The Internationalisation of the Academy: Convergence and Divergence across Disciplines

Abstract

The internationalisation of the academy varies according to individual, institutional and structural characteristics. Among factors influencing it, discipline plays a major role. Relying on data collected by two international comparative studies -the Changing Academic Profession Study and the Academic Profession in Europe Study -this article focuses on two aspects of the internationalisation of the academy -namely, international research collaboration and international mobility -asking whether these two aspects are associated with academic disciplines and how. Results from multivariate data analysescomparing Europe and the Rest of the World or other meaningful macro-regions -show that in some areas, such as international research collaboration and educational circulation, the international behaviours of academics belonging to different disciplines diverge, while in some others, such as research productivity related to international research collaboration and short-term professional circulation, they converge.

Academic engagement: Differences between intention to adopt Social Networking Sites and other online technologies

“…A research collaboration can take various forms depending on the institution, field, sector and country, and is typically measured through multi-author or multi-address papers (Katz and Martin, 1997). Its importance stems from the benefits that it provides to academics, as it is associated with high academic performance and productivity (Abbasi et al, 2014;Ductor, 2014;Rostan and Ceravolo, 2015;Zutshi et al, 2012). A collaboration is usually initiated by the material, knowledge-based or social needs of academics, such as the need for infrastructure, research equipment and personnel (Melin, 2000;Rostan and Ceravolo, 2015).…”

“…Its importance stems from the benefits that it provides to academics, as it is associated with high academic performance and productivity (Abbasi et al, 2014;Ductor, 2014;Rostan and Ceravolo, 2015;Zutshi et al, 2012). A collaboration is usually initiated by the material, knowledge-based or social needs of academics, such as the need for infrastructure, research equipment and personnel (Melin, 2000;Rostan and Ceravolo, 2015). However, early career researchers may also be motivated to initiate interactions with their colleagues by needs for impression management and symbolic inclusion in networks (Pifer and Baker, 2013).…”

Issues in Malaysian Higher Education: A Quantitative Representation of the Top Five Priorities, Values, Challenges, and Solutions From the Viewpoints of Academic Leaders

“…The shift from the elite higher education (HE) paradigm to mass HE (Daniel, 1993;Ramsden, 1998), internationalization and globalization (De Wit, 2011;Enders, 2004;Karim & Maarof, 2012;Rostan & Ceravolo, 2015;Shin & Harman, 2009;Van Damme, 2001), wide utilization of information technology (Scott, Tilbury, Sharp, & Deane, 2012;Stensaker, Maassen, Borgan, Oftebro, & Karseth, 2007), and the new fundraising approaches in HE (Keener, Carrier, & Meaders, 2002;Shin & Harman, 2009;Teixeira & Koryakina, 2013) deem to be a few of the main sources of the change forces for the newly emerged challenges. Not only the universities are facing challenges, but also they cause many changes in societies.…”

A two‐sided medal: On the complexity of international comparative and collaborative team research

“…Research on international collaborative research in the field of Higher Education intersects with the science studies literature to a large extent regarding these themes and through its (often) bibliometric approach. Additionally, it provides very valuable insights on the influence of national and supranational policies on international collaborative research (e.g., Slipersæter & Aksnes, ; Smeby & Gornitzka, ; Smeby & Trondal, ) as well as insights on causal relationships and explanatory factors that influence research collaboration on the individual, institutional and national level (e.g., Kwiek, ; Kyvik & Aksnes, ; Rostan & Ceravolo, ; Rostan et al, ). What is mostly missing in both fields are analyses that systematically provide insight into the micro‐level and collaborative research practice of international research teams—whether comparative or non‐comparative (for exceptions, see, e.g., Jeong et al, ; Rambur, ; Shore & Groen, ; Ulnicane, ).…”

“…On one end of the spectrum are the natural sciences, which have a largely international research agenda and produce universal knowledge, are used to a mode of large team big science knowledge production (Price, ) and show a high level of international collaboration. The other end of the spectrum is represented by the social sciences and the humanities, which have a more national and local oriented research attitude and produce more culturally bound knowledge, are still largely characterised by a mode of knowledge production based on individual research and have a considerably lower level of international collaboration (Kyvik, ; Lewis, Ross, & Holden, ; Rostan & Ceravolo, ; Slipersæter & Aksnes, ; Smeby & Trondal, ; van Raan, ). Within the social sciences, international comparative research stands out particularly because it gathers and compares data from different national, cultural, geographical contexts and in different languages, and thus per se has an international and cosmopolitan outlook.…”