Towards a strategic direction for internationalization of vietnamese higher education institutions

xiii Abstract...xiv CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...1 BACKGROUNDOFTHESTUDY...1 AREVIEWOFTHERELATEDLITERATURE...4 Definitions of internationalization in hi

A DISSERTATION

Presented to

The Faculty of Educational Leadership & Management Department

College of Education

De La Salle University – Manila

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Education major in Educational Leadership & Management

By

LÊ HOÀNG DŨNG

Manila, September 2008

forms and from different sources First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest thanks and gratitude to my faculty adviser, Dr Sherlyne A Almonte-Acosta, whose enthusiasm, advice and suggestions have guided me through the stages of this study

My special thanks also extend to the panel chair and members, Dr Roberto T Borromeo, Dr Michaela P Munoz, Dr Carmelita Pabiton, Dr Adelaida L Bago and Dr Sr Teresa P Yasa, whose insightful recommendations have greatly helped me in making possible adjustments and necessary purification on this research project

I would also sincerely thank the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia (UBCHEA) who have so far sponsored my study at the De La Salle University-Manila as well DLSU-UBCHEA program coordinators from College of Education, especially Dr Remedios Z Miciano, Dr Barbara Wong Fernandez, Dr Rochelle Irene G Lucas, Dr Danilo T Dayag, Dr Roberto T Borromeo, Ms Ivy F Santos, Ms Philma, Mr Rodeol Masilungan, and Ms Tina, among others for their help in academic matters and administrative facilitation before and during my enrolment at this University I also thank the Faculty of Department of Educational Leadership and Management, whose instruction, experience, and inspiration have been a great source of encouragement for my instillation of the topic for this study from its infancy stage to completion of this report I also thank Mr Sok Uttara and other local and foreign classmates at DLSU-Manila for their sharings and insights regarding this research topic since its early stages

May I also thank the administrators of my home institution, the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU–HCMC as well as the Former Dean Nguyễn Huỳnh Đạt, Dr Nguyễn Tiến Hùng, Dean Dr Nguyễn Thị Kiều Thu, Dr Tô Minh Thanh, my professors and my faculty

willingness, participation and informative answers of all respondents from the University of Economics-HCMC, the University of Social Sciences and Humanities-HCMC, the University of Technology, Van Hien University, HCMC University of Technology, HCMC University of Foreign Languages, and Information Technology, and HCMC Open University To all of their great help am I

in debt

May I acknowledge the help of Prof Dr Nguyễn Viết Lâm from National Economic University (Ha Noi), Ms Trần Thị Bích Liên from University of Social Sciences & Humanities (HCMC), my colleague faculties, and students who participated in the pilot test, and whose insights, and recommendations were another important source of reference for adjustment and supplementation of the research instruments I also appreciate the help from Dr Lê Hữu Phước, Prof

Dr Nguyễn Viết Lâm, Ms Trần Thị Bích Liên, Ms Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Hạnh, Mr Lê Khánh Điền,

Ms Hoàng Tố Uyên, Mr Nguyễn Công Trí, Ms Thủy, Ms Thảo, Mr Huỳnh Xuân Nhựt, Ms Nguyễn Thị Hồng, Mr Tâm, Ms Trần Thị Tuyết Trinh, Ms Văn Thị Hồng Loan, Ms Nhàn, Ms Diễm Thúy, Ms Tuyền, Ms Trúc, Ms Bùi Thị Thúy Quyên, among many others for either their introducing me to the selected HEIs or distributing and collecting the survey questionnaires Thanks also go to Mr Nguyễn Thành Trung for his help in translating some Chinese names into English Last but never least, my special love, thanks and gratitude are also extended to my beloved family including my grandmother, ‘mommies’ and ‘daddies’, my wife, my daughter, my aunt and uncle, and my cousins, whose love, hope, inspiration and expectation have nurtured my life in this work and without whom I could have not been able to complete this research project

As I now recall the non-stop working days, from the bottom of my heart I would again say

“Thank You Very Much” to all

present all my life and work, and especially to my little daughter whose daily long-distance calls have kept urging me and pushing me through

under pressure to address my curiosity and desire to better apprehend the actual practices of internationalization in Vietnamese context and to my aspiration to contribute something to the improvement of my homeland’s education

Acknowledgements iii

Dedication v

Statement of originality vi

Table of Contents vii

List of abbreviations xi

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xiii

Abstract xiv

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 1

BACKGROUNDOFTHESTUDY 1

AREVIEWOFTHERELATEDLITERATURE 4

Definitions of internationalization in higher education 4

Reasons, motivations and rationales for internationalization 10

Modes of cross-border education and strategies/elements of internationalization 14

Models and/or frameworks of internationalization 19

Approaches to internationalization 24

Practices of internationalization in other countries 26

Trends of development of higher education internationalization 34

Benefits and risks of globalization/internationalization and roles of the national HE 37

SYNTHESIS 41

CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK 45

STATEMENTOFTHEPROBLEM 50

SIGNIFICANCEOFTHESTUDY 51

DELIMITATIONSANDLIMITATIONS 52

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 53

RESEARCHMETHOD 53

RESPONDENTSOFTHESTUDY AND SOURCESOFDATA 54

RESEARCHINSTRUMENTS 58

RESEARCHDESIGN 61

COLLECTIONOFDATA 63

CASE A –INSTITUTION A 66

Awareness 67

Commitment 69

Planning 71

Structure 73

Operationalization 76

Evaluation 82

Recognition 83

Summary of CASE A –INSTITUTION A 83

CASE B –INSTITUTION B 86

Awareness 87

Commitment 91

Planning 93

Structure 97

Operationalization 100

Evaluation 110

Recognition 111

Summary of CASE B –Institution B 112

CASE C –INSTITUTION C 117

Awareness 118

Commitment 121

Planning 124

Structure 129

Operationalization 133

Evaluation 142

Recognition 143

Summary of CASE C -INSTITUTION C 144

CASE D –INSTITUTION D 149

Awareness 150

Commitment 152

Planning 155

Structure 161

Operationalization 166

Awareness 189

Commitment 191

Planning 193

Structure 198

Operationalization 202

Evaluation 216

Recognition 216

Summary of CASE E –INSTITUTION E 217

CASE F –INSTITUTION F 224

Awareness 225

Commitment 228

Planning 230

Structure 234

Operationalization 238

Evaluation 253

Recognition 253

Summary of CASE F –INSTITUTION F 254

CROSS-CASEANALYSIS 259

Current status of internationalization of the selected HEIs in light of Knight’s model 259

Other common features of the selected HEIs’ current practices of internationalization 271

Factors that affected internationalization of the selected Vietnamese HEIs 275

Positive factors to internationalization of the selected HEIs 276

Negative factors to internationalization of the selected HEIs 277

DISCUSSIONANDFINDINGS 282

Three major findings on the current status of Vietnamese HEIs’ internationalization 283

Four major findings on factors that prevented development of Vietnamese HEIs’ internationalization 289

RECOMMENDATIONS 298

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 303

Summary 303

Contributions of the study 304

Tentative directions for further research 305

APPENDIX B1 List of INSTITUTION B’S international linkages 333

APPENDIX C Summary tables of INSTITUTION C’s faculties’ and students’ responses 333

APPENDIX D Summary tables of INSTITUTION D’s faculties’ and students’ responses 337

APPENDIX D1 List of majors offered by Institution D 340

APPENDIX D2 List of Institution D’s foreign linkages 341

APPENDIX D3 List of Institution D’s annual scholarship and exchange programs 342

APPENDIX D4 List of Institution D’s MOUs signed with foreign partners 342

APPENDIX E Summary tables of INSTITUTION E’s faculties’ and students’ responses 346

APPENDIX E1 Lists of Institution E’s joint training programs 349

APPENDIX E2 List of MOUs signed between Institution E and foreign partners 350

APPENDIX F Summary tables of INSTITUTION F’s faculties’ and students’ responses 351

APPENDIX F1 List of INSTITUTION F’s foreign linkage activities 355

APPENDIX G Letter to Administrator & Faculty Respondents 356

APPENDIX H Letter to Student Respondents 357

APPENDIX I1 Interview Questionnaire to Top Administrators (English & Vietnamese) 358

APPENDIX I2 Interview Questionnaire (2) (to middle administrators) 365

APPENDIX I3 Survey Questionnaire to Faculty Respondents (in English & Vietnamese) 370

APPENDIX I4 Survey Questionnaire to Student Respondents (in English) 380

Foreign Affairs and is operated by the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCIP)

EGP English for General Purposes

ESP English for Specific Purposes

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

GPA Grade Point Average

HEI(s) Higher Education Institution(s)

HR/HRD Human Resources/Human Resource Development

ICT(s) Information and Communication Technology/Technologies

LCD LCD projector (Liquid-Crystal Display)

MF Mean score given by faculty respondents

MF, S Mean score given by both faculty and student respondents

MOET Ministry of Education and Training (of Vietnam)

MOET-supervised Supervised by Ministry of Education and Training

MS Mean score given by student respondents

NGO(s) Non-Governmental Organization(s)

NS Number of Student respondents

OECD Organization of Economic and Cultural Development

TOEIC Test of English for International Communication

UNESCO United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

US The United States of America

VNU-HCM Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City

WTO World Trade Organization

Table 2 Approaches to internationalization at Institutional Level 25

Table 3 A pattern for understanding internationalization practices at institutional level 49

Table 4 Respondents of the study 57

Table 5 Summary of interview and questionnaire items 60

Table 6 Summary of CASE A –INSTITUTION A 83

Table 7 Summary of CASE B –INSTITUTION B 112

Table 8 Summary of CASE C –INSTITUTION C 144

Table 9 Summary of CASE D –INSTITUTION D 183

Table 10 Summary of CASE E –INSTITUTION E 218

Table 11 Summary of CASE F –INSTITUTION F 255

Table 12 Summary of the selected HEIs’ practices in light of seven-phase internationalization 260

Figure 2 Internationalization Cube 21

Figure 3 A map of related literature on internationalization of higher education 42

Figure 4 Internationalization cycle 45

Figure 5 The study triangulation 54

Figure 6 Research design 62

Figure 7 Current status of internationalization of the selected Vietnamese HEIs 261

Figure 8 A proposed strategic framework for development of Vietnamese HEIs’ institutional internationalization 302

agenda in the world as well as in Vietnam, particularly upon its official participation and commitment to GATS recently in 2007 This descriptive and explorative multiple case study, which employed two-level triangulation method inquired into a better understanding of the current status and practices of internationalization at six selected universities, both public and non-public, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam This study, which adopted Knight’s seven-phase internationalization cycle (1995) as its conceptual framework, mainly aimed to apprehend their current status of internationalization and identify factors that affected their internationalization The study data were the answers from focused interviews with 26 (8 senior and 18 middle) administrators, survey results from structured questionnaires administered to 125 faculties and 332 full-time undergraduate students (including selected interviews with their representatives), and documentation The study came up with three major findings on both current status of and factors affecting internationalization of Vietnamese HEIs Remarkably, quality assurance was the key rationale and motivation behind these HEIs’ effort towards internationalization, and that their internationalization was mainly inhibited by their own institutional context, particularly their lack of institutional commitment, strategic plan for internationalization, and insufficient internal resources for it, etc These findings led to four major recommended strategies for enhancing internationalization of Vietnamese HEIs, which were formulated in a proposed framework for their internationalization at present

become a real part of the globalization process, which is obviously seen in increasing mobility of academic programs, students and professors, among others, across countries In Vietnamese settings, changes in the global economy, globalization and internationalization have exerted great impacts on the country’s development, observably, in terms of the government’s policies and strategic directions to enhance the country in general and its HE system in particular The report

by Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) at the World Conference on Higher Education (UNESCO, 1998b) highly stressed “the promotion of Vietnam’s internal resources while strengthening its international cooperation in higher education in the coming years” To actively participate in the internationalization of education is regarded by MOET as one of the most important factors that help narrow the gap between Vietnam and the advanced countries in the region and the world In terms of policy, Vietnamese government is highly committed to increasing the mobilization of education, fully promoting the internal power and social capital of the Vietnamese, and at the same time expanding cooperation and making full use of support from international and regional organizations such as UNESCO, UNDP, UNICEF, SEAMEO, WB, and ADB (UNESCO, 1998b), among others

The importance of HE development and international cooperation is emphasized in the Vietnamese Government’s Resolution 14/2005/NQ-CP on ‘Substantial and Comprehensive Renewal of Vietnam’s Tertiary Education in the period 2006-2020’ promulgated by the Prime Minister in November 2005 The general objective of this innovation project is to substantially

“Vietnamese HE shall attain the regional advanced standards, approach the world's advanced level, have high competitive capacity and gear toward socialist-oriented market mechanism” (Vietnamese Government’s Resolution, 2005) In order to achieve these objectives, the resolution speculates on a number of specific objectives that cover almost all aspects of the national education system from curriculum (including content revision, new teaching and learning methods, application of ICTs in education, etc.), to financial management, managerial mechanism as well as international cooperation and collaboration The vital role of HE internationalization and international cooperation in national development continues to be strengthened and prioritized by the eleventh and twelfth Vietnam’s National Assembly in their agendas (www.tuoitre.com.vn , www.vnexpress.net –Online News, 2007)

In addition, Vietnam’s official participation into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and commitment to the General Agreements on Trades in Services (GATS) in 2007 makes the local scholars and other involved stakeholders of HE (MOET, the government, institutional administrators) pay more attention to the issue of internationalization of local HE (Bùi, 2004; CPVCC, 2007; Hoàng, 2004; Nguyễn, Đ H 2005; Nguyễn, K D., 2004; Nguyễn & Nguyễn, 2007; Nguyễn, T N., 2006 & 2007; Võ, 2007; VNU-HCM, 2004 & 2007; Vũ, 2007a; among others), which can be seen in the two national conferences held in mid-2007 Several dominant issues discussed by these local authors and stakeholders include how to improve education quality of the local HEIs in response to the driving force of internationalization, what the local

HE should do in the new era, how to produce graduates qualified for the new demands of

Education and Training, 2006) indicate a mismatch between the supply and demand (among others) of HE in the “booming” Vietnam The reports continue to pinpoint the role of education

in enabling the country’s development, modernization, and industrialization as well as promoting the country’s human resources in the process of globalization and internationalization In Hoàng’s article (2007), he cited Lee Kuan Yew’s reminder to Vietnamese government officials that “the winner in education will be the winner in economy”, being drawn from the reality of Singapore’s development Among his several recommendations on innovating Vietnamese HE, Hoàng (2007) insisted on an urgent need to have an “international or global thinking” among its constituents and stakeholders in order to win in the “so-called internationalization” It can be seen that reformation and continuous improvement of Vietnamese HE, which was started in 1986 (Đỗ, 1999) and which was deeply rooted from the nation’s desires and efforts towards international integration, is now really put in the context of internationalization

However, in a 2020 vision for Vietnamese HE, Hayden and Lâm (2006) pointed out that

“Vietnam is not lacking energy and commitment” but “what is missing in the higher education reform agenda is a strong sense of how its objectives are going to be implemented.” Given the national overall directives for international cooperation and internationalization of Vietnamese

HE as well as the local scholars’ concerns and debates on the related issues, the reality shows scanty formal research that specifically focuses on the current status of internationalization at the institutional level or the like The brief presentation of the local HE settings so far indicates a real need for the development of internationalization in Vietnamese HEIs so that they will contribute

internationalization practices of Vietnamese HEIs in order to provide a better apprehension and clearer picture of such

A REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

The following discussion provides a brief review of related literature on internationalization of higher education mainly from experiences of other countries, which lays a theoretical basis and consideration for this study

Definitions of internationalization in higher education

It is useful to have an overall understanding of the terms “globalization” and

“internationalization,” which appear very often in different local and global agenda of economy, politics, and education, among others

In his article and several presentations, De Wit (1999) maintained that ‘globalization’ increases and reflects a greater interdependency and interconnectedness in the world, while

‘internationalization’ of HE is one of the ways a country responds to the impact of globalization

According to Altbach (2002), ‘globalization,’ in broad terms, refers to trends in HE that have

cross-national implications in terms of “a global market for students, faculty and highly educated personnel, the global reach of the new internet-based technologies”, etc., whereas

‘internationalization’ refers to the specific policies and initiatives taken by governments,

academic systems and institutions to deal with such global trends In 2004, Altbach made it clearer that “globalization is defined as the broad economic, technological and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable… Academic systems and

the impact of globalization” as Van de Wende (2001, pp 249-259) puts it in simpler terms

Although different, the terms ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ are

“interchangeable” (Scott, 1998 & 2000) and cannot be separated from one another, because it is likely that “internationalization is changing the world of higher education, and globalization is changing the world of internationalization” (Knight, 2003c & 2004, pp 5-31) While other scholars might perceive ‘globalization’ and ‘internationalization’ differently, it can be said that these two processes are interwoven and interrelated It is commonly seen in the discussions by different scholars that internationalization of higher education mainly refers to the local efforts and responses to the external forces of globalization With regard to this, different countries engage the concept of ‘internationalization’ differently for different purposes The concept of internationalization might be best approached with reference to specific approaches and constructions of internationalization in domains of policy, process, types of activities, among others (Bernardo, 2002) Given the complexity and dynamic nature of internationalization, many authors propose various definitions of ‘internationalization’ of higher education, an understanding of which will also be useful to this study

Rudzki (1991) put forward that internationalization is “a long-term strategic policy for the establishment of overseas links for the purposes of student mobility, staff development and curriculum innovation” (cited in Rudzki, 1995, pp 421-441) This author later pointed out four key dimensions of internationalization, focusing on more explicit purposes and directions of internationalization by considering it as “a defining feature of all universities, encompassing

as “the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution” (p.8) These authors maintained that this definition understands internationalization as a process, a response to globalization (not to be confused with the globalization process itself), and an inclusion of both international and local elements However, Van der Wender (1997) pointed out that an institutional-based definition has limitations and therefore proposed a broader definition suggesting that internationalization is

“any systematic effort aimed at making HE responsive to the requirements and challenges related

to the globalization of societies, economy and labor markets” (cited in Knight, 2004, p.18) This suggestion encouraged Knight to later revise, update and expand her earlier definition in order to cover a wider perspective and to involve more stakeholders at different levels in light of contemporary social changes “Internationalization at the national/sector/institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2003c & 2004, pp.5-31)

In this updated definition, Knight deliberately used the term “process” to convey that

internationalization is an ongoing and continuing effort The triad international, intercultural and global dimension is intentionally used to complement to each other and to give richness both

in breath and depth to the process of internationalization Meanwhile, ‘integrating’ is specifically

used to denote the process of infusing or embedding the international and intercultural dimension into policies and programs to ensure that the international dimension remains central, not

marginal, and is sustainable Lastly, of the three concepts ‘purpose, function and delivery’,

system and also an individual institution (usually teaching, learning, research, scholarly activities,

and service to society.) Delivery refers to the offering of education courses and programs either

domestically or in other countries Knight (2004) maintained that the updated definition does not conflict with the one formerly proposed in 1994 and 1995; instead they are both complementary

to one another The new definition attempts to address the realities of today’s context where the national/sector level is extremely important, and must therefore be covered in it While emphasizing the importance of both macro level (national/sector) and micro level (institutional)

of internationalization, Knight (2004) believes that it is usually at the individual, institutional level that the real process of internationalization is taking place In short, Knight’s updated definition is an extension of the former, covering a wider range of activities, strategies and stakeholders of internationalization

Another recent definition was proposed by Soderqvist (2002), characterizing internationalization of a HEI as “a change process from a national HEI to an international HE leading to the inclusion of an international dimension in all aspects of its holistic management in order to enhance the quality of teaching and learning and to achieve the desired competencies” (p 29) Embedded in this definition is also an explicit rationale for internationalization Knight (2004) called this another evolution of definition of internationalization

As far as the definition of internationalization is concerned, OECD (2004b, pp.1-4) views two major components of internationalization, including:

“Internationalization at home.” It emphasizes domestic students and faculty, curriculum, research,

extracurricular activities and liaison with local cultural and ethnic groups It includes dealing with

the implications of cross-border education, especially the integration of international students/scholars into campus life, teaching and research

“Education abroad or across borders.” It includes development projects, institutional level

academic exchanges and partnerships, and commercial or trade initiatives Cross-border education involves the mobility of four elements: people (students/scholars/professors), education programs, providers (higher education institutions and new private for-profit companies) and academic collaborative projects

As seen in the first component of OECD’s definition, internationalization of education implies the imparting of knowledge, skills and values, which have universal appeal and application as well as a need to include an international perspective in the key aspects of an institution It also implies that a curriculum becomes cross-national and intercultural in nature, which was also identified by Varghese (2008) In this regard, internationalization can also take place in such a form to help students acquire international skills without having to leave the country, which in turn implies changing the orientation of courses offered in the domestic universities OECD’s definition offers a relatively comprehensive look at both institutional and national level, which stresses the general strategies and programs of internationalization

From another perspective, Schoorman (1997, & 2000, p.5), in a report based on her doctoral dissertation completed in 1997 at Purdue University (Indiana), put it this way:

“Internationalization is an ongoing, counter-hegemonic educational process that occurs in an international context of knowledge and practice where societies are viewed as subsystems of larger, inclusive world The process of internationalization at an educational institution entails a comprehensive, multifaceted program of action that is integrated into all aspects of education.” Schoorman’s definition highlights five facets of internationalization, i.e (a) counter-hegemonic, (b) ongoing, (c) comprehensive, (d) multifaceted, and (e) integrated She suggested

that the conceptualization of internationalization should encompass not only the curriculum contents, but also the pedagogical process In explanation of the five facets, Schoorman believes that internationalization efforts are the means to facilitate among students a sense of caring, as citizens of a globally interdependent society, whose goals would be to make the world a better place for all its citizens (counter-hegemonic) The outcomes of one stage of internationalization should serve to generate further cycles of internationalization efforts (on-going) The third facet involves the comprehensiveness of internationalization since all educators are expected to endorse the importance of global awareness to all fields of study At an ideal level, comprehensive participation would involve all members of the educational institution, i.e faculty members, student services personnel, administrators and students While internationalization as multifaceted requires serious consideration into all aspects of an institution (resources, institutional commitment, leadership, strategic planning, evaluation, etc.), the last facet in Schoorman’s definition considers internationalization as an integration of “all separate strand of activities” Internationalization, as she recommended, should be a normal facet of daily academic pursuit and observable in diverse activities on an institution’s campuses In this sense, Schoorman’s definition also shares some commonalities with Knight and De Wit’s, which emphasizes a process of integrating an international dimension in the triad functions of an institution

While others can be found, the presented definitions give a brief look at how internationalization in HE is defined and will be useful to this study of Vietnamese context, where there is likely an absence of theoretical foundations for an investigation into the current practices of the local HEIs As I may tentatively compare the above viewpoints and definitions, what remains fundamental and probably common to internationalization, regardless which

approach or model is adopted by an individual country or institution, is an effort to bring in international elements, dimensions or perspectives, into the various key areas or aspects of academic and campus life, which may be mainly seen in curriculum, teaching, learning, research and services, among others

Reasons, motivations and rationales for internationalization

In addition to the discussion of the definitions above, an apprehension of the reasons or rationales for internationalization is essential not only to key stakeholders of HE but also to this study These terms are used interchangeably to refer to the “why” of internationalization, i.e the motivations or dynamics behind any internationalization efforts or initiatives of an institution or

a national HE system

Four categories of rationales for internationalization were identified by De Wit (1999,

2000, & 2002), including socio-cultural, political, economic, and academic rationales for both institutional and national level Social/Cultural rationales consist of national cultural identity,

intercultural understanding, citizenship development, and social and community development

Political ones are foreign policy, national security, technical assistance, peace and mutual understanding, national identity and regional identity Economic rationales focus on

internationalization for economic growth and competitiveness, labor market and financial

incentives Academic rationales are particularly related to HE operational aspects such as

including an international dimension in research and teaching, extension of the academic horizon, institution building, profiles and status, enhancement of quality, and international academic standards

From another perspective, De Wit (2002) and Knight (2004) summarized different

rationales for HE internationalization of “emerging importance” in terms of both institutional

level (including international branding and profile, income generation, student and staff development, strategic alliances, and knowledge production) and national level (in terms of

human resource development, strategic alliances, commercial trade, national building, and social/cultural development) At the institutional level, Knight (2003b) proposed that one of the leading rationales for internationalization is the preparation of its graduates to live and work in more culturally diverse communities at home and abroad

A reexamination into the definitions by Knight (1995, 2003c), Rudzki (1995), Soderqvist (2002) and OECD (2004b) earlier shows that the fundamental reason for internationalization at institutional level embedded in such is an effort to achieve excellence in teaching, research and services In a summary paper, Bago (1998) concluded that “the most important construct of internationalization is excellence Through superior performance in instruction, research and extension work, universities start the internationalization process even without meaning to… Internationalization implies adherence to international standards of excellence.” While excellence is expected to be one of the vital bases for promoting internationalization, a fuller participation in international HE activities and programs creates new thrusts and motivations for the achievement of excellence and quality education Not to mention the importance of accreditation, whether following national standards or international ones, or both, excellence and internationalization of higher education are reciprocally complementary to each other In other words, internationalization and quality can be considered as “two trends in one” as OECD (2004b, pp 1-4) maintained

This rationale for internationalization based on excellence and quality education seems to

be most found in the context of developing or less developed countries, particularly in their transitional stage of economic and academic development For example, Caoili and Valenzuela

(2000) concluded in their research paper that “Philippine HE is a product of international and regional cooperation The presence of international and regional partners has enriched the capabilities and competencies of individual HEI in terms of teaching, research and extension services in the Philippines.”

More recently, while acknowledging that many universities have their motivations for internationalization as “to enhance research and knowledge capacity and to increase cultural understanding,” Altbach and Knight (2006, pp 27-36) synopsized other major reasons and dynamics for internationalization efforts as follows:

(i) Profit-making is one of the key motives for all international projects in the for-profit sector

and for some traditional non-profit universities with financial problems, […] through establishing new institutions, purchasing existing institutions, and partnering with firms or educational institutions in other countries

(ii) Access provision and demand absorption: This becomes one of the reasons for

internationalization due to the increasing demand of access to mass higher education

(iii) Traditional internationalization is rarely a profit-making activity, though it may enhance the

competitiveness, prestige and strategic alliances of the institutions

(iv) Internationalization for economic and political integration, an example of which is

ERAMUS (of European Union) which provides a large number of EU university students with academic experiences outside their home country The regionalization and internationalization of European universities system is to assure compatible degree structures, transferable credits and equal academic qualifications This model is being expanded to other regions like Latin America and Asia-Pacific

(v) Developing-country internationalization: Countries such as India, the Philippines are

significant host countries for students from developing countries Together with these

countries, China, Malaysia and others are developing strategies to attract students and to export educational programs and institutions

(vi) Individual internationalization: Many students and parents opt to self support for their study

abroad

These scholars’ categorization of rationales provides a more comprehensive look at those employable at either institutional or national level They both agreed that it is impossible to qualify and calculate the financial scopes of academic internationalization But the sum is large because knowledge industries, especially higher education often form a substantial part of today economy In continuation to this, Knight (2007) and Altbach (2008) pointed out several

“negative sides” of the possible rationales behind internationalization efforts, which include the risks of “brain drain,” “low-quality foreign providers,” “profit-making-only diplomas mills”,

“sleazy recruiters, degree packagers [i.e HEI] and low-end private institutions staying off bankruptcy via the export market,” which may spoil the good image of education This implies a particular need for the stakeholders involved in cross-border education to have a deeper understanding of reasons for internationalization or their own and their partners

Given the diversity of rationales for internationalization, which may be applied differently in different context, there is also a need for this study on Vietnamese HEIs’ status of internationalization to look into the reasons or rationales behind their internationalization efforts

or to look into the rationales that should be applied in their future development In absence of formal research on this matter in Vietnam, an understanding of rationales both in theory and in practice of the local HEIs is therefore necessary in this study

Modes of cross-border education and strategies/elements of internationalization

It is also necessary to understand some key modes, strategies or elements of internationalization practices so that any investigation into such can be better guided This is useful particularly to this study

Mostly related to academic rationales for internationalization of HE, as aforementioned,

are various programs, strategies or elements of internationalization For example, they include international student mobility, faculty exchange and development, research collaboration, internationalizing curricula (foreign language study, building international perspectives), international networks, distance education, locally supported distance education, twinning programs, articulation programs, branch campuses, franchising arrangements, etc (Bernardo, 2002) The various modes of international HE can be grouped into two clusters, including

“internationalism” and “open market transnational education” (which is also called cross-border education) (Bernardo, 2002; Scott, 1999) Transnational education is mainly supplied through four modes (Altbach & Knight, 2006; Bernardo, 2002; Knight, 2003b; OECD, 2004a) such as:

(i) Cross-border supply This mode may include distance education (e-learning), and franchising

courses and degrees It does not necessarily require the physical movement of the consumer

or provider

(ii) Consumption abroad The consumer moves to the country of the provider This mode

includes traditional student mobility

(iii) Commercial presence The service provider establishes facilities in another country including

branch campuses and joint ventures with local institutions

(iv) Presence of natural persons This mode includes persons, including professors and

researchers, who travel temporarily to another country to provide educational services

Although cross-border HE is just a part of the internationalization process of HE, which

is the focus of this study, this categorization of cross-border HE provides the stakeholders of HE with an overview of what is happening in a wider scope Cross-border HE does not only include the mobility of international student and faculty, but also that of educational programs and institutions among the countries, usually from the more developed to the less developed Particularly related to cross-border HE, OECD (2004a, pp 11-16) categorized four different, but not mutually exclusive, approaches to cross-border education, consisting of the mutual understanding, skilled migration, revenue-generating and capacity building, embedded in which are also different modes, strategies and elements of internationalization noticeable to the interested stakeholders of HE They include:

The mutual understanding approach encompasses political, cultural, academic and

development aid goals It allows and encourages the international mobility of domestic as well as foreign students and staff through scholarship and academic exchange programs and supports academic partnerships between educational institutions Examples of countries using this approach so far are Japan, Mexico, Korea and Spain The European Union’s Socrates-Erasmus mobility program is another example of this approach

The skilled migration approach shares the goals of the mutual understanding approach

but gives stronger emphasis to the recruitment of selected international students and tries to attract talented students to work in the host country’s knowledge economy, or render its HE and research sectors more competitive Scholarship programs may remain a major policy instrument

in this approach but they are supplemented by active promotion of a country’s HE sector abroad, combined with an easing of the relevant visa or immigration regulations Examples of countries

having adopted this approach are Germany, Canada, France, the United Kingdom (for EU students) and the United States (for post-graduate students)

The revenue-generating approach shares the rationales of the mutual understanding and

skilled migration approaches, but offers higher education services on a full-fee basis, without public subsidies Compared to domestic students, foreign students generate additional income for institutions that are encouraged to become entrepreneurial in the international education market Under this strategy, governments tend to grant institutions considerable autonomy and seek to secure the reputation of their higher education sector and protect international students, for example through quality assurance arrangements Examples of this approach are Australia, the United Kingdom (for non-EU students), New Zealand and the United States (for undergraduates)

The capacity building approach encourages the use of foreign higher education, however

delivered, as a quick way to build an emerging country’s capacity Scholarship programs supporting the outward mobility of domestic civil servants, teachers, academics and students are important policy instruments as well as the encouragement of foreign institutions, programs and academic staff to come and operate private for profit ventures, generally under a governmental regulation, which ensures their compatibility with the country’s nation- and economy-building agendas Twinning arrangements and partnerships with local providers are encouraged (and sometimes compulsory) in order to facilitate knowledge transfers between foreign and local institutions Examples of this approach are mostly found in the Middle East, Southeast and North Asia, such as Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, Singapore, etc

Included in these four approaches to cross-border education are certain activities, elements or strategies of internationalization Back to Knight’s discussion of her updated definitions (2004), she also gave emphasis to internationalization phenomenon in terms of actual

policies, programs and strategies that are used at the national, sector and institutional level At

institutional level, for example, the term “internationalization strategies” (pp.5-31) is

deliberately used to go beyond the idea of international activities since the notion of a more planned, integrated and strategic approach to internationalization is implied in the use of the

word strategies Qiang (2003) and Knight (2004) summarized a set of organizational and

academic elements and/or strategies at institutional level (Table 1) in a clearer and more detailed

manner

Table 1 Institutional-level program and organization strategies of internationalization

Institution-level organizational elements/strategies

Governance Expressed commitment by senior leaders

Active involvement of faculty and staff Articulated rationale and goals for internationalization Recognition of international dimension in mission statements and other policy documents

Operations Integrated into institution-wide and departmental planning, budgeting and

quality reviews systems Appropriate organizational structures Communication systems (formal and informal) for liaison and coordination Balance between centralized and decentralized promotion and management

of internationalization Adequate financial support and resource allocation systems Support

services Support from institution-wide services units, i.e student housing, registrariat, counseling, fundraising, etc

Involvement of academic support units, i.e library, teaching and learning, curriculum development, faculty and staff training

Student support services for incoming and outgoing students, i.e orientation programs, counseling, cross-cultural training, visa advice

Human resources Recruitment and selection procedures that recognize international expertise Reward and promotion policies to reinforce faculty and staff contributions

Faculty and staff professional development activities Support for international assignments and sabbaticals

Institution-level academic elements/strategies

Academic program Student exchange programs Foreign language study

Internationalized curricula Areas or thematic studies Work/study abroad International students Teaching /Learning process

Joint and double degree programs Cross-cultural training

Faculty/staff mobility program Visiting lecturers and scholars Link between academic programs and research, training and development assistance

Research and scholarly collaboration

Area and theme centers Joint research projects International conferences and seminars Published articles and papers

International research agreements Researcher and graduate exchange programs International research partners in academic and other sectors Link between research, curriculum and teaching

Extracurricular activities

Student clubs and associations International and intercultural campus events Liaison with community-based cultural and ethnic groups Peer groups and programs

Social, cultural and academic support system External

relations and services (domestic and offshore)

Community-based partnerships and projects with non-government groups or private sector companies

Community service and intercultural project work International development assistance projects Customized/ contract-based training and research programs and services Link between development projects and training activities with teaching and research

Cross-border delivery of education programs (commercial and commercial)

non-Offshore teaching sites and distance education Participation in international networks offshore alumni chapters International linkages, partnerships, and networks

Source: adapted from Knight (2004) and Qiang (2003)

Table 1 shows that program strategies consists of academic programs, research and

scholarly collaboration, external relations (both domestic and cross-border), and extracurricular

activities, while organization strategies cover governance, operations, services, and human

resources In fact, these program and organization strategies include most operational aspects of

an institution Besides these, policies are also essential parts of internationalization elements According to Knight (2004), at the institutional level, in a narrow sense, policies include

statements and directives that refer to priorities and plans related to the international dimension

of the institution’s mission, purpose, values and functions This could include the institutional mission statement or policies on study abroad, student recruitment, international linkages and

partnerships, cross-border delivery, sabbaticals and so forth A broader interpretation of policies

at the institutional level includes those statements, directives or planning documents that address implications for or from internationalization This author also clarified that if the institution has taken an integrative and sustainable approach to internationalization, then a very broad range of policy and procedure statements would be implicated ranging from quality assurance, planning, finances, staffing, faculty development, admission, research, curriculum, student support, contract and project work, and so forth

It is obvious that different modes of cross-border education, strategies, programs and policies are categorized under internationalization and they can also be taken differently depending on the peculiar setting of an institution or a country An apprehension of such strategies and elements for internationalization is therefore valuable, at least to this study because

it would provide the researcher with another theoretical aspect in his search for the current internationalization practices of Vietnamese HEIs In the context of Vietnam, an “emerging center of activities” (Altbach & Knight, 2006, pp 27-36) and a big market of HE, what modes of cross-border education, elements, programs, strategies, policies of internationalization, etc are prevalent in the local universities’ practice, or how these elements are demonstrated in the local HEIs’ practices or the like? Essentially, such questions lead to the need for this study

Models and/or frameworks of internationalization

To supplement the discussion of definitions, rationales and elements of internationalization practices, a comprehension of available models and frameworks of internationalization is of great importance to this study

Regarding models and frameworks of internationalization, from a strategic perspective,

in the early years of 1990s, Melin (1992, pp 99-118), a professor at Linkoping University in Sweden, explored the importance of studies on “internationalization as a strategy process”, suggesting that they must capture the developmental stages and dynamics, driving forces and content of internationalization process From a British experience, Rudzki (1991 & 1995), as earlier mentioned, maintained that an analysis of the institutional environment is needed to provide accurate information system related firstly to the current state of activity and secondly to staff’s ability and willingness to engage in the process of internationalization He concluded that the “application of strategic management techniques to the question of internationalization of HE provides a theoretical framework which can be informed by data collected in the field” (p.439) The data were collected by using a combination of PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological) and SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) in order to investigate external environment and organizational factors, which include vision-mission, resources, objectives, expectations, organizational culture, organizational development, curriculum innovation, staff development, student mobility and financial evaluation, etc

In Davies’ “4-quadrant cube” model of internationalization (1992), he specified that internationalization activities and programs of a HEI depend on whether they are “marginal” or

“central” so that the institution can determine “ad hoc” or “systematic” (pp 177-190) strategies and solutions Depending on external factors and the availability of internal resources, an institution can move from one quadrant to another (Figure 1)

Davies suggested that his two-by-two matrix can also provide greater insight into the process of internationalization, which usually starts with marginal policy and ad hoc organization (Quadrant A), followed by “structuralization” and then expansion of the activities or vice versa (Quadrant B or C), to ideally arrive at a broadly developed and well-founded internationalization policy (Quadrant D) Davies’ model, however, only takes into account the design (structural/ad hoc) of the organizational dimension but not the way in which it is managed (at central level/within the faculties or interactive) Therefore, Van Dijk and Meijer (1994, cited in Van Dijk & Meijer, 1999), also from Dutch experience, expanded Davies’ model into eight cells by splitting the second dimension of Davies’ matrix into three dimensions of policy (the importance attached to internationalization aims, i.e priority or marginal), support (the type of support for internationalization activities, i.e interactive or unilateral) and implementation (the method of implementation, i.e structural or ad hoc) (Figure 2)

1 Marginal One-sided Ad hoc

4 Marginal Interactive Systematic

5 Priority One-sided Ad hoc

7 Priority Interactive Ad hoc

8 Priority Interactive Systematic

Source: Van Dijk and Meijer (1999)

Figure 2 Internationalization Cube According to Van Dijk and Meijer’s three-dimension model, HEIs can be positioned in one of the cells of the “cube” Institutions in cell 1, for example, engage in little international activity or are just starting the process of internationalization The authors maintained that their model is not intended to be normative since institutions do not have to move from cell 1 to cell 8 but it merely is an instrument to analyze where institutions are located and how they can move, if

they wish, from one cell to the other The model is expected to help in explaining the development of internationalization where there is an active international strategy

In the Philippine context, Valenzuela (1999), through her doctoral dissertation on internationalization programs and practices at the selected HEIs in NCR (National Capital Region), which employs CIPP (Context, Input, Process and Products) method, came up with a

four-phase model including planning, organizing, integration and evaluation, all of which are

entitled under a suggested program called ‘Revitalizing Internationalization Activities for Life in the 21st century’ for the local HEIs Valenzuela’s planning stage focuses on creating awareness

on the need to plan for internationalization of the institution, obtaining commitment to integrate internationalization in the development of institutional plan, determining personnel to plan, environmental scanning, reviewing of mission statements, formulating mission statements and formal policies on internationalization, developing goals, objectives and institutional policies on

internationalization The organization stage involves staffing (taskforce strategy [for HEI with

limited resources], and permanent organizational strategy [for HEI with enough financial

resources]), directing and controlling The implementation stage suggests (a) strengthening the

faculty and teaching resources [internationalization of library resources, collection building, and training of library staff for internationalization], (b) international cooperation and linkage

programs and (c) internationalization of the curriculum Her last stage, internationalization review phase, highlights peer review and budgeting for the internationalization programs It

appears that Valenzuela’s model puts much emphasis on the important role of planning for internationalization

From the experience of Canadian universities, Knight (1994) proposed a conceptual framework for internationalization, which deeply explores into her definition and concept of

integrating international and intercultural dimension into the triad function of a HEI, i.e teaching, research and services discussed above Knight’s initial six-phase Internationalization Cycle in

1994 consists of Awareness, Commitment, Planning, Operationalize, Review, and Reinforce,

which was later modified by the author herself into a seven-phase cycle in 1995 (Knight, 1995)

to include Awareness, Commitment, Planning, Structure, Operationalization, Evaluation, and Recognition While being kept basically similar to her 1994-model, Knight’s 1995-conceptual

framework further takes into account the importance of reinforcement of internationalization

through evaluation and recognition, feedback and interrelationship between the phases, all of

which make a complete cyclic model

This author has kept her definitions and framework updated In her article in 2001, Knight emphasized the importance of monitoring and evaluating the progress, quality, results and impact of internationalization initiatives and thus proposed a preliminary set of tracking measures, as opposed to performance measures or indicators, which convey an emphasis on the progress of internationalization efforts rather than their outputs alone A format of evaluation and monitoring chart was also proposed to fit in the review stage (in 1994 model) or the evaluation stage (in 1995 model) The tracking measures of various elements of internationalization efforts

or initiatives, according to Knight (2001), are based on the institutional stated objectives and targets Another important notice is that the ‘evaluating and monitoring’, according to her, is an ongoing process, which will in turn provide necessary information for other phases of the internationalization cycle Knight also highlighted the need to continuously monitor the progress and quality of an institution’s internationalization efforts, especially when it reaches the

“maturation” stage of internationalization

Once again, different scholars and researchers conducted their research differently in different context and arrived at different models at different time It is hard to decide which model is absolutely better than the other However, at the institutional level, the discussion so far tends to show that Knight’s conceptual framework comprehensively takes into accounts all aspects of an institution necessary for the achievement of its internationalization efforts Together with her models and definitions, Knight’s updated summary list of strategies and elements of internationalization (Table 1) makes her theory more complete In the non-existence

of local research that seriously looks into the current status of Vietnamese HEIs’ internationalization, a comprehensive and frequently updated model or conceptual framework like Knight’s may be useful to this study on the current status of the local HEIs The discussion

of conceptual framework upon which this study is anchored is further elaborated

some way, each of the four stresses different aspects of the international dimension in education

The activity approach promotes activities such as curriculum, student and faculty exchange, technical assistance and international students The competency approach emphasizes the

development of skills, knowledge, attitudes and values in students, faculty and staff The issue central to this approach is how generation and transfer of knowledge help to develop competencies in the personnel of the HEI so that they become more internationally

acknowledgeable The ethos approach accentuates creating a culture or climate that values and

supports international and/or intercultural perspectives and initiatives The process approach

points out the integration and infusion of an international and/or intercultural dimension into teaching, research and services through a wide range of activities, policies and procedures Once again, in her discussion on updates and revision of definitions, models and

approaches to internationalization, Knight (2004) discussed six approaches to it at the institutional level including activity, outcomes, rationales, process, at home and abroad (cross- border) and five approaches applicable to the national level such as programs, rationales, ad hoc,

policy, and strategic, which were updated on the basis of her previous work in collaboration with

De Wit (Knight & De Wit, 1999, cited in Knight, 2004) While several of Knight’s updated

approaches (Table 2) share common features with Qiang’s classification, they contain additional

components, which help institutional stakeholders of HE better visualize a general picture of what are happening at their institution

Table 2 Approaches to internationalization at Institutional Level

Approach at

Activity Internationalization is described in terms of activities such as study abroad,

curriculum, and academic programs, institutional linkages and networks, development projects, and branch campuses

Outcomes Internationalization is presented in the form of desired outcomes such as student

competences, increased profiles, more international agreements, and partners

or projects

Rationales Internationalization is described with respect to the primary motivations or

rationales driving it This can include academic standards, income generation, cultural diversity, and student and staff development

Process Internationalization is considered to be a process where an international

dimension is integrated into teaching, learning, and service functions of the institution

At home Internationalization is interpreted to be the creation of a culture or climate on

campus that promotes and supports international/intercultural understanding and focuses on campus-based activities

Abroad (cross-border)

Internationalization is seen as the cross-border delivery of education to other countries through a variety of delivery modes (face-to-face, distance, e-learning) and through different administrative arrangements (franchises, twinning, branch, campuses, etc.)

Source: Knight (2004, pp.5-31)

It can be seen that embedded in the discussion of approaches to internationalization are the strategies, elements and modes, which can be taken from different perspectives in different context since the categories in terms of approaches are not mutually exclusive nor presented in any particular or progressive order, as Knight explained Instead, they describe dominant features

of the general ways that a country, education sector or a HEI has decided to proceed with internationalization Any HEIs that wish to ‘internationalize’ themselves can choose to employ different approaches, models or access to different levels of internationalization of education, depending on their own capacity, resources and commitment It is necessary for this study of Vietnamese universities to additionally look into their approaches

Practices of internationalization in other countries

A great number of studies and researches on or related to internationalization have been done in many countries The researcher is convinced that much can be learned by considering the experiences of other countries Despite certain differences in their practical applications in the given contexts of each country, the experiences, practices, research results and findings from these studies provide updated information on internationalization of HE and can serve as valuable resources of references and benchmarks to this study on internationalization practices at Vietnamese HEIs Furthermore, exhibited in other countries’ internationalization experience is a further exploration into how the strategies, concepts, approaches, or models, etc of internationalization are applied and/or emerged in practice, which are useful to this study, too

Experiences from developed nation context Internationalization of curriculum, an

important component of internationalization dominantly found in many practices, does not necessarily mean teaching international students, but refers to teaching and curriculum for all students, and most particularly for domestic students For example, the University of South