Internationalizing Higher Education in Malaysia: Understanding, Practices and Challenges

7. Concluding Remarks

132 7 CONCLUDING REMARKS Tham Siew Yean DIVERSITIES AND SIMILARITIES Before summarizing the main findings in this book, some caveats are in order. In general it is quite difficult to conduct surveys and collect primary data in Malaysia as respondents are by and large, wary of the motivations behind such surveys. We have followed up each of the survey respondent for focus groups (FG) discussions but given the general reluctance, these discussions are in the end based on individual respondent’s willingness to respond. Overall, the small sample size of our survey has limited us from conducting more statistical testing. Further, while the findings reveal certain interesting aspects of internationalization, it may not have captured all aspects, given the very complex nature of the phenomenon as shown in Chapter 2. Bearing these caveats in mind, the main findings show that while the top management of each institution, as represented by those who responded to the survey instrument, appear to have a more comprehensive understanding of internationalization, focus group discussions display a rich diversity of understanding. This diversity is not dichotomous in nature. Instead, it lies in a continuum from a strictly instrumentalist view to a broader and more comprehensive view of internationalization. In the case of the former, internationalization is seen as a means for generating more revenue while the Concluding Remarks 133 latter view envisages internationalization as a means for enhancing the academic standing of a university as a centre of learning and knowledge creation. In terms of practices, there is a strong association of internationalization with various types of mobility such as students, programmes and faculty mobility. This may be expressed in terms of curriculum design such as having an international/intercultural dimension in the curriculum as well as crossinstitutional agreements and the recruitment of international students. Staff mobility is viewed in terms of two way exchanges of faculty members and the establishment of professorial chairs to draw in world renowned scholars for collaborative research, exposure, and learning purposes. As for the challenges faced in internationalization, the views of management seems to concur and focus more on managing internationalization as a process such as competing priorities for time and resources, staff experience, financial support at the national level and the management of international students. At the micro level, the challenges tend to focus on the management of international students as exemplified by recurring expressions of concerns over a myriad of issues associated with international students, ranging from their recruitment to graduation. This is not surprising as the stakeholders at the micro level have to contend with the realities and problems pertaining to the implementation of top-down driven directives to internationalize, especially in terms of bringing in more international students. There are also some key commonalities in the findings that need to be highlighted. First, there is an emphatic agreement that internationalization is necessary and it is here to stay. While this is not surprising at the management level, respondents at the micro level also seem to agree with this even when they are concerned with the challenges raised by internationalization. Secondly, all agree that there are huge challenges ahead and managing internationalization is a prerogative. POLICY ISSUES In July 2011, the government unveiled its operational policy for internationalization (MOHE 2011). As stated in the document, the objective of the policy is to accelerate the inflows of international students to 150,000 by 2015 and further to 200,000 by 2020. Given the stated target and the findings in this book, the greatest challenge is managing international students at both the macro and micro levels. At the macro level, both public and private HEIs in the country are actively competing for these students. Let us consider first the global market 134 Tham Siew Yean for international students. While projections on the growth of international students indicate an annual growth rate of around 6 per cent, with the numbers estimated to increase from around two million in 2000 to around seven million in 2025, Ruby (2009) provides some cautionary notes on such projections. These projections may well have to be adjusted downwards as countries increase their domestic provisions and the quality of their higher education, in an attempt to absorb the demand growth in their respective countries. Economic recessions and demographic changes are other factors that may add further dents to the movement of students across borders. On the other hand, the economic rise of big countries...