The examination of globalization and internationalization as distinct processes is essential for serious scholarship addressing contemporary trends in higher education.
Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon enveloped by economic, social, political
and cultural dimensions that meld 21st century higher education to international endeavors. The impact of globalization poses challenges to the role of nations as the sole providers of higher education and to academic communities as the primary voice for education decision-making. Processes of globalization within university settings transcend the integration of research, the use of English as the language of academia, the expanding international market for scholars, the growth of multinational publishing, and reliance on information technology (Altbach, 2003).
Scholars agree that processes of globalization are unalterable while those representing internationalization remain fluid and changeable (Mok, 2007).
Internationalism, says, Elkin, Devjee and Farnsworth (2008, p. 326) “is not something that is either achieved or not achieved: rather it is an engagement with a range of dimensions.” Processes of internationalism are intertwined with a multiplicity of university administration policy, initiatives, and practices adopted in response to the affects of globalization (Scott, 1998) as noted by association with terminology such as:
transnational, global, world, international, and cross-border education (Knight, 2002).
The examination of international student mobility trends and patterns is well established by a body of research identified with the push-pull framework (Agarwal &
Winkler, 1985; Altbach, 1997; Cummings, 1993; Fry, 1984; Sirowy & Inkeles, 1985).
This research suggests that international student’s progress through developmental stages of decision making beginning with commitments to study internationally and ending with the selection of host institutions. Researchers defined research push factors as conditions in home nations that engender interest in university education beyond national borders. Pull factors are attributes of a host nation that attract international students and affect the decision-making process for study at particular institutions (Mazzarol, 1998).
Agarwal and Winkler (1985) quantified pull factors for the United States as a host destination among students from 15 developing nations. They noted that the percentage of international students enrolling in United States universities has declined in recent years. This shift was attributed to the rising cost of United States tertiary education and the multitude of university program options in students’ home nations. As such a contemporary trend is involves nations that traditionally sent large numbers of students abroad; in recent years these nations have also become successful international centers via the offering of degree programs in English at a low expense (Chan & Ng, 2008).
In a related study McMahon (1992) used a push-pull model to statistically examine the mobility patterns of international students from 18 developing countries.
Findings suggested that student flow was dependent on the level of economic wealth,
the degree of involvement of the destination country in the world economy, and the priority placed on education by the home nation government. McMahon noted a negative correlation between economic prosperity in home countries and the volume of international student flow. Significant pull factors included the size of host nation economies and their political interests as evidenced by foreign assistance, transnational cultural links, and availability of international student scholarships.
In a summative study Massarol (1998) surmised that six pull factors consistently influence students’ selection of host nations and institutions. The overall level of knowledge, access to information, and awareness of the destination nation within students’ home country represented a critical pull factor. The reputation of host institutions for quality and the recognition of their degrees in students’ home nations were significant attributes of this factor. A second pull factor was the number of personal recommendations students received from parents, relatives, friends and gatekeepers. The third factor related to financial issues, including the expense of fees, living, and travel along with social costs, such as crime, safety and racial discrimination. The presence of other students from home nations and the option for part-time work were important attributes of this factor. Additional factors included:
the environment, as related to perceptions about the climate in the host country; the geographic and time proximity between home and host nations; and social links defined as family or friends residing in the destination country.
The utility of the push-pull framework is apparent given the identification of factors affecting mobility patterns and trends of university international students from developing nations. Yet in some respects this framework compromises attention to the complexities associated with the international student experience. Limitations are noted in terms of the exclusion of international students from developed countries who pursue tertiary level education in either developing or other developed nations.
The design of the push-pull framework, moreover, locates the national identity of international students as a reference for commonality; thus international students are defined as a homogenized group rather than as clusters of individuals who have significant differences between and within their nationalities.
Critics argue that scholarship addressing the complexities of the international student experience remains on the fringe of cross-border education literature due in part to a deficit of concepts to articulate the multidimensional complexities of international students’ experiences. In response, a transnational lens is offered to illuminate theoretical and critical interpretations intended to examine the “persistent pull of ‘locality’ as a social space of identity formation” (Smith & Guarnizo, 1998, p.
22)
RESEARCH DESIGN