Skip to main content

The American faculty in an age of globalization: predictors of internationalization of research content and professional networks

Abstract

While there has been considerable policy discussion about the need to internationalize American higher education, our understanding of the internationalization in American faculty’s research remains limited. This study intends to investigate the extent of internationalization in American faculty’s scholarly work and what individual and institutional levers shape faculty decisions to engage internationally. The results of a 2007–2008 comparative international survey provide insights into these important issues and suggest implications for enhancing the international engagement of US faculty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. See, for example, Kalbfliesch (2005).

  2. Holland posited the existence of six personality types and six analogous academic environments—largely reflecting the characteristics of clusters of academic fields—the Investigative, Social, Enterprising, Realistic, Conventional and Artistic. For a more detailed explanation of each personality type and academic environment, please see Smart and Umbach (2007) as referenced above.

  3. Although to be sure there is an element of self-selection of faculty into relatively “compatible” academic fields and institutional settings.

  4. Just how research and study abroad affect faculty values and worldviews, what durations seems necessary and the relative substitutability of simulated digital experiences constitutes an important arena for future research.

References

  • Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 598–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, and satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. (Ed.). (2010). American universities in a global market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education, with the Academic Cooperation Association, IAK, IÉSEG, Nuffic, KatholiekeHogeschool Limburg and Malmö University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2010). Internationalization of higher education: Global trends, regional perspectives. 2009 IAU 3rd global survey report. Paris: IAU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American life. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. (1988). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M., Walker, E., Chen, R. (2009). The internationalization of the American faculty: Where are we, what drives or deters us? The Changing Academic Profession over 1992–2007: International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project), 13, 9.

  • Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1991). Missing the boat: The failure to internationalize American higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. F., et al. (2008). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses (2008th ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (2006). Non-response rates and non-response bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of non-response rates on non-response bias: A metanalysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72 (Summer 2008), 167–189.

  • Hermanowicz, J. C. (2009). Lives in science: How institutions affect academic careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the developing and emerging countries: A focus on transnational higher education in Asia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joris, M., van den Berg, C., & van Ryssen, S. (2003). Home, but not alone: Information and communication technology and internationalisation at home. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfliesch, P. J. (2005). Communication Yearbook 29 Taylor and Francis.

  • Knight, Jane. (2003). Internationalization of higher education practices and priorities: 2003 IAU survey report. Paris: IAU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Jane. (2006). IAU 2005 internationalization survey: Preliminary findings report. Paris: IAU.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, S. (2009). Internationalizing the academy: The impact of scholar mobility. In R. Bhandari & S. Laughlin (Eds.), Higher education on the move: New developments in global mobility. New York: The Institute for International Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, W., & Solem, M. (2009). Gauging disciplinary engagement with internationalization: A survey of geographers in the United States. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(1), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostan, M. (2010). Aspects of the academic profession’s internationalisation beyond physical mobility: Teaching, research and dissemination activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of CHER [Council on Higher Education Research], Oslo, June.

  • Smart, J. C., & Umbach, P. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development, 48 (March/April), 183–195.

  • Teichler, U. (Ed.). (2002). ERASMUS in the SOCRATES programme. Findings of an evaluation study. Bonn: Lemmens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Applying Holland’s typology to the study of differences in student views about diversity. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 625–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2008). The national study of postsecondary faculty 2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wächter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin J. Finkelstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finkelstein, M.J., Walker, E. & Chen, R. The American faculty in an age of globalization: predictors of internationalization of research content and professional networks. High Educ 66, 325–340 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9607-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9607-3

Keywords

  • Higher education
  • Faculty
  • Internationalization
  • Engagement
  • Scholarly work