The IAU 4th Global Survey does a wonderful job at the purpose of the survey: the method of conducting it and where the information is sourced from. This survey laid everything out on the table with background information and all. But as with many surveys, depending on the purpose for why it was made can lead to biases. The main one that comes to mind is the participation in the survey and how the results would have been different had more or different types of institutions had participated. As we’ve learned thus far internationalization and the educational state reforms and varies country to country, so it’s not uncommon that the results would in fact be different, on the other hand is it possible that there might not be a large difference, but a difference is a difference. The survey did give us an opportunity to see things at a different outlook.
I have noticed that within higher education is that there is usually a gap in surveys. I don’t like this because a number of things changes in between the years, but one positive thing that does happen (but could also happen is reserve) is that more institutions choose to participate, and with the advancement of technology is this even more possible. This last survey had participants from the usual suspects North America and Europe, but countries like Africa, Asia, counties in the Pacific, Latin American and countries from the Caribbean, and the Middle East were also able to participate.
We would love to think we have made great advances in the way of internationalization as the push for it increases, but the IAU as shed some light on this. Thanks to the survey we see that there have been no real changes in the risk of turning to internationalization, and institutions are still lacking funding to further themselves in the area. It is saddening that money is among the things holding back this movement from potentially reaching the optimal peak of possibilities. Hopefully the small advances we have made can be enough to convince those who are in control to take a second third or fourth look and find the necessary funding in the future.
Hi Danielle,
Thank you for your post! In reading your response, I found that we had many of the same ideas when reading these 2 articles. I also mentioned in my post about the lapse in survey times and questioned the way that technology may or may not effect reply rates. I also was thinking about the financial aspect involved, and how there are so many different road blocks for international programs. Although some of them are financial, I find that another issue to consider is the political turmoil in other countries, and the safety (or lack there of) involved in running international programs in less-desireable regions.
Thank you,
Melissa Parsowith
Hello Daneille ,
I very much agree with your post , and from a quote i heard a long time ago saying that “numbers do not lie” is quite false. There is plenty of times that data shows information that isn’t necessarily false but also not a true depiction of the entire system as a whole. Like you mentioned the data pool is quite small and it does not represent the general view of the higher education , hence we need to go ahead and try and include more universities as well as have real movements made for internationalization to actually move up the way most schools are saying that that is what is already happening.
Hi Danielle,
I also thought about how the results of the surveys would be different with the larger number of institutions participation and the variety of institutions (private vs public, profit vs non-profit, city based colleges vs. suburbs, specifics of programs and degrees provided). Although these studies do try to provide the best representation of the overall higher education industry, it is indeed, interesting to see how the results would be different if all institutions could participate. I still do believe that this week’s surveys were the best summary of the facts in regards to the internationalization in higher education in the last few years. As described in the readings, we see the overall increased movement toward internationalization, although majority of the enthusiasm and actions come from PhD level institutions. I would be curious to see the results of these surveys in the next few years.
Natallia Kolbun
While reading the results of the survey, I felt a skeptical of the results as well because I felt like the geographic distribution was not well-balanced, which could change the results of the survey overall. The response rate of institutions from the Middle East and Africa were very low in comparison to the other regions. Also, the respondents were mostly one type of institution over the other. They were mostly public institutions focused on teaching and research and enrolled under 5,000 students. I wonder what about these institutions made them more likely to respond and why others didn’t? Also, I am curious to see what institutions they targeted with the email invitation and if it was already an un-balanced list.