Exploring Professional
Identities of International
Education Practitioners
Paige E. Butler, EdD
Katherine Punteney, EdD
NAFSA Northern District
March 2017
Session Overview
I. Welcome/Introductions
II. Archetype Framework
III. Research Study Overview
IV. Preliminary Quantitative Findings
V. Audience Discussion
VI. Preliminary Qualitative Findings
VII. Discussion of Findings/ Q & A
Overview of Study
● Exploring international education practitioner identities.
● Proposed four Archetypes, intended to provoke discussion and reflection, not
to argue that these are the only four types of international educators.
● Surveys asked respondents to rank the four types and answer demographic
and open-ended questions exploring identities, challenges, and ethics.
● Presenting preliminary findings today.
Description of Archetypes: See handout for full description
Best Practices
Implementer
An expert in some way, an instantiation of a field of knowledge, a discipline, etc.
The best practice implementer takes pride in staying current and adhering to
standards and regulations in the field.
Revolutionary
A system outsider, an advocate for policy/systems change, a critic of many
existing practices, an individual that avoids getting enmeshed in the
bureaucracy, or if enmeshed is a vocal critic of the rules, procedures, systems,
and structures that yield vast power differentials.
Hybrid Practitioner
This ideal type invents best practices appropriate to organizational and cultural
contexts, innovates as a kind of policy and/or systems change entrepreneur, and
explicitly tries to improve organizations from the inside instead of the outside.
System Nudger
This ideal type is comfortable with ambiguity, open-ended and emergent
processes, bridging cultures, and in facilitating dialogue and sensemaking and is
interested in bringing high-level thinking, collaboration, cultural contextualization,
and innovative approaches to bear on complex problems.
Research Framework & Design
•
Exploratory Study of IE Practitioner Identities utilizing archetype framework
•
Archetype framework adapted from International Development Practitioner Identity
research by Kent Glenzer & Alfredo Ortiz (2015)
IE Archetypes pilot tested by IE professionals from multiple sectors and at varying stages of career
•
Survey Research / Survey Design
Open & Closed Ended Questions - Pilot Tested & Revised
Demographics and Career Information (non-identifying)
•
Multiple Groups (3 Surveys issued)
IEM Alumni (confidential)
Experts referred by IEM Alumni (confidential)
General International Education Practitioners (anonymous)
Methodology & Data Analysis
Research Framework: Multiple Methodologies in Survey Research
Data Type
Goal
Analysis Tools Utilized
Quantitative
● Depict what is typical & atypical
● Show relationships between variables
● Determine likelihood that findings are
real for the population instead of
determined by probability
R and SPSS Software
● Chi-Square Tests
● Correlation (Kendall’s
Tau)
Qualitative
● Explore meanings, perceptions and
descriptions
● Analyze behaviors, situations and
environments for patterns and themes
● Deduce meaning from findings
Dedoose
● Dramaturgical Coding
● A Priori Coding
Research Questions
What is the ideal practitioner in International
Education?
Which of four proposed archetypes do
international educators most identify with?
Why?
What dilemmas, challenges, and ethical issues
do international education practitioners face as
related to the archetype they primarily
identify?
Do the archetypes represent different career
stages for international educators?
What role does graduate education play in
developing the professional identities of
international educators?
Do MIIS IEM alumni identity with similar
archetypes to each other, and do their choices
contrast with the identities of the general
international educator population? If so, how does
that relate to the culture and curriculum of MIIS’
IEM program?
Given the findings regarding archetypes,
dilemmas, challenges, and ethics, what should be
the emphasis of graduate education in the
international education field?
Goals of the Study
We expect this study to yield:
●Provocation of ideas utilizing new archetypal framework
●Better understanding of the international education profession
●Connections between the identities and priorities of international educators
●Deeper understanding of the challenges facing international educators
●Implications for professional development and training
●Recommendations for graduate education in international education
Summary & Limitations
362 Total Responses Received
(all 3 surveys)
Incomplete/Partial Responses Removed
163 Quantitative Responses Analyzed
All 4 rankings and some demographic questions
completed
145 Qualitative Responses Analyzed
First choice ranking and at least one openended response completed
Limitations:
Personal demographic data were not
collected (age, gender, ethnicity)
Limited number of non-US based
practitioners (6%) completed the survey
No responses from government sector
received
High number of respondents submitted
survey but did not complete the full
archetype ranking, which was crucial for
analysis, thus they were excluded
Quantitative Sample (N=163)
Length of Time in International Education
>20 yrs (20%)
10-19 yrs
(24%)
<3 yrs (16%)
3-9 yrs (40%)
Length of Time in Field
Management Responsibilities
65% of respondents have mgt
responsibilities
No (35%)
22% are SIOs
Yes (65%)
Archetype Responses - Summary
❖ 51% (83) of
respondents identified
Hybrid Practitioner as
“Most Like Me”
❖ 64% (104) of
respondents identified
Revolutionary as
“Least Like Me”
Archetype Responses - Most Like Me
Most Like Me (1)
51% - Hybrid
Practitioner (83)
29% System
Nudger (47)
12% Best Practices
(20)
8% Revolutionary
(13)
Sample of Quantitative Analysis
Summary of Quantitative Findings
Best Practices
●
●
●
●
BP and Management Responsibilities (-)
BP and Professional Development & Training (-)
BP and Teaching (-)
BP and Assessment (+)
Revolutionary
●
●
●
●
Rev and Research/Scholarship and International Enrollment Management (+)
Rev and NGO/NonProfit (+)
Rev and Public Higher Ed (-)
Rev and Crisis Management (-)
Hybrid Practitioner
● HP and Management Responsibilities (-)
● HP and Professional Development & Training(-)
● HP and Mentoring (+)
System Nudger
● Length of time in position and System Nudger (+)
Group Discussion Activity
Move to designated area with your primary
archetype
Discuss: Why do you most identify with the
archetype you selected as your first choice?
Why Identify?
The Best Practice Implementer
The Revolutionary
Traits:
“Work best in structured environment with rules,
regulations, and an order to things”
Traits:
“I am first and foremost an intellectual”
“Creative, adaptive critical thinker who strives to
bring change”
Goals:
“Keep the machine going”
“Trying to enforce best practices”
“Help my staff manage their daily challenges”
Values:
“I believe that implementing best practices
based on experience and up-to-date knowledge
is a good basis for a compliant and efficient
office”
Goals:
“Implement ethical internationalization”
“Dismantle the legacy of ongoing white
supremacist colonial project that drives
internationalization”
Values:
“A social justice framework underlies all of the
work that I do”
Why Identify?
The Hybrid Practitioner
The System Nudger
Traits:
“While I definitely operate within the system, I do
try to bring a critical lens to the work I do.”
Traits:
“I see myself as a bridge builder”
“Consensus building is my #1 trait”
Goals:
“Changing things from the inside out”
“Know how to get the work done, but keep focus
on the best possible way to assist the student”
Goals:
“Bring transformative education experiences to
more people”
“Seek common ground and build consensus to
make changes that serve the best interests of
the int’l students, scholars, and the University”
Values:
“Must work in reality while reaching for the ideal”
“Using the standards as a basis for...continued
improvement”
Values:
“I view international education as a form of
diplomacy in that it can bridge gaps between
people and ultimately societies”
What Dilemmas?
Common challenges reported (all types):
● Wanting to make student needs first priority
● Regulations impeding goals
Distinctions between types:
● Best Practice Implementers much more
likely to cite student safety as a concern
(88% of total comments)
● Organization culture impeding goals
● Encountering resistance to proposals
● Not enough resources or time
● Racism, prejudice, and ignorance
● Working with a wide range of stakeholders
● Difficulty in knowing who you need to serve
(boss, colleagues, the institution, students,
the U.S. government, etc.)
● Best Practice Implementers much more
likely to cite lack of time as a concern
(60% of total comments)
● Revolutionaries cite more likely to cite
regulations as a concern
(41% of total comments)
These percentages are normalized (they are adjusted to
make it as if we have equal number of respondents in
the 4 archetype categories).
How Navigate?
The Best Practice Implementer
The Revolutionary
Maintain knowledge currency:
“Staying aware and up-to-date”
“Having an in-depth knowledge of the field”
Advocate:
“I advocate to new leadership constantly”
“State my opinions/values even when they differ
from that of my leadership”
Establish and follow policies:
“Set standard audit and review procedures”
“I document everything with regs and through
the NAFSA manual”
“Reminding others of the NAFSA ethics policy”
Communicate:
“Transparency and open communication”
“Communicating to campus constituents”
Be creative:
“Focused on building the most creative
programs I can”
“Incorporate the arts”
Compromise:
“Set my idealism aside when appropriate”
“Take a practical approach that nudges us
forward while still being possible”
How Navigate?
The Hybrid Practitioner
The System Nudger
Find supporters:
“Attempted to get more buy in”
“Build partnerships in untraditional areas”
“Finding advocates among the faculty and staff”
Understand others:
“Mindful of personalities and feelings”
“Understand why certain stakeholders are are
attached to [certain policies]”
Find external guidance:
“Asking mentors for insight”
“Sending more senior staff to Forum workshops”
Persistence and Slow Change:
“Practicing patience at times”
“Doing a lot of nudging”
“Small incremental changes”
Find a balance:
“Choosing which battles to fight”
Use data:
“Bring a mix of data and student stories”
“I act on the evidence”
Dialogue:
“Dialogue and communication… to determine the
way forward”
“Honest, open dialogue and lots of brainstorming
Identity Evolution?
Less than 3 years in field
Increased realism/decreased idealism:
“I think I’m less idealistic now than I was during
graduate school”
“I’ve settled into part of the administrative
machine, which at one point (in my mind) would
have been a dreadful thing to do”
“Realizing that at this point in my career, I
cannot be the change-maker that I had hoped”
Increased ability:
“More confident and capable”
“I have begun to build up credibility and political
capital”
3-9 years in the field
Increased clarity:
“I have slowly learned that my strengths as an
introvert and rather focused person have
matched fairly well with the area of laws and
compliance”
“I have been able to figure out the kind of work I
want and don’t want to do as well as the kind of
ethical ambiguity I am OK with and not OK with”
Increased opportunity for change-making:
“I have increasingly taken on more responsibility
and had the opportunity to be at the forefront of
system-changing initiatives”
“More able and confident to challenge the status
quo than at the beginning of my career”
Identity Evolution?
10-19 years in the field
20+ years in the field
Change in type:
“Began as type 1 [Best Practice Implementer]
and evolved into type 4 [System Nudger]”
“Started as a best practices person… then
evolved into a revolutionary...then to hybrid
practitioner and currently as a nudger”
Developed strength
“Become stronger, more defined, tested by
circumstances, challenges, and change”
“[My] reputation… has given me the confidence
to be a stronger voice and and advocate.
Greater complexity of thought:
“I’ve become more of a scholar and a more
strategic thinker”
“I was a lot more black and white earlier in my
career”
“I’ve become… more interested in the larger
context of internationalization”
Became a leader
“Developed strong leadership skills and a wealth
of knowledge about the field”
“Grown [from advising] to include teaching,
research, leading and managing”
Became a mentor
“More focused on developing people”
Discussion & Implications
How could these findings be applicable to hiring,
management, or professional development?
Katherine Punteney, Ed.D.
[email protected]
Questions?
Thank you!
Paige E. Butler, Ed.D.
[email protected]