever get an education?’ (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).”
Opportunities to learn about other countries and cultures in the Mexican
church she attended as a child also played a key role in her interest about the
world. “It was sort of like, ‘okay, now we’re going to talk about China, now
we’re going to talk about Japan, and India and Africa’ (R. Adamson, interview,
April 15, 2003).”

At age 13, Ruth went to New York with family friends who had moved
to the “big city” and returned to the small Texas town they once called home
for a summer visit. They offered to take Ruth back with them to New York for
a couple of weeks, and promised to show her the sights. After spending a
couple of weeks in New York and Washington, DC, Ruth began dreaming
about someday working at theUnited Nations. She recalls, “...I went to the
UN. and that was it. I wanted to be in the UN. That was my goal for a long,

long time (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).”

116

’ ~

rr

Adamson stayed connected to her international interests in high school
and college by spending a summer studying Spanish in Mexico, and traveling
to the country numerous times during her high school days. During
undergraduate studies, she went to Russia and traveled throughout Europe
as part of a trip for credit organized by a History professor. These
experiences had, “...a very profound impact (R. Adamson, interview, April 15,
2003)” on Ruth, but apparently not enough to sway her from the pressures
faced by many young women during the 1950’s. Like most of her educated
female friends, Ruth got married, and began teaching.

After several years of teaching and a divorce, Ruth decided to pursue
her lntemational interests and return to graduate school. “When I entered
graduate school, I was going to fulfill all of my dreams...l finally said, “okay,
enough. I’m going to do what I want to do now.’ I definitely wanted to work
intemationally...l went into Anthropology with a concentration in Folklore, and
I had every intention of working in another culture and working internationally
but I didn’t have a clue as to just how that would play out (R. Adamson,
interview, April 15, 2003).” And it didn't play out for a very long time.

Not only did Ruth not know where or how she would engage
internationally, she also had a number of obstacles to confront and overcome.
The first were of a practical nature. She recalls, “...I had in mind working in
another culture but I tried not to from the beginning partly because I had small
children, partly because of funding (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).”

The second were philosophical. She states, “. . .also because of

117

 

ideology...and I think that might have been the strongest reason actually,
because I really did feel strongly that I would be more comfortable working
with another culture if I had looked at my own...l really did believe in studying
other societies, but I actually really do think that if you only look at another
culture and you’ve never looked at your own, even a piece of your own, then I
think that it is very likely that you might take that stance with you where you
are seeing people as an ‘other’ (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003)."

Ruth believes her thinking in this regard was supported by the
underpinnings of her discipline, but she states, “I don’t think it came from my
training. I think I brought it with me...but it was still the case that
anthropology was done somewhere else and folklore could be someplace
else and it was also in your own culture (R. Adamson,” interview, April 15,
2003).” Perhaps Ruth brought this commitment with her from childhood as
she was never quite comfortable being viewed by others as “exotic.” Or
perhaps the tensions between Anthropology and Folklore were influencing
her direction in ways she is not comfortable recognizing.

Adamson completed a Ph.D. in Anthropology (Folklore) in 1979, and
assumed a position as lecturer at a major university for the next three years.
She was then promoted to an Assistant Professor, and remained in this role
for four years prior to accepting an Associate Professor position at Central
State University in 1986. She currently serves as Associate Professor in the
Department of Anthropology, and holds a joint appointment in the Department

of Folklore and Ethnomusicology, serves as a faculty member in the Area

118

Studies Program, the American Studies Program, and as an Adjunct
Professor in the Russian East European Institute.

Ruth has received numerous honors and awards, including two CSU
President’s Council on lntemational Programs grants for foreign travel, a
Fulbright Research Scholar grant in Ghana, and a United States Information
Agency Linkage Grant also in Ghana. She is the author of one book, and co-
editor of another. Adamson has contributed seventeen chapters to other
texts, has 32 articles in journals and reference works, has done 9 reviews,
two movies, delivered 38 papers at scholarly meetings, and has been invited
to give 64 lectures and scholarly presentations. Adamson has membership in
numerous professional organizations, including the American Anthropological
Association (AAA), the Africanist Section of the AAA, the Association for
Feminist Anthropology, Political and Legal Anthropology, American Folklore
Society, African Studies Association (ASA), the Women’s Caucus of the ASA,
Western History Association, and Law and Society. She has an impressive
record of professional service, university service, and service to professional
organizations.

Adamson spent seven years studying her own culture in the form of
frontier women, cowboys and clowns, Texas traditions and festival queens
before thinking again seriously about lntemational scholarship. While she
doesn’t make reference to the role played by her employing institution in this
regard, one wonders whether the change in educational institutions helped

facilitate the rekindling of the international spark that emerged in early

119

childhood. Moving from an employing institution in Texas not necessarily
known for excellence in international scholarship, to an institution with a
strong global presence likely had an influence. As Blackburn and Lawrence
(1995) note, characteristics of individuals and their employing institution
combine and lead to variations in faculty motivation, behavior, and
productivity. ‘When I came here (to CSU) I felt like I was really ready to work
in a different culture and if I didn’t do it soon I wasn’t going to do it because it
was time to make that switch. . .I think for me it was just sort of a lifelong
projectory moving piece by piece until I got all the pieces together rather than
it being from one event (R. Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003).“

The international scope of Central State University was appealing to
Adamson, who began regularly attending internationally focused workshops,
seminars, and lectures offered by various departments. In addition, relatively
large numbers of intematibnal students and visiting scholars on campus
meant that her exposure to her continent of specialization in lntemational
scholarship began to grow. At a lecture Adamson was giving on festival
queens, she met an engaging scholar who encouraged her to study festival
queens in his home country. She recalls, ...I met someone who actually
heard me give a talk on festival queens and said, ‘you know, you really should
go and study festival queens there’, and of course, that was like, ‘yes, you’re
right, that is exactly what I want to do’ (R. Adamson, interview, April 15,
2003)”

120

After doing some initial research, Adamson connected with the Director
of the Area Studies Program, and found additional support and
encouragement. She was directed towards a foreign study travel grant
offered by the President’s office. “It was all these pieces here coming
together that led me to going ahead with it and also to be successful (R.
Adamson, interview, April 15, 2003)," she recalls. Professor Adamson got the
grant, and ever since has been deeply engaged in lntemational scholarship.

As was the case for Professor Slessenger, Professor Adamson's
interest in lntemational scholarship can perhaps best be traced back to family
upbringing and childhood experiences. Living in a diverse community,
regularly having visitors in her home, and the opportunity to visit the United
Nations at an early age lit the spark for Adamson. Professor Adamson also
continued to pursue her lntemational interests throughout young adulthood,
until she married after college and began teaching. Upon completion of
graduate school, she encountered obstacles that prevented her engagement
internationally, both personal and philosophical. Making a change in
employing institutions then played a key role in her re-engagement
internationally upon meeting a visiting scholar at CSU, and then quickly
connecting with the wealth of lntemational resources and expertise at CSU.
While Professor Adamson’s upbringing positioned her well for international
scholarship in the faculty role, had she not changed employing institutions,

she may not have ever pursued this facet of the faculty role.

121

EVELYN FREEDMONT
“I began to realize that multi-cultural wasn’t something you just did, but it was
something you had to commit to for the reasons of making a better world and
helping people understand each other (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21,
2003)”

Born in 1860, Evelyn Freedmont’s grandfather insisted that his African-
American helper was not a slave, but someone who worked for him, and ate
at the table with his family. “So I think we were brought up with an attitude
.toward diversity, certainly there were patterns that you couldn’t avoid just
because you grew up in a certain time and place, but I think there was
something early on that was always present (E. Freedmont, interview, April
21, 2003).“ Today, an innovative music educator committed to children’s
singing, teacher education, and multicultural music, Freedmont thrives on
seeing her students open up to the value of non-westem forms of music. Her
multicultural music education program incorporates the latest technology, and
new methods for contributing to cultural understanding through music.

Freedmont completed a Bachelor of Music in Voice in 1965. During
her undergraduate program, she studied at the Mozarteum in Salzburg,
Austria. During graduate study, she served as an Associate Instructor in the
Multiple Arts Program and Music Methods for Classroom Teachers at a major
university. She then spent 13 years as an Elementary Vocal Music Specialist
in a large Midwestern school system. In 1977, she accepted a part-time

Assistant Professor of Music position in the Music Education Department of a

major university. In 1983, Freedmont changed employing institutions and

122

assumed the position of Associate Instructor. Shortly thereafter, she returned
to her previous institution in 1984 as Professor of Music. In 1996 Freedmont
changed departments, and began serving as Chair of the Music in General
Studies Department and Professor of Music. She completed a Master of
Music Education degree in 1971 , and obtained a Ph.D. in Music Education in
1985.

Freedmont is the recipient of a number of honors and distinctions. In

1999, she received acclaim as the state’s most outstanding musician from the .

Music Educators Association. In 1991, she received the President’s award
for distinguished teaching at Central State University. She is a member of a
number of professional organizations, including the Music Educators National
Conference, the Organization of American Kodaly, the American Choral
Directors Association, the lntemational Society for Music Education, the
lntemational Kodaly Society, and the Society for Ethnomusicology.

Freedmont is the creator of an interactive multimedia approach to
teaching global music. Her product features native musical models presented
in context with pronunciation, movements, translations and extensive cultural
information. Four volumes are currently available, featuring music from South
Africa, Hungary, and Japan. Two are in process, from Azerbaijan, and New
Zealand. ‘

She is also founder of Central State University's School of Music
lntemational Vocal Ensemble which specializes in vocal music from diverse

cultures. The ensemble has been awarded numerous grants to support

123

.t‘ 3‘)“. In
I

 

bringing artists to campus, interactive links with artists in remote places, and
teacher workshops to disseminate an interactive model of presentation.
Freedmont is also co-founder and co-chair of a bi-annual conference for
teachers of elementary music methods. The first conference was held in
1991 .

Freedmont has twenty-one commissions for numerous honor choirs,
festivals and local children’s choirs. She has numerous arrangements and
compositions, including three collections of classroom arrangements. She is
also the author of a number of research articles, invited articles, conference
proceedings, book'chapters, and papers for various publications on children’s
singing voices, children’s choirs and multicultural music education.

While working on a music text series for grades kindergarten to six in
the early 1990’s, Freemont recalls struggling with the appropriateness of the
material given the diversity in today‘s elementary school. These reflections,
which challenged her educational background and training to its very core,
resulted in a transformative change in the way in which she viewed her role
as a faculty member. She described the initial impetus for involvement in
international scholarship as follows:

There’s something in the news every day, but I don’t think there was a
major event that sparked my involvement...it was more of a gradual evolution
of thought. I just really couldn’t listen to the news for awhile. I still don’t really
want to hear about it. I’m ovenivhelmed by the hatred and the acts of violence
on the basis of nothing more than race and sometimes religious
differences. . .and I looked at the way we were teaching and I thought, we’re

not doing anything to help the situation (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21,
2003)

124

 

Almost akin to an awakening, Freedmont recalls feeling, “...that what
we were doing wasn’t really appropriate for all children of every nationality in
the United States because we have a totally geocentric approach to teaching
music and it hasn’t changed (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).“ She
goes on to state that she,

“...began the process of realizing that the way music from many
cultures is done strips us from any knowledge of the culture. There’s no
attendance to knowing about the people. A picture on the page is the extent
of what you might get. The song has been sifted through western notation,
tuned to our scales, and set to our vocal techniques. All aspects of the style
are gone. Everything Is familiar to us. Even the language has been
translated into the closest English equivalent, which doesn’ t even cut it with
German, let alone an African click. So I became a leader and a
spokesperson for this In the process of writing the book (E. Freedmont,
interview, April 21, 2003).”

As Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) indicate, “Motivation to perform a
task varies in relation to the meaning it has for an individual. Meaning is
determined by a person’s sense of self and by personal incentives that evolve
and change over time as a result of social Ieaming.”

Having completed the text of which she is extremely proud, Freedmont
then began to look closely at her home department and was dismayed at the
level of ethnocentrism among her colleagues. She states, “I became very ‘
sensitized to some of these issues and I came back to my institution—and I
don’t think there’s a more Eurocentrlc program in the United States than the
one I’m a part of (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).” So, Freedmont

grappled with how to incorporate this new passion within an othenrvise

unsupportive environment.

125

"Fl—"q

1‘..me

She woke up in the middle of the night with an idea. Every music
student at CSU is required to take a 2 credit hour ensemble course which
meets five hours per week. Freedmont contemplated the notion of creating
an ensemble that would perform music from outside of the western tradition
and in doing so would find a way that would teach students about culture,
and, “...honor the practices of people that are not European (E. Freedmont,
interview, April 21, 2003).“ Still somewhat surprised that her proposal to
begin such an ensemble was approved, she recalls, “Magically, I made it
through the red tape and became director of the ensemble...here I am in the
Education Department taking over a music ensemble that was a major
ensemble, but it worked (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).” Professor
Freedmont further described the development of her engagement in
lntemational scholarship as follows:

The model I wanted to use was not notation. The music was not
notated in the culture, so we would not sing from notation. That required that
I either have live artists to teach the music or I have video materials to teach
the music. What I started to do, wherever I went—I lucked out because I was
invited at that time to teach in Australia and I was presenting at a conference
and there was a choir from South Africa there and they allowed me to
videotape and they shared a lot of materials with me. So, I was able to
develop a different method, an oral method using technology to present the
music and I discovered so many things about leaming and different ways of
teaming music particularly. But also about teaching when you do an oral
approach and I began to wake up to the incredible resources around me here
at CSU and I actually applied for a directives grant which was an initiative that
had come from the Chancellor and got two years funded to travel and to bring
an artist here for a year. He was able to finish a degree in Ethnomusicology
and return back to Zimbabwe (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).

Upon reflection, Freedmont is clearly driven to pursue international

scholarship for intrinsic reasons. She displayed a tremendous sense of

126

dedication and commitment to her students, and spoke passionately about
the role she has played in helping to open up the world of music to them. She
stated, “I really did it with music education students in mind because I just
could not fathom that they would go out into this country and teach and not
have any notion of foreign music, and carry with them the bias that music
schools give their students (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).” In
addition to leaming about various forms of music around the world, Professor
Freedmont gives her students much more in the form of a better
understanding of the world’s countries, cultures, and people.

In her words, Professor Freedmont views role as one of a cultural
educator. She states, “I now say I’m not a music educator anymore, I’m a
cultural educator and I use music to help people understand one another (E.
Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).” She goes on to state:

I think it’s critically important for us to transform the teachers and
students point of view about all kinds of things. We were singing music from
Islam last semester because I wanted them to have some ideas. When they
talk to somebody, let’s not just assume, make assumptions about people
because they are Islamic. There was such a turn back to patriotism, I don’t
think it’s something we need more of and I don’t think we recognize how
closed we are. In some of the other areas we talk to there ismore of a global
view. They are willing to say, ‘okay, I see your point’ (E. Freedmont,
interview, April 21, 2003).

Reflecting upon the importance of support within a faculty member's
home department for involvement in international scholarship, Professor
Freedmont stated, “...one of the reasonsl’m in this department instead of

where l was is that they didn’t acknowledge the research I was doing on

international music as relevant because it wasn’t published in music journals

127

and didn‘t take the form of their research and so it wasn’t relevant. . .the
administration (academic) and their attitude is, ‘well, that’s not quality’ (E.
Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).” Fortunately, for Professor F reedmont,
she was able to change departments and retain her commitment to
international scholarship. For faculty not fortunate to be able to make such a
switch, norms and expectations among one‘s colleagues will likely play a
powerful role in determining whether the interest remains. As Professor
Freedmont stated:

There was nothing here at this particular setting (within her
department) that would have encouraged me in that direction (international
scholarship). I had to fight for two years on a committee to get the revised
core to include one three hour course that was in any music or art outside
western art tradition, and the chair had to break the tie. And it has never
been put into place. I speak out. I think they're racist in their views. But I
think they drove me there. There was nothing here that would have led me
(E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).

Even though Professor Freedmont has been able to pursue her
interests in international scholarship by changing departments, it is clear that
she continues this work with little to no support from her colleagues. And she
works very hard to not make waves. She stated, “I put myself kind of in the
ghetto where I can carry on without competing. I take the dregs of the singers
because they (her colleagues who run other ensembles) want all of the great
singers. I don’t want them. So, I’ve kind of found my way of operating
without hitting impediments (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).”

But for Professor Freedmont, the efforts are worth it. “I’m on one of the

most exciting journeys anyone could be on because I encounter people, I go

places, I make connections, I get to go and be part of music making. I don’t

128

teach, I facilitate the teaming of my students and put them in touch with
people or materials to broaden them and so I’m leaming. It’s an opportunity
for me to learn (E. Freedmont, interview, April 21, 2003).”

Professor Freedmont’s commitment to international scholarship then
ties most directly to her own personal growth and intellectual development, as
opposed to family upbringing and childhood experiences. While Freedmont
> spoke of certain family influences, and in particular her grandfather's

approach to his slave, these influences were much less direct than in the

previous two cases as presented above. Despite great odds, Professor
Freedmont has pursued her passion, driven by the belief that she must do
something to make the world a better place. While she has received little to
no support from her colleagues, she has benefited tremendously from the
encouragement and support she has received from the lntemational

resources of CSU.

129

Chapter 7: Conclusion
This study utilized the qualitative comparative case study design and
an interpretive interview method to explore when, how, and why faculty
engaged in international scholarship became so engaged. The study also
explored with faculty committed to international scholarship factors that
facilitate and support their efforts, as well as those that constrain this form of
scholarship. Finally, faculty offered recommendations to assist colleges and

universities interested in facilitating and promoting lntemational scholarship

among their colleagues.
When

The first key question sought to explore when faculty engaged in
international scholarship began pursuing this particular facet of the faculty
role. As Tenant (1997) indicates, most theories of adult development either
explain learning and development in terms of the internal make-up of the
person or the external forces impinging on the person. Data from faculty
interviews revealed that the majority of faculty brought the commitment to
international scholarship with them to the faculty role. Their involvement in
international scholarship was primarily a result of their intemal make-up and
life experiences prior to the faculty role. This finding suggests that
institutional attempts to promote lntemational scholarship among faculty not
currently active in this domain of scholarship may prove difficult. Specific
administrative strategies designed to initiate faculty involvement in

lntemational scholarship were not identified by faculty interviewed as the

130

 

impetus for their involvement. Yet, as the stories of three faculty profiles
reflect, and data from the other faculty interviewed support, institutional efforts
play a key role in facilitating and supporting the efforts of faculty already
inclined to pursue international scholarship. For one faculty member
interviewed, the institutional culture of internationalization helped rekindle an
enthusiasm for international scholarship that lay dormant for many years.
These findings support a premise postulated by Johnston and Edelstein
(1993) who note that, curricula and disciplines can only be changed by the
faculty, and they must have strong international interests and appropriate
support in order to do so. In other words, faculty bring the interest, and
institutions provide the support.
How

The second key question in this study soughtto explore how faculty
actively engaged in international scholarship became so engaged. Data
gleaned from faculty interviews pertaining to this question suggest areas
where administrative intervention in terms of support provided for faculty
engagement in international scholarship may have the greatest impact. In
addition, this study has contributed to our understanding of the key processes
and components. of internationalization outside of the control of the
administration that have contributed to faculty involvement in international
scholarship.

Seven major themes were found to be factors that contributed to the

process of faculty pursuing lntemational scholarship. Of these, two were

131

found to be outside of the control of university administration, including
childhood influences, and adult living and working abroad experiences. While
factors within the control of the administration were not found to be the
impetus for faculty engagement in international scholarship, nonetheless,
these variables contributed to faculty engagement, and suggest potential
areas of influence for administrators interested in further promoting faculty
involvement in lntemational scholarship. These include undergraduate
opportunities, graduate school education and training, adult living and working
abroad experiences, mentors and advisors, and adult intellectual
development. While undergraduate opportunities and graduate school
education and training reflect areas of long-term investment in terms of
building future lntemational scholars, it should be encouraging to those
administrators pushing for expanded study abroad opportunities and an
lntemationalization of the curriculum, to note the role these factors played in
the lives of the faculty interviewed in this study. New and creative ways are
needed to fund and support opportunities for faculty to live and work abroad,
to connect faculty committed to international scholarship with junior faculty to
serve as advisors and mentors, and to promote opportunities to facilitate the
ongoing personal and intellectual development of faculty in this domain. This
can perhaps best be accomplished through special speakers, workshops and

seminars with an lntemational focus.

132

fi

Why

The third key question explored in this study sought to better
understand why faculty became involved in international scholarship. Four
themes emerged including the internal make-up of the individual, intrinsic
rewards, extrinsic rewards, and external factors. Many of the faculty

interviewed found a great deal of encouragement and motivation to pursue

ctr-q ‘V

international scholarship and teaching from intrinsic rewards. This finding

WWI)!

suggests that rather simple, low cost efforts on the part of university
administrators will go a long way towards encouraging and supporting these
efforts. For example, annual awards for international faculty scholarship,
receptions to recognize visiting scholars and their on-campus faculty hosts,
publishing profiles of faculty work abroad in departmental newsletters, and the
like. While faculty interviewed did not find much motivation from external
rewards, they spoke in unison about the need for stronger fiscal support from
the institution to encourage and support broader faculty involvement. For
faculty not inclined to be involved in lntemational scholarship due to their
internal make-up, external rewards may be the most effective means of
initiating their involvement. As scholars note, given the disincentives to
incorporating lntemational perspectives, institutional policies including hiring,
promotion, tenure, and curriculum must be revised (Johnston 8 Edelstein,
1993; Aigner, Stimpfl and Nelson, 1992). “Career rewards, hiring, and

financial/administrative support are absolutely necessary to drive

133

internationalization and to convincingly portray it as an institutional goal and
direction (Aigner, Stimpfl & Nelson, 1992, p. 5).”
Facilitators

The fourth key question in this study sought to explore factors that
contribute to faculty involvement in international scholarship. Five themes
emerged as faculty reflected on factors that contribute to faculty involvement
in lntemational scholarship, including an institutional ethos of
lntemationalization, a diverse array of foreign students and scholars, like-
minded colleagues, strong study abroad and institutional exchange programs,
and supportive spouses. These findings closely parallel key points regarding
the lntemationalization process as outlined in the literature review for this
study. These include: (1) strong leadership that flows from a clearly defined
mission statement which includes specific references to the importance of
lntemationalization; (2) an infusion of global perspectives across the
curriculum; (3) a campus ethos which encourages, develops and supports
faculty involvement in international education; (4) study abroad programs that
are well integrated into the academic programs of the institution; (5) the
presence of a diverse set of international students who are well integrated
into campus life; (6) lntemational outreach programs that are relevant to the
needs of the campus and surrounding community; and (7) a well-coordinated,
centralized office with a top level administrator that works with a faculty

oversight committee.

134

Constraints

The final key question in this study sought to explore factors that
constrain faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship. In terms of
constraints to engagement in international scholarship, three major themes
emerged including the faculty role as currently defined, personal/family
demands, and institutional roadblocks. While institutions can do little to
alleviate personal/family demands in regards to lntemational scholarship,
university administrators need to find new and creative means of facilitating
and supporting international scholarship within the needs and demands of the
institution and faculty expectations. In order to better encourage, promote,
}and facilitate faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship, faculty
recommend more funding, stronger networking and collaboration, and more
resources for lntemational education professionals at the school/department
level.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

While factors within the control of university administrators were not
found to be the impetus for faculty engagement in international scholarship,
several institutional efforts were found to play a key role in facilitating and
supporting the efforts of faculty already inclined to pursue international
scholarship. In addition, faculty committed to international scholarship
discussed a number of helpful ideas and suggestions for encouraging and
promoting international scholarship among faculty not currently engaged in

this domain. Data from this study suggests three broad areas where

135

 

institutions interested in furthering the lntemational scholarship initiatives of
faculty should concentrate their policy and practice initiatives. These include:
creating a campus ethos of lntemationalization; providing tangible support for
international scholarship; and fostering faculty development in international
scholarship.

Create a Campus Ethos of lntemationalization

According to the faculty interviewed in this study, and to two recent

studies concerning campus internationalization, Central State University has
a campus ethos of internationalization. The importance of the University’s
international programs and initiatives is widely known and supported, and
these efforts go well beyond a select few faculty and staff. The international
dimension of the University is woven into the fabric of the institution, and
plays an important role in the overall culture cf the campus and community.
This ethos of lntemationalization plays an important role in validating the work
of faculty already committed to international scholarship, and in facilitating
and promoting involvement among others. Based on data gleaned from this
study, institutions interested in establishing and/or strengthening a campus
ethos of internationalization should consider the following:

0 Expand undergraduate and graduate curricular opportunities
through more courses with an international and/or comparative
focus;

'. Recognize the international efforts and initiatives of faculty,

staff, and students through awards and recognition ceremonies,

136

welcome receptions for visiting scholars and their faculty hosts,
profiles in alumni magazines and other campus publications,
and public proclamations;

. Increase the presence of, and better integrate international

students and visiting scholars on campus;

. Place a priority on hiring faculty already committed to

international scholarship; and

. Strengthen study abroad and institutional exchange programs

and opportunities for faculty, staff, and students.

Each-of these measures, and more, will help institutions create an
ethos of internationalization, which in turn will help facilitate and support
international scholarship.

Provide Tangible Support for lntemational Scholarship

Faculty interviewed in this study did not find much personal motivation
from external rewards for international scholarship. Yet, they spoke in unison
about the need for stronger fiscal support from the institution to encourage
and support broader faculty involvement. For faculty not inclined to be
involved in intemational scholarship due to their internal make-up, external
incentives and rewards may be the most effective means of initiating their
involvement. Specifically, faculty interviewed in this study recommend the
renewing:

. Provide release time to intemationalize existing curriculum

and/or develop new courses;

137

. Include lntemational scholarship initiatives among promotion
and tenure criteria;
0 Allow faculty greater flexibility in arranging out-of-country
opportunities during the academic year by helping to arrange
coverage for missed classes and other responsibilities; and
. Utilize international education professionals at the
School/department level as a means of providing discipline-
specific support for lntemational initiatives.
As discussed above, data gleaned from this study also suggest that
rather simple, low cost efforts on the part of university administrators will go a
long way towards encouraging and supporting lntemational scholarship.
Annual awards for lntemational faculty scholarship, receptions to recognize
visiting scholars and their on-campus faculty hosts, and publishing profiles of
faculty work abroad in departmental newsletters provide good examples of
ways to encourage and promote this form of scholarship.
Foster Faculty Development in lntemational Scholarship

While institutions can do little to alleviate family demands or garner the
support of faculty spouses for lntemational scholarship, their impact can be
much more significant when it comes to supporting individual faculty
development in lntemational scholarship. As Raby (1995) notes, “No one
person is born intemationalized...the majority of faculty are not trained to
encompass an lntemational perspective into their courses (p. 4).” Thus,

many faculty will need the assistance of their employing institutions in order to

138

 

facilitate their teaming and development in this regard. In order to foster

faculty development in lntemational scholarship, faculty interviewed in this

study suggest the following:

Enhance graduate school education and training to better
prepare aspiring and junior faculty for active engagement in a
variety of forms of international scholarship;

Utilize mentors and advisors to encourage, advise, and support
faculty interested in pursuing lntemational scholarship;
Facilitate networking and collaboration among faculty‘engaged
in international scholarship with those who have an interest in
this domain;

Identify, facilitate, and promote living and working abroad
experiences and opportunities for faculty; and

Promote intellectual development of faculty in the lntemational
domain through in-country workshops, on-campus seminars,

guest lectures, and special speakers.

Implications for Future Research

This study sought to understand the context in which faculty engage in

forms of international scholarship. More specifically, when, how, and why do

faculty become involved in efforts to incorporate a global perspective in their

teaching? The following key questions were addressed:

9 When do (did) faculty actively involved in international scholarship become

so involved?

139

.r‘
..n;——._

 

o How do (did) faculty actively involved in international scholarship become
so involved?

9 Why do (did) faculty actively involved in international scholarship become
so involved?

0 What factors contribute to faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship?

o What factors constrain faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship?

o What recommendations do faculty actively engaged in lntemational
scholarship have to further encourage and promote international
scholarship among other faculty?

In order to ensure that faculty selected for participation in this study
were indeed actively involved in lntemational scholarship, a decision was
made to select faculty from within an area studies program at Central State
University. While this helped ensure that faculty selected for interviews met
the selection criteria of being “actively involved in lntemational scholarship,”
the sample was likely skewed to include faculty already committed to
international scholarship upon assuming the faculty role. This is due to the
already existing lntemational expertise of the typical faculty member who
would be qualified to be affiliated with an area studies program which
specializes in a particular world region.

The higher education community would benefit from a replication of
this study, which seeks to select faculty who were not committed to

lntemational scholarship upon assuming their faculty role, but became

involved in this form of scholarship later in their careers. Faculty not already

140

committed to lntemational scholarship upon assuming the faculty role could
offer a more accurate view of institutional factors that either facilitated or
constrained their involvement. Their experiences may also be more
instructive to university administrators attempting to encourage broader
faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship, and in particular, among
faculty not currently engaged in this domain of scholarship.

Given the small number of faculty interviewed in this study, it would
also be beneficial to replicate this study among a broader representation of
faculty engaged in international scholarship at CSU or a similar institution. It
is also important to expand data collection to include-faculty from multiple
schools known for their commitment to lntemational scholarship. This would
result in an ability to generalize findings, as well as identify major patterns and
themes relative to international scholarship among multiple institutional types
and sizes. CSU is a major Research I institution, and the area studies
program from which faculty were selected to participate in interviews is a
further subset of this unique institution. Thus, similar studies involving more
faculty from different institutional types are needed.

In addition, while faculty interviewed in this study had in common an
affiliation with the Area Studies Center at CSU, they each represented a
unique department and discipline. While data suggests possible disciplinary
differences in regards to the support faculty received for international
scholarship, further study is needed to determine the role an lndividual's

discipline plays in their engagement in international scholarship. Are there

141

 

 

disciplinary differences in this regard? And if so, what forms do these
differences take, and what impact do they have on faculty and students?

Some of the faculty interviewed in this study spoke of the difficulties
they encounter attempting to balance the competing demands of their roles,
especially when these roles play out in an lntemational context. A tension
exists for these faculty in terms of their obligations to the institution and their
students, and their desire to be actively engaged in various forms of
lntemational scholarship. In other words, at times to be actively involved in
lntemational scholarship means to neglect students enrolled in a course if
active lntemational engagement means having to miss several classes during
a semester in order to participate in scholarly activity abroad. This tension
requires additional analysis and study. What is the impact on teaching when
a scholar is actively engaged internationally? Are the benefits to the student
worth the cost?

Finally, it would be helpful to better understand why many faculty
remain disengaged from international scholarship. A study of faculty not
involved in lntemational scholarship may help illuminate key factors required
to encourage and promote broader faculty involvement in lntemational
scholarship. Further study and analysis of faculty not engaged in
lntemational scholarship may also better illuminate issues concerning
institutional barriers and other impediments to this important form of

scholarship.

142

APPENDIX A

CONTACT LETTER TO DIRECTOR OF AREA STUDIES PROGRAM

Date

Dr. Smith, Director
lntemational Program
Department Address
Central State University
Anytown, USA 44444

Dear Dr. Smith:

I am writing to invite you and the Area Studies Program to participate in a
study examining faculty involvement in international scholarship. This study:
FACULTY ENGAGED IN INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP: A STUDY OF
WHEN, HOW, AND WHY, is the basis for my dissertation for the Department
of Educational Administration at Michigan State University.

This study seeks to describe how faculty actively involved in lntemational
scholarship become so involved. I have chosen your program to draw a
sample of faculty for interviews based on its reputation for actively seeking to
encourage and support various forms of international scholarship.

Broadly defined, lntemational scholarship in this study refers to activity in the
faculty domains of discovery, integration, application, and teaching that
incorporate an lntemational perspective. Faculty actively involved in
international scholarship will likely be in regular contact with colleagues in
other countries. They are likely to present papers at conferences abroad, be
actively involved as advisors and mentors to lntemational students, and lead
groups of domestic students on study, research, and service projects abroad.
In addition, they will consistently incorporate perspectives of other countries
and cultures In classroom instruction, and encourage students to do the same
in projects and assignments.

My interest in this topic stems from my desire to Ieam more about factors that

contribute to faculty involvement in international scholarship. This study
should be of interest to faculty and administrators as it will hopefully shed light

143

on ways in which institutions can have the greatest impact on faculty
involvement in lntemational scholarship.

Participation in this study would consist of a 60-90 minute interview with you
and a 60-90 minute interview with eight faculty members affiliated with the
lntemational Program. I would ask for a copy of curriculum vitae from each
faculty member as background information and I may ask for departmental
information (if publicly available) such as promotion and tenure guidelines,
internationalization efforts, planning documents, or committee meeting notes.

All material I collect for this study will be treated confidentially and presented
in a manner that will not permit the identification of any individual, or the
department. Pseudonyms will be assigned to each individual and identifying
characteristics will be deleted. In addition, it is important to note that this
study is not being funded by any office or person at Central State University
or elsewhere.

I will call you within the ’next two weeks to discuss this project further. If you
would like to speak with me before that time, please contact me at the
address, telephone number, or e-mail address indicated below. I look forward
to talking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Viers

144

APPENDIX 8

CONTACT LETTER TO FACULTY

Date

Dr. Smith, Professor
Department
Department Address
Central State University
Anytown, USA 44444

Dear Professor. Smith:

With approval from Dr. Smith, Director of the lntemational Program, I am
writing to invite you to participate in a study examining faculty involvement in
international scholarship. This study: FACULTY ENGAGED IN
INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP: A STUDY OF WHEN, HOW, AND WHY,
is the basis for my dissertation for the Department of Educational
Administration at Michigan State University.

This study seeks to describe how faculty actively involved in lntemational
scholarship become so involved. I have chosen the lntemational Program to
draw a sample of faculty for interviews based on its reputation for actively
seeking to encourage and support various forms of international scholarship.

Broadly defined, international scholarship in this study refers to activity in the
faculty domains of discovery, integration, application, and teaching that
incorporate an lntemational perspective. Faculty actively involved in
lntemational scholarship then will likely be in regular contact with colleagues
in other countries. They are likely to present papers at conferences abroad,
be actively involved as advisors and mentors to lntemational students, and
lead groups of domestic students on study, research, and service projects
abroad. In addition, they will consistently incorporate perspectives of other
countries and cultures in classroom instruction, and encourage students to do
the same in projects and assignments.

My interest in this topic stems from my desire to Ieam more about factors that

contribute to faculty involvement in lntemational scholarship. This study
should be of interest to faculty and administrators as it will hopefully shed light

145

on ways in which institutions can have the greatest impact on faculty
involvement in lntemational scholarship.

Participation in this study would consist of one 60-90 minute interview. I
would ask for a copy of your curriculum vitae as background information prior
to the interview.

All material I collect for this study will be treated confidentially and presented
in a manner that will not permit the identification of any individual, or the
department. Pseudonyms will be assigned to each individual and identifying
characteristics will be deleted. In addition, it is important to note that this
study is not being funded by any office or person at Central State University

or elsewhere.

I will call you within the next two weeks to discuss this project further. If you
would like to speak with me before that time, please contact me at the
address, telephone number, or e-mail address indicated below. I look forward
to talking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Viers

146

APPENDIX C
CONSENT FORM: Faculty Involvement In lntemational Scholarship

In signing this form, you are agreeing to participate in a research project
which concerns when, how, and why you became involved in international
scholarship. You will be interviewed for approximately 60 to 90 minutes.

The researcher will hold your responses in confidence and no comments will
be attributed to you in any reports on this study. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. No details will be
provided in any verbal or written reports that could identify you, and you will
be assigned a pseudonym to further protect your identity. Your participation
is voluntary and you may decline to answer any questions er withdraw your
participation in this study at any time without penalty.

Risks associated with participation in this study are very low. Participation will
not present harm to your physical, psychological, social, legal, or economic
well being. You may benefit from participation in this study by better
understanding the initial impetus for your involvement in international
scholarship. In addition, the higher education community may benefit from
having a better idea regarding factors which initiate and sustain faculty
involvement in lntemational scholarship.

Please initial one statement below:

Initial here to confirm your consent that the interview be audio taped.
At any time you may ask that the tape recorder be stopped.

Initial here to confirm that you do not consent that the interview be
audio taped.

If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a subject, please
contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Michigan State University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects, 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-
1046, phone (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503, e-mail UCRIHS@msu.edu.

For any questions regarding the study, please contact: Dr. Roger G. Baldwin,
429 Erickson Hall, College of Education, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824, (phone) 517-355-6452, e-mail rbaldwin@mSIgdu_; or Mr.
Christopher J. Viers, 1201 Woods Edge Way, Bloomington, Indiana 47401,
(phone) 812-333-2649, e-mail cviers@indiana.edu.

 

 

Name (printed) Date

 

Signature

147

APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol: lntemational scholarship

The purpose of this interview is to gain information concerning your
involvement in lntemational scholarship. The interview protocol, “lntemational
scholarship” has been developed to address these issues. The protocol will
help provide an understanding as to when, how, and why faculty become
involved in lntemational scholarship.

During the interview, the interviewer will ask a variety of questions
related to the subject’s involvement in regards to lntemational scholarship.
Many of the questions will be discussed in some depth in order to gain a rich
understanding of the subject’s educational life.

Opening Remarks

The purpose of this interview is to gain information about your
involvement in forms of international scholarship. During the interview, I will
ask you a variety of questions related to when, how, and why you became
involved in lntemational scholarship. I hope that we can consider many of
these questions in some depth in order to gain a rich understanding of your
faculty role as it relates to lntemational scholarship.

Before proceeding further, I would like to define the term “international
scholarship.” For purposes of our discussion, international scholarship is
defined as the integration of an international perspective into the work of the
professorate including the scholarship of discovery, integration, application,

and teaching in order to equip students for responsible citizenship in an

148

increasingly diverse society and global world. Faculty actively involved in
international scholarship will likely be in regular contact with colleagues in
other countries. They are likely to present papers at conferences abroad, be
actively involved as advisors and mentors to lntemational students, and lead
groups of domestic students on study, research, and service projects abroad.
After all, “...great teachers...stimulate active, not passive, teaming and
encourage students to be critical, creative thinkers, with the capacity to go on
learning after their college days are over (Boyer, 1990, p. 24).” In addition,
they will consistently incorporate perspectives of other countries and cultures
in classroom instruction, and encourage students to do the same in projects
and assignments. Do you have any questions?
A. Introduction
A1. Please describe your educational background in terms of
the institutions you have attended and the degrees
obtained.
A2. For how many years have you served as a full-time
faculty member?
A3. How long have you been employed by Central State
University?
A4. What is your current academic rank?
B. When
Bl. Did you enter graduate school with an interest in

international scholarship? If yes, how would you assess

149

32.

83.

How

C1.

C2.

C3.

the nature and scope of this interest? If no, proceed to
question 82. What do you believe to be the reason for
this interest?

Was your involvement in lntemational scholarship
initiated during your graduate training? If yes, how would
you assess the nature and scope of this training? If no,
proceed to question B3. What forms did it take? What
were you expected to know or do, and why?

At what point in your career as a faculty member was

your involvement in lntemational scholarship initiated?

At the point in which you became involved in lntemational
scholarship, what form did this initial involvement take?
What did you do to facilitate or direct your own learning
and development in international scholarship?

Was there a specific person who played a significant role
in your initial involvement in international scholarship? If
yes, who was that person? How did this person spark
your interest in lntemational scholarship?

Did your involvement in lntemational scholarship come
as a direct result of your personal interest in this facet of
your faculty role? Do you recall a specific event, or

reason behind your interest?

150

C5.

C6.

C7.

C8.

D1.

D2.

D3.

D4.

Were there any external factors that contributed to your
involvement in international scholarship? For example,
did your interest peak as a result of travel to a foreign
country, a global event, issue, or crisis?

Did your employing institution require that you engage in
international scholarship as a requirement for promotion
and/or tenure? If yes, how did this factor contribute to
your current involvement? Did it define or direct your
involvement in a helpful way?

Did your employing institution provide encouragement
and/or rewards for involvement in international
scholarship? If yes, what form did this take?

What factors or conditions, if any, impede your work in

lntemational scholarship?

What initially motivated you to engage in international
scholarship?

What continues to motivate and sustain your involvement
in lntemational scholarship?

What role does your employing institution play in your
continued involvement in international scholarship? How
important is this role?

What individuals play the most important role in

151

D4.

sustaining your involvement in international scholarship
(colleagues internal to your employing institution, external
to your employing institution, your department chair, the
college dean, etc.)?

Is there anything else you would like to add or tell me

about your involvement in lntemational scholarship?

Thank you for your time.

152

REFERENCES

Aigner, J. S., Stimpfl, J. R., & Nelson, P. (1992). Intema_tionalizing the
gniversitv: Makinth work. United States Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 342 316).

Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (1998). Intemationalize Higher Education.
Change, (July/August), pp. 36-39.

Atkinson, J. W. (1977). Motivation for achievement. In T. Blass (Ed.),
Personality Variables (pp. 25-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alutto, J. A. (1990, January). Case discussion: A framework for introducing
intema_tional perspectives in a school of management. Paper
presented at the AACSB New Dean’s Seminar, Scottsdale, AZ.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities (1995). lntemational
activity on state college and university campuses. Washington, DC.

American Council on Education. (2002). Promising Practices: Spgtlighting
Excellence in Comprehensive lntemationalization. Washington, DC.

American Council on Education. (2002). ACE Public Opinion Poll Finds
Support for lntemational Education Remains Strong in September 11
Aftermath. Washington, 0.0., September 5, 2002.

American Council on Education. (1996). Educating Americans for a world in

flux: Ten ground rules for intemationalizing higher education.
Commission on lntemational Education, Washington, DC.

 

Arum, S. (1987). Promoting international education: The president sets the
pace. Educational Record 68 (2), pp. 18-22.

 

Barrows, T. S. (1980). College students’ knowledge and beliefs: A survey of
global understanding. The Final Report of the Global Understanding
Project. New Rochelle, NY. Change Magazine Press.

Barker, T. S., & Hoemeke, T. (1995). lntemational education: A profile of
Texas. lntemational Revfiiew. 5 (Spring 1995).

Blackburn, R. T., and Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculg at Work: Motivation,

Expectation, Satisfaction. The Johns Hopkins University Press:
Baltimore.

153

Blodgett, S. A. (1995, October). A low-cost, high-retum investment in building
the international dimension. In P.R. Liverpool (Vice Provost for
lntemational Programs), Building a World Class University: A campus

symmsium on strengmening intemational prggrams at Virginia Tech.

Borg, W. R., & Gail, M. D. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of
styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorata.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: California.

Byron, R. (1992). Ethnography and biography: On the understanding of
culture. Ethos 57(3-4), pp. 169-182.

 

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Darvich-Kodjouri, K. (1995). lntemational aflvitv on state collegaand
gniversitv campuses. American Association of State Colleges and
Universities. Washington, DC.

Davis, T. M. (Ed.) (2001). Open doors: Remrt on international educational
exchange: 1993-95. Institute of lntemational Education, New York, NY.

Davis, T. M. (Ed.) (1998). Open c_l_gors: Report on lntemational educational
exchange: 1997-98. Institute of lntemational Education, New York,
NY.

Davis, T. M. (Ed.) (1995). Open doors: Report on lntemational educational
exchange: 1993-94. Institute of lntemational Education, New York,
NY.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981 ). Characteristics of the
rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of

Personality and Social Psycholggy, (40). PP. 1-10.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to
sociolggical Methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to intemationalize a campus
portrait. In J. A. Mestenhauser and B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming
the Higher Education Curriculum: Intemationalizing the Campus.
American Council on Education: Oryx Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. QarrigILum lnggjgy
(22), (1): pp. 9-15.

154

 

Eisner, E. W. (1997). The new frontier in qualitative research methodology.
Qualitative lnguim (3), (3): 259-273.

English, T. M. (Ed.) (1995). Assessing student outcomes of
lntemationalization. Paper presented at NAFSA: Association of
lntemational Educators 47th Annual Conference.

Faraday, A., & Plummer, K. (1979). Doing life stories. Sociolggical Review.
QM): pp. 773-798.

Gardner, D. P. (1990). lntemationalization: The state of the institution.
Education Record (Spring 1990), pp. 8-12.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretamm of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Green, M. (2002). Intemationalizing undergraduate education: Challenges
and lessons of success. In Promising practices: Spotlighting
axcellence in comprehensive intematipnalization.

Green, M. (2003). The challenge of intemationalizing undergraduate
education: Global learning for all. Paper presented at the Global
Challenges and US. Higher Education Conference, Duke University.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

 

Harari, M. (1984). lntemational intagration of California State University. Long

Beach. California State University, Long Beach (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 316 132).

Jemigan, C. (1991). Intemationalizing the curriculum of Califomia’s
undergraduates. lntemational RevievL 1 (Spring 1991).

Johnston, J. S., & Edelstein, R. J. (1993). B_evon<1_t_>orders: Profiles in

international education. Association of American Colleges and
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business.

K0pp, W. L. (1995, October). lntemational outreach. In P.R. Liverpool (Vice

Provost for lntemational Programs), Building a World Class University:

A campus symmsium on strengthening lntemational prggrams at
Virginia Tech.

 

Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: Generativity and the interpretation of lives.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

155

 

 

Lambert, R. 0., Ed. (1994). Educational exchange and global competence.
New York: Council on lntemational Education Exchange.

Lambert, R. D. (1989). lntemational studies and the undergraduate.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education-

Lepper, M. R., Greene, 0., & Nisbet, RE. (1973). Undermining children’s
intrinsic motivation with extrinsic rewards: A test of the over justification
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-

1 37.

Lewis, S. L. (1995, May-June). Assessing Student Outcomes of
lntemationalization, NAFSAzAlE 47th American Conference.

Lim, G. C. (1995, October). lntemationalization of the curriculum: Humanistic
globalization approach. In P.R. Liverpool (Vice Provost for
lntemational Programs), _B_L_Iildinga World Clasglniversiw: A camflis

symmsium on strengtheningintemational programs at Virginia Tech.

 

Liverpool, P. R. (1995, October). Positioning Virginia Tech to Compete in the
international arena. In P.R. Liverpool (Vice Provost for lntemational

Programs), Building a World Class University: A campus symposium
on strepgtheningfiemaflonal prpgrams at Virginia Tech.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverrnan, S. J. (1987). Proposals that
work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (2"d ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Maehr, M. L., & Breskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theorv of
personal achievement. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach.
Sage Publications, Inc., CA.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mestenhauser, J. A., & Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Reforming the higher

education Curriculum: Intemationalizing the campus. Phoenix, AZ:
The American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.

156

 

Meszaros, P. S. (1995, October). Welcome and opening remarks. In P.R.
Liverpool (Vice Provost for lntemational Programs), Building a World
Class University: A campus smmsium on strengtheninLintemat‘ional

pmgrams at Virginia Tech.

Miles, M. B., & Huberrnan, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological
triangulation. Nursing Research. 40(1), 120-123.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, (1993).

Intemationalizing higher education through the faculg. Commission on

lntemational Affairs, Washington, D. C.

 

National University Continuing Education Association (1989). Challenges for
continuing higher education leadership: Global interdependence,
issues and opmrtunities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 339 813).

Nieman, CL. (1997). On the role of the university president in intem-ational
education. lntemational Review, 7. pp.63-75.

O’Meara, P. (1997). Testimony onthe reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act Title VI, International Education Programs.
Subcommittee on postsecondary education, training, and lifelong
Ieaming, US. House of Representatives. June 17, 1997.

Pacheco, M., & Fernandez, C. (1992). Knowing no boundaries: The
university as world citizen. Education Record, 73 (2), pp. 23-27.

Paige, R. M. (1983). Cultures in contact: On intercultural relations among
American and foreign students in the United States university context.
Handbook for Intercultural Training, Volume III. Area Studies in
Intercultural Training.

Phillips, D. C. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An Objective Inquiry. In
Elliott Eisner and Alan Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative lnggirv in Education:
The Continuing Debate. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 19-
37.

Ping, C. (1995, October). Leadership imperatives for intemationalizing higher
education. In P.R. Liverpool (Vice Provost for lntemational
Programs), Building a World Class University: A campus symposium
on stren’gtheninqintemitional programs at Virginia Tech.

157

President’s Commission on Foreign Language and lntemational Studies
(1979). Strength Thropgh Wiagom: A crittgge of US. capability,
Washington, D. 0., US. Government Printing Office.

Raby, R. L. (1995, February). Intemationalizing the curriculum: Ideals vs.
Realfly. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association

of California Community College Administrators, San Jose, CA.

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1990, October). The new American universy' . Paper
presented at the Twelth David Dodds Henry Lecture, University of
Illinois, Chicago, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
343 503).

Rosaldo, R. (1989). Subjectivity in social analysis. @lture and trgth: The
remaking of social analysis, Boston: Beacon.

Scott, R. A. (1987, January). Developing an institutional strategy for
international edtgation: Princitfles. objectives. and progress. Based on

a presentation at the Higher Educational lntemational Leadership
Summit, New Jersey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
288 445). -

Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, 0., Ross, R.B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). I_h_e_

fifth discipline fieldbook: Stratagies and tools for building a learning
otganization. Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. New York, New
York 10036.

 

Sharma, M. P., & Jung, L. B. (1985). How Cross-Cultural Social Participation
Affects the lntemational Attitudes of US. Students. lntemational
Journal of Intercultural Relations 9, pp. 377-387.

 

Smuckler, R. H. (1995, October). Higher education and_the new global
landscape. In P.R. Liverpool (Vice Provost for lntemational
Programs), Building a World Class Unimitv: A campus symposium
on strengthening lntemational prpgrams at Vitginia Tech.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Staw, B. M. (1983). Motivation research versus the art of faculty
management. Review of Higher Education, 6(4), 302-321.

Stone, G. R. (1995). Report of the ad hoc committee on lntemational and

regional programs. The University of Chicago Record, 30 (2), October
26, 1995.

158

Tenant, M. (1997). Psycholpgy & Adult Learning. Routledge: London, United
Kingdom.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools.
New York: Falmer.

United States Department of Education (1984, November). Guidelines:
Incorporating an international dimension in colleges and universities.
Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 256
213)

Wheeler, A. H. (1990, November). Intemationalizing the curriculum through
coomration, collaboration, and commitment. Paper presented at the
National Council of States on Inservice Education, 15th Annual
National Conference, Orlando, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 327 490).

Weiland, S. (2003). Teacher education 991: Special topics in curriculum,
teaching, and educational psychology. Michigan State University
syllabus, Fall 2003 Semester.

159