Integration of Foreign Faculty Into Korean Universities

7/29/2019 Integration of Foreign Faculty Into Korean Universities

1/22

KEDI Journal of Educational Policy ISSN 17394341

Korean Educational Development Institute 2009, Electronic version: http://eng.kedi.re.kr

KJEP 6:2 (2009), pp. 183-204

Successful integration of foreign faculty into

Korean universities: A proposed framework

Douglas R. GressSeoul National University, Korea

Lynn IlonSeoul National University, Korea

Abstract

Korea is making a concerted effort to become a worldclass leader in highereducation and the motivations for inviting foreign faculty in conjunction with

this effort are clear. However, Korean universities are competing for foreignfaculty in an era of global expansion in higher education, so the success of any

effort to integrate foreign faculty into Korean universities must entail more thanthe mere introduction of content classes taught by invited foreign faculty. Koreanuniversities cannot afford to leave the recruitment and integration processes offoreign faculty or the potential gains to students, native professors, and theinviting institution to chance. We therefore outline a three pronged framework

that simultaneously focuses on student, faculty, and administrative considerationswith the goal of not only increasing the effectiveness of foreign faculty recruit-ment and retention, but also the overall productivity of all participants in the

process.

Keywords: Korean universities, foreign faculty, Korean students, university policy,culture and education

The authors are grateful to the editorial staff and three anonymous reviewers for their

helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.


2/22

Douglas R. Gress & Lynn Ilon

184

Introduction

Recruitment of foreign faculty has become a competitive tool for most top

ranked universities in Asia and across the world. Recent evidence from severalcountries indicates that this recruitment is not just an institutional policy, butpart of a national competitiveness building strategy (Bala, 2008; Binh, 2009; Gulli,

2009; Ihlwan, 2009; Seo, 2009; Slovenia Press Agency, 2009; The National, 2009).This has in turn bolstered the desire to increase ratings in the Times World

University Rankings, which includes the percentage of foreign faculty as one ofits six measures of quality (Times Higher Education, 2008).

Korean domestic policies, both at national and institutional levels, have

targeted the provision of incentives to offer courses taught in English (McNeill,

2008), which is consistent with a global trend whereby universities are increa-singly offering content classes in English (Tonkin, 2001). Indeed, Korean univer-sities are competing for foreign faculty in an era of expansion in higher

education that spans greater Asia, the Middle East, and South America (McBey &McKenna, 2006). Still, with all the attention being paid to the recruitment offoreign faculty in this competitive environment, relatively little has been written

about how to retain such faculty and how to best integrate their knowledge andskills into existing institutional contexts so that all participants, both individualand organizational, can benefit over the long term.

A parallel set of literature is now coming into play that of how to recruit,retain, and effectively integrate what the literature calls internationally mobile

high skilled labor (Cervantes, 2002; Industry Canada, 2008; International Centrefor Migration Policy, 2005; OECD, 2004; OsmanGani & Tan 2005; Schaffer &Harrison, 1998). This literature is reasonably well developed but has only

recently encompassed academia (Kershaw, 2005; Van de BuntKokhuis, 2000).Consequently, as two foreign professors at one of Koreas major universities withprofessional training and experience in International Education and InternationalOrganizational Behavior, we combine insights from existing literature on foreign

professors with that from related disciplines and our experience1) to propose asystems view of foreign professor integration into Korean universities visvisinstitutional productivity. Our review of the literature, observations, conversations

with both foreign and Korean colleagues and students, and our professionalbackgrounds lead us to suggest that the successful recruitment, retention, andintegration of foreign professors necessitate the deployment of an integratedframework that simultaneously encompasses multiple aspects of a university,namely students, faculty, and administration2). Such a framework has not been

identified and this forms the motivation for our effort.In our extensive search for what the literature has to say about foreign

professors, we found only two related empirical studies, one out of France (Noir

sur Blanc, 2001) about European professors and one from Canada (Richardson,


3/22

Successful integration of foreign faculty into Korean universities

185

McBey, & McKenna, 2006). Additionally, we reviewed literature on highly skilledmobile professionals and organizations that seemed relevant to retention and

integration issues (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1997; Industry Canada, 2008; Schaffer &Harrison, 1998; Templar, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006). Finally, we looked at alliedliterature pertaining to cultural and pedagogical issues (Hayden, Levy, &Thompson, 2007; Schneider & Barsoux, 2003; Varner, 2000).

Further, we had to decide whether to write this article from an international,Asian, or Korean perspective. As both of us teach in Korea and one of us has asubstantial amount of incountry experience, we reference Korea and use our

observations to supplement voids in the literature. Nevertheless, we suspect thatan integrated framework is widely applicable and informative and therefore hopeto set the stage for substantial further research across many countries. Thus, thisarticle proceeds by outlining the various components of an integrated frameworkfor the successful recruitment and integration of foreign professors into Korean

universities: students, faculty, and administrative. We proceed on the basis thatthe introduction of foreign faculty is an integrative process. That is, students,existing faculty, administrators, and the institution require some adjustment

this does not exclude the necessary adjustment of the foreign faculty. Foreignfaculty have much to learn and benefit from such appointments and their abilityto do so requires that they view part of their job as learning to integrate andadjust. It is equally nave to think that students will adjust unproblematically or

that an administration understands what it takes to retain such faculty whileincreasing the overall productivity of the institution. Our description of an

integrated framework begins, therefore, with a discussion of student conside-rations, followed by discussions of faculty and administrative considerations. Weconclude with recommendations drawn from each of these integrated com-

ponents.

Student considerations

Considerations pertaining to student attitudes, cultural differences, varyingdegrees of language ability, and ethical lapses have invariably been approached

either in the context of English education (e.g. Littlewood, 1999) or in inter-national and intercultural education program development (e.g. Cushner, 1992; P.Greenbaum & S. Greenbaum, 1983; UNESCO, 2006). This section attempts tointroduce and align these important existing contributions visvis foreign facultyand institutional considerations in Korea.

Korean students in general have been found to have a more positiveperception of their teachers than students from other cultural groups (Richards,Fisher, & Fraser, 1996). Yet research pertaining to student perceptions has more

recently cautioned against the imposition of culturally based stereotypes,


4/22


186

particularly where Asian students are concerned. Thus, the following examples ofKorean student perceptions cannot be judged as inherently good or bad. Rather,

as with all cultural groups, Korean students collectively have a distinct culturalapproach to being students. The following subsections address three themescentral to students and foreign faculty at Korean universities: (1) studentattitudes and perceptions (of foreign faculty); (2) student concerns about differing

English ability levels in content courses; and (3) academic ethics. In turn, wehighlight some necessary recommendations for administrative consideration.

Attitudes and perceptions

If they are teaching in Korea, are they really any good? Why do Koreanstudents have to study in English in Korea? Why do we even need foreignprofessors? These questions are generalized but reflect the attitudes and percep-

tions of some Korean students with regard to foreign faculty.From a Korean students point of view, holding these opinions is under-

standable. The first question, for example, stems from a long held perception that

foreign academic institutions are in some way superior to Korean institutions.After all, Koreans regularly spend significant amounts of money sending theirchildren abroad to study. Koreans represent the largest population of foreignuniversity students in the U.S. (Park, 2009). Also, Korean universities, govern-

ment agencies, and corporations have also long favored applicants with degreesfrom wellknown foreign universities over those with degrees from domestic

institutions (Lee, 2003).One way to correct this misperception is to deploy a strategy that concep-

tualizes students as part of a team. Borrowing from Francesco and Gold (2005, p.

488), we will define team here as a group of two or more people who seek, to achieve goals to which its members express high commitment. Teams havemore cohesiveness and responsibility and use member talents more effectively

than do other groups. A key component to any multicultural team buildingactivity is to make sure that everyone is familiar with the qualifications andexperience of all team members (Francesco & Gold, 2005). University, college,and department PR vehicles (e.g., websites and campus newspapers) can be

engaged in an effort to introduce foreign faculty to the student population,

including their backgrounds, achievements, and motivations for wanting to workin Korea. Faculty may be interested in a Korean or (East) Asian related research

agenda or specialization. Many foreign scholars have professional and personalrelationships with Korean scholars in their field. Additionally, students mightbenefit from knowing that the competition for positions at Korean universities

can be fierce and that foreign professors are carefully chosen from a competitivefield of applicants.

The second and third questions, Why do students have to study in Englishin Korea? and, Why do we even need foreign professors? are also under-


5/22


187

standable. Students have chosen to study in their home country, so why shouldthey have to take core courses taught in a foreign language? Here, we suggest

two streams of thought that can be communicated to students during anorientation at the college or departmental level. The first point is that universitiesall over the world are increasingly offering courses in English (Tonkin, 2001).Second, diversity builds organizational strength and increases the value of

education (Richard, 2000; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Many Korean institutions havetraditionally given hiring priority to applicants who graduated from the sameschool (Lee, 2003). Inclusion of foreign faculty, which contributes to diversity,

helps move universities away from dependence on this practice and in doing soincreases global competitiveness. This may help assure students (and Koreanfaculty) that foreign scholars are not receiving an unfair advantage during therecruitment and hiring process.

Different (English) ability levels in content courses

Scholars have studied the difficulties faced by Chinese university students in

the U.S. (Wan, 1996), language and culture impacts on U.S. and Taiwanesestudentteacher expectations (Niehoff, Turnley, Yen, & Chwen, 2001), and generalstrategies for increasing the involvement of East Asian students in internationaleducational environments in North American schools (Schneider & Lee, 1990).

General suggestions from the above studies include the development of morefriendly relationships between students and teachers to facilitate crosscultural

awareness and communication, participation in grouplevel projects, presentations

and discussions, and the introduction of crosscultural education for faculty andstudents. We apply these insights to the Korean experience in an effort to enrich

the learning experience for students and, at the same time, the productivity ofboth foreign professors and universities.

Rather than digressing into a debate on the impact of culture on student

perceptions related to classroom participation and relative language ability,3) weoffer some practical insights that can be communicated to students prior to theirparticipation in classes taught by foreign professors. First, students can be made

aware that they have an opportunity to learn about a foreign culture and toimprove their foreign language ability while simultaneously expanding their core

knowledge. By learning to adapt to an environment predicated on the values,beliefs, and norms of someone from another culture, they increase their potential

contribution to globalizing institutions when they embark on their careers. Theyshould be encouraged in advance to ask questions, challenge ideas, andparticipate to their fullest ability in the spirit of acquiring a more robust cross

cultural academic experience.Second, students should be made aware that professors and administrators

are cognizant of the varying degrees of student English language abilities.Student efforts to learn via a foreign language are thus fully supported and


6/22


188

appreciated. Students who are less confident of their English ability may beencouraged to prepare questions, input, or criticisms prior to class (Weaver & Qi,

2005) or to ask for additional faculty support regarding readings or topics theymay find particularly challenging. Lastly, students should be made aware that intaking content courses in English, the emphasis is primarily placed onperformance related to the course material and not on their individual spoken

English ability. If they can communicate their ideas and understanding of thetarget material sufficiently, they have the potential to do well in class. As part ofan integrated framework, all these points should be communicated to students.

Student perceptions and ethics

Academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and cheating, in particular, have receivedconsiderable attention in educational literature for well over a decade now. Roig

and Ballew (1994), for example, provide an insightful look into the attitudes ofstudents and professors regarding academic dishonesty, and a subsequent inquiry(Roig, 1997) unearths some very alarming statistics for cheating at universities in

the United States. The presence of Asian students at Australian and NewZealand universities has been found to contribute to the perceptions of increasesin academic dishonesty (Dick et al., 2003).

Recent surveys of Korean university students have yielded a disturbing

picture of academic dishonesty. For example, an April 2009 survey found thatroughly 27% of Korean University (KU) students had cheated on an exam and

that 25% had paid for papers online (Jung, 2009). Well publicized incidents ofcheating (e.g., the record breaking university entrance examine scandal in 2004 orthe SNU medical school cheating scandal in 2008 involving over 30 students)

suggest the susceptibility to cheating that would support the KU survey num-bers, perhaps beyond.

This topic is particularly pertinent when (a) perceptions of what constitute

cheating may vary between students and nonKorean professors, thus potentiallyushering in administrative confusion regarding the resolution of incidences ofacademic dishonesty, and (b) there may be increased pressure to cheat or

plagiarize when students write in a second language. Either of these scenariosposes a potential threat to the international perceptions of the Korean student

and institutional viability and competitiveness. One remedy may be to introducestudents to a university honor code based on international standards relating to

exactly what practices constitute academic dishonesty (see Dick et al. (2003) andMartin, Sheard, Bareiss, Carter, Joyce, Harding, & Laxer (2003) for thoroughdiscussions of this topic). As McCabe and Trevio conclude, honor codes are

not very meaningful unless students are continually made aware of them and areexposed to ongoing dialogues in the class and outside of class about relevant

matters of integrity and honor (McCabe & Trevio, 2002, quoted in Roig &Marks, 2006, p. 168). In the international educational context, this would require


7/22


189

the development of a cohesive university policy regarding cheating andplagiarism and consistent topdown administrative support. There is a difference,

for example, between an ethical dilemma and an ethical lapse. An ethical lapseoccurs when someone knows they are violating ethical behavior yet chooses toengage in the behavior nonetheless (Bovee & Thill, 2005). By continually voicingthe conditions and behavior that constitute academic dishonesty in all forms,

whether cheating on exams or plagiarizing papers, the potential for students toclaim ignorance of standards emanating from a crosscultural learning environ-ment will be diminished. We believe that this logic further reinforces the

inclusion of student considerations into an integrated framework encompassingstudents, foreign professors, and administrations. In the following section, wecontinue by examining faculty considerations.

Faculty considerations

Guides for international faculty have long been part of the transition processfor foreign faculty in North American institutions. Sarkisian (1997), for example,

provides a comprehensive guide for international faculty in US universities,covering such diverse subjects of interest as general advice and teachingstrategies, building student relationships, making effective presentations, leadingdiscussions with potential contextbased language difficulties, and grading. Giventhat Korean universities are currently recruiting and hiring large numbers of

foreign professors across a diverse range of disciplines, some of the lessons inthis literature may be of benefit to our suggested integrated framework forKorean universities. In this section, we explore three specific topics that, in our

experience, prove challenging to instructors new to the Korean educationalenvironment or that may help facilitate teaching effectiveness in the context ofthe Korean classroom: teaching and the use of projects, grading, and research.

Teaching

Many foreign faculty have years of teaching and research experience before

coming to a Korean university. This experience will prove valuable but notnecessarily sufficient to assure their success in teaching, particularly since manyacademics may not consider, as Fry, Ketterridge, and Marshall (1999) suggest,...how their students learn and if the way they teach is predicated on enablinglearning to happen (p. 9). Compounding this is that students in a foreign educa-

tional institution learn differently compared with students at a home institution.Consequently, for success to be enabled, faculty members need to be integratedinto local expectations and practices. If students, colleagues, departments, or the

university are expected to adjust to the foreign faculty methods, then such


8/22


190

adjustments need to be made explicit. Confusion can prevail without a carefullook at who is expected to adjust and in which manner. Also, longheld customs

and practices are often backed by informal or formal reward systems. Withoutguidance, all participants can be caught in a situation where change is expectedbut not rewarded. This puts all at risk and creates an atmosphere of resistance.

Teaching styles vary throughout the world according to culture, custom, and

history. As Cortazzi and Jin (1997) point out, professors and students bring withthem culturally embedded behaviors and concepts. Faculty can be told that theirdifferent styles are welcome. However, this ignores a potential reality involving a

set of culturally embedded base expectations that can persist even in the face ofinstitutionally sanctioned change. If these embedded expectations are violated byincoming foreign professors, this will likely be viewed as a demonstration ofincompetence.

As such, new faculty should be introduced to local teaching styles even while

students are made aware of the potential teaching differences between native andforeign professors. Foreign teaching styles can be successfully integrated but onlyonce the base teaching expectations are made explicit. One of the best ways of

conveying this is to invite the foreign faculty member to observe the classes of acolleague who is deemed to be a successful teacher. Even if the teaching is beingconducted in Korean, foreign faculty can observe classroom interactions, styles,and pace. Additionally, we suggest that foreign faculty be given several syllabi to

peruse. None of this locks them into the given teaching styles, but it does providethem with a basis for understanding student (and possibly institutional) teaching

expectations. Substantial deviations, then, can be made explicit but explained fromthe base of what is already known and expected.

Another scenario may entail foreign faculty adjusting their styles to conform,

in a large part, to base teaching styles at the inviting institution. Still, as lessonsfrom organizational behavior research suggest, organizational considerations needto be understood within the rubric of the macro culture, the organizational

culture, and the organizations capacity to enact change (Hofstede, 1999). Koreanuniversities should not make the assumption that such information will naturallybe passed from existing faculty to new faculty or that uniformity will beachieved across the university, college, and department levels. Therefore, a top

priority of the institution should be to assure that all instruction related materials

are translated. This includes class lists, the web site where syllabi andenrollments are registered, and all the materials needed to record grades. Faculty

cannot rely on students to do this for them and they ought to be able to operateindependently on this front.

Given the importance of teaching and the implicit expectations of bothfaculty and students, there is a clear need for an orientation on teaching.Experienced local faculty with international experience can contrast the local

teaching style with that of at least one foreign style. Existing foreign facultyshould be encouraged to contribute to this forum. They could talk with new


9/22


191

faculty about the challenges they faced and how they made the adjustments. Atthe same time, standing research has provided some useful suggestions that can

facilitate the transition by foreign professors to classrooms in Korean universities.Class projects, for example, assigned and monitored at the group level may

provide an excellent means by which foreign faculty can engage students whomay otherwise remain at the fray during comprehensive lectures (Gipps, 1999).

According to UNESCOs (2006, p. 35) vision of intracultural education, globallyoriented learning institutions, promote an active learning environment, forexample through the conduct of concrete projects, in order to demystify book

based knowledge and to give people a sense of confidence and to acquirecultural skills, such as the ability to communicate or to cooperate with others.Specifically pertaining to East Asian students, Schneider and Lee (1990) suggestthat group projects are an excellent way to promote interaction with otherstudents, which may prove especially useful when international students and

Korean students study together.Participating in projects may also help to increase participation and levels of

interaction between students and their professor (Howard, 2002), thus addressing

many foreign professors concerns about engaging Korean students in theclassroom. Modern Asian students are less prone to perceive the learning processas passive (from teacher to student), a view that challenges standing stereotypesof East Asian students (Littlewood, 2000). However, participation grades, often

viewed as a possible alternative to group projects when soliciting studentengagement, are often met with negative perceptions on the part of students

(Meyer, 2007). Consequently, we suggest foreign professors engage their Koreanstudents via group projects rather than hoping to solicit participation based on aseparate grade for participation.

Grading

Over the years, a point of consternation voiced to one of the authors byforeign teachers in Korea is that Korean students expect grades based on theirperceived effort or circumstances or are under the assumption that classes taught

in English will yield an easy A. However, many professors from western culturesview grading as an empirical process. Americans, for example, tend to view facts

as,

empirical, observable, and measurable (Stewart & Bennett, 1991, pp. 30

31), a view at odds with Korean perceptions.

Testing and grading go handandhand, and as Gipps (1999) explains,

tests reflect the values, culture and experience of the authors (p. 360). As such,the values attributed to the manufacturing and grading of exams and to the

subsequent assignment of final grades ostensibly vary between nonKoreans andKoreans. In Korea, the emphasis tends to be on the rigorous university entrance

exam process and, once accepted, graduating from a university is more oftenthan not perceived as a foregone conclusion. Given the sociocultural differences


10/22


192

between Korean students and foreign faculty, we agree with the generalrecommendation of Gipps (1999). The author stresses, ...that there be an explicit

account of the construct being assessed and the criteria for assessment, whichshould be available to both students and teachers (Gipps, 1999, p. 366). Thesedifferences should therefore be communicated to foreign faculty from both thedepartmental and university administrations and from the administration and the

foreign professor to the Korean students. The faculty, having a priori knowledgeof cultural differences, and only after having announced their grading policiesclearly to students at the beginning of each semester, need to be given the

requisite leeway to grade as they see fit. Many foreign professors view gradingas an empirical process, so while grades can indeed be challenged by students, asuccessful challenge to a grade must be presented in a measurable, empiricalway and foreign faculty decisions need to be supported by the administration.Again, we view this as lending credibility to the development and implemen-

tation of a studentfacultyadministrative framework.Our recommendation is that universities should not obligate foreign visiting

and tenure track professors to make courses easier or to assign larger percen-

tages of higher grades. It is understandable that Korean universities seeking togain popularity for courses taught by foreign faculty may wish to relax gradingstandards for courses taught in English. If this decision is made, such a strategyshould only be pursued over the short term. Over the longer term, we suggest

that this may not only cause a rift in facultystudent and facultyadministrationrelationships, but that it may also diminish the international credibility of Korean

students, academic programs, and institutions.

Research

Quickly disappearing are the days when the occasional academic wanderedthe globe hoping for adventure. Although the allure of travel and experience is

still valid, most foreign faculty members view themselves within a globalprofessional framework and consider assignments overseas to be part of theirprofessional development. Since global professional reputations are based on

publications, the research environment is, not surprisingly, a primary conside-ration for attracting and keeping foreign faculty. This is borne out by many

studies.A survey conducted by Noir sur Blanc (2001) of 150 foreign faculty from 20

different countries indicates that for 81.3% of respondents, the primary reason forcoming to a foreign university is to avail themselves of good research oppor-tunities. Although salaries, benefits, and travel to a new location are attractions,

it is the research environment that is of primary importance. Indeed, Welchs1997 comparison of foreign and domestic faculty using the Carnegie survey of

20,000 faculty members worldwide finds that foreign professors are morestrongly motivated by research than their indigenous peers and that this could


11/22


193

be a significant rationale for their relocation decisions (Welch, 1997). Lastly, in arelated research vein, Canada (Industry Canada, 2008) has undertaken a major

multiyear study to determine how to attract and retain people in various highly

skilled professions. Their study on foreign faculty reveals that, it is perhapsunsurprising that a key issue for the majority of participants related to theirresearch activity, including research networks (Industry Canada, 2008, p. 33).

Given the critical importance of research to the recruitment, satisfaction, andretention of faculty, it is important that research support be thought throughcarefully. Local faculty members are familiar with the sources of funding and

have substantial networks to access such funding. These need to be made explicitto the incoming professors. We recommend, therefore, that all information(emails and printed materials) on research opportunities and networks, includingannouncements of lectures and research presentations, be communicated inEnglish. This does not mean that all such communication need be fully

translated. Rather, short summaries or descriptions can be provided along withEnglish subject lines in emails. If the faculty member has enough interest giventhe short notification, he/she can pursue a fuller translation.

Helping the faculty member settle into a research environment will make asignificant difference in their productivity and job satisfaction. To facilitate this,technology should be ordered immediately and equipped with English software,if needed, along with the capacity to communicate in Korean. Graduate student

support ought to be available from the first day, along with any designated labspace and equipment.

Although globalizing academic institutions have a mammoth job of transi-tioning web sites to bilingual usage, those that support research should be of thehighest priority. Our suggestions include thoroughly reviewing library and

institutional research pages to assure they are fully accessible to foreign faculty,and a foreign faculty orientation to the library how to use it, who is availableto help, and how to use various services such as interlibrary loans. A mentor

colleague who can help navigate the local publication world, resources, andpractices would be tremendously valuable.

Administrative considerationsThere are clear advantages to globalizing the faculty body of an educational

institution and, once situated, foreign faculty members generally seek to behighly productive (Dostie & Leger, 2006). Once initiated, however, institutions

aspiring to globalize can only do so if they are successful at dealing withobjections to foreign personnel and accompanying prospects for change (Yip,1995). In order to do so, universities must be able to clearly outline their

objectives visvis their capacity to change within the framework of the larger


12/22


194

institutional and macro culture within which they are situated (Hofstede, 1999).There is a clear organizational logic to bringing in foreign professors, but the

success of integrating foreign professors goes far beyond any bureaucratic efforts.Noir sur Blanc (2001), for example, found that there is a substantial differencebetween universities that had a long, successful history of foreign professorrecruitment and those that were aspiring to create such a path. In the following

sections, therefore, we examine three elements critical to any globalization ofpersonnel effort: recruitment, support, and retention and promotion of foreignfaculty.

Recruitment

Underlying any recruitment effort must be the understanding that taking ajob in a foreign country involves substantial risks to the careers of international

professionals. There is a risk of losing ones network of researchers, of removingoneself from a tenure process that is supported by known publication standardsand relationships, and of not being able to reenter the academic stream in ones

home country. Richardson and Zikic (2007) note that international faculty werekeenly sensitive to these risks when they moved outside of North America andEurope.

Foreign faculty will likely view a move to Korea as a risky endeavor unless

they already have substantial links to the country, institution, or faculty. Thereare benefits, however, to making such a move. A way of minimizing perceived

risks is to make the recruitment process straight forward so that nothing is leftto an applicants imagination.4) For example, formal contracts are important tomany foreign faculty. Without a formal written contract, including clear state-ments of salary, benefits, and expectations, one might well be faced with leavinga good job with only the apparent promise of benefits but nothing in writing. Insome cultures, since promises not put in writing are sometimes reneged, these

are big risks especially if a family move is involved. We suggest that once anoffer is made, it needs to be conveyed in writing in English if the facultymember does not speak Korean.

Additionally, once negotiated and set in the local (in this case, Korean)currency, salaries should be provided in writing. Although local currency can

fluctuate against the professors home currency, the professor benefits duringthese fluctuations from having a stable income relative to local costs. This means

that funds sent back home will have a fluctuating value, but this is anassociated cost of living in a foreign country and faculty who are not willing toface this risk (or potential benefit) are, in our experience, not ready for

international work. Salaries ought to be broken down into the base salary, thestructure of bonuses or travel allotments (if any), and any costs associated with

housing to be born by the professor. The local tax burden should also beaddressed.


13/22


195

Equally important are the implied benefits which are expressed informallyon the web or in person during meetings. Formal offers should spell out the full

package of salary and benefits along with terms of employment. Benefits fromestablished organizations such as pensions and healthcare can be referred to inname with accompanying information. Although the welcoming university mightview such information as casual conveying an atmosphere of support and

concern to the interviewing faculty it is taken by incoming faculty as indicativeof what awaits them at the other end of a contract. Expectations of how oftenconference travel is paid, of teaching obligations during summer or winter

breaks, of promotion guidelines, of housing costs and benefits, and of graduatestudent support and lab/technology offerings will be viewed by an applicant asbona fide job components. Specifically concerning housing, actual housinglogistics are normally handled by separate administrative units at Koreanuniversities (e.g. General Affairs) and the hiring administrative body at the

university, college, or departmental levels may be unaware of specificitiesregarding housing prices and policies. We therefore suggest that the hiringadministration fully acquaint themselves with this important element of

employment terms prior to any recruitment effort being made.Research on international education professionals highlights the importance

of crosscultural and communicative differences that impact the perceived valueof contracts. Industry Canada found that when job characteristics were described

but not adhered to, foreign faculty members felt betrayed and lost trust. Theconclusions drawn from this study are specific, stating, Clearly, this finding

indicates that written standards dramatically reduce problems of misinterpretationof expected roles, performance levels, resources and rewards for both parties.Indeed, unfulfilled expectations contribute greatly to reported job dissatisfaction,

a factor strongly and negatively related to turnover behavior (Industry Canada,2008, p. 64). Correspondingly, Templar et al. (2006, p. 168) find that, jobrelated information provided by the organization and perceived to accurately

portray the work requirements and demands in the new cultural setting mayease work adjustment of global professionals in the foreign assignment. Similarly,accurate information regarding local living conditions may facilitate adjustmentto a foreign work environment.

Indeed, a consistent flow of accurate information is critical to the overseas

recruitment and hiring processes and this flow should continue after employmenthas been engaged. During the hiring process, prospective foreign faculty need to

be made aware of the interview and approval processes and the time framewithin which the process will transpire. This should be communicated by asenior person at the hiring institution in order to build trust and to alleviate anypossible miscommunication by potentially underinformed staff. Further, duringthe application phase, a number of documents are required of foreign faculty. In

many cases, however, these documents are never required during the employ-ment process at home and may take an applicant a significant amount of time,


14/22


196

money and effort to procure. We suggest that a comprehensive list of alldocuments required be given to applicants upon notification of initial conside-

ration and that this list be updated as necessary throughout the approval andhiring phases of the employment process. We strongly recommend this becauseprospective faculty may find themselves confronted with a seemingly unendingstream of document requests that could have been more easily handled in one

concentrated effort.Some of this communication is often handled by lowerlevel staff or student

support at Korean universities. However, there are substantial cultural differences

worldwide pertaining to which types of communication are handled by seniorpeople (even when, in fact, a clerk or student may have done the work) andwhich is handled by staff or students. In some cultures, having ones applicationpacket passed to a junior staff member can imply that ones application is nolonger being taken seriously or that it has encountered problems that the

administration does not wish to address. A likely response by applying facultymight be to withdraw their application or to fail to engage actively in the process.One suggestion to rectify any potential problem during this stage is to instruct

junior staff or students at the inviting institution to send outgoing emails to asenior (Korean) faculty member who can then forward the message to the foreignapplicant with an accompanying sentence. In this way, all correspondence will bepassed to the foreign applicant directly from a senior member of the institution.

Support

The literature on recruitment of foreign faculty and other highly skilled globalworkers makes a strong case for the role of support services both work and non

work related (see Schaffer & Harrison, 1998, p. 113). This not only increases thesmoothness of the transition, but leaves new employees with a better impressionof their host locale and their employer in addition to building commitment during

the initial stages of employment (Industry Canada, 2008). Good websites withdetailed information on contracts, health benefits, pensions, services, andinstitutional support mitigate the cultural and institutional problems of adjust-

ment (Richardson, et al., 2006; Eistenkraft, 2005). Fortunately, there are a myriad ofrelated web sites in Korea maintained by the government. To the best of our

knowledge, however, few formal efforts are made on the part of many universityadministrations to make these sites known to incoming foreign faculty.

Accordingly, we suggest that institutions consider putting together a formalorientation for incoming foreign faculty. Such an orientation, both in content andform, could be substantially handled by volunteers within existing faculty.

Options could include a neighborhood tour or getting everyone who wishes tobe added to a local list serve. If the institution has extensive English language

information on the web, a short guide to that information and a web page withlinks should be introduced. In short, evidence strongly suggests that orientation


15/22


197

programs (Gareis & Williams, 2004), online orientation via specialized web sites(Eisenkraft, 2005), and comprehensive ongoing orientation efforts (Industry

Canada, 2008) improve transitions to international locales and overall facultyadaptation and productivity.

University administrators can also capitalize on the local knowledge accumu-lated by their existing foreign faculty. Experienced foreign faculty can be put in

direct and sometimes formal contact with incoming faculty. In our experience,existing foreign faculty are often more than willing to correspond with pros-pective faculty and to help them adjust upon arrival if the university formalizes

the arrangement. The institution cannot assume that such arrangements willnaturally occur informally as faculty come from different countries with differenttraditions of collectivism and privacy. Volunteer focus groups or occasionalcommittees could develop a handbook for foreign faculty, make maps of servicesavailable in surrounding communities, and make lists of campus resources they

found useful or interesting. They could also offer advice on institutional adjust-ments that would make work easier for incoming professionals.

Retention and promotion

Industry Canada found that misunderstandings about tenure and job expec-tations were a primary source of tension among foreign faculty, particularly

junior faculty, and a likely reason for them to leave their post (Industry Canada,2008). But these expectations may not be a good fit between incoming foreign

faculty and the institution even when the institution espouses to be workingtoward a global standard. As we inclined previously, an organization must takeinventory of its strengths, its embedded local environment, and its capacity to

effectively enact change in order to succeed globally. If a global standard is thegoal, then institutions may need to rethink incentives along global lines whensetting performance and publications standards for foreign faculty.

Research expectations are a good example. Although the institution mayhave a set of standards by which their local faculty are evaluated, researchrequirements of foreign faculty may well need to be different. It is reasonable to

expect, for example, that foreign faculty publish in ranked international journals.As foreign faculty members often have an established record of English language

publications, their publishing networks are in English.At the same time, a local preference for a comparatively high number of

publications (traditionally met by extensively publishing in local journals) cannotor will not likely be matched by foreign faculty. The process of publishing in thetop five to tenpercent of internationally ranked journals in ones field takes

considerably more time than publishing in locallyproduced journals. Aligningthe global framework for publishing expectations with the local, institutionally

sanctioned expectations for foreign professors benefits both the institution andthe professors.


16/22


198

Concluding remarks and recommendations

Viewing the integration of foreign faculty as one of the pieces of building a

global framework for a university takes the implicit value judgment out of theprocess and frames the effort beyond that of simply raising the counts of foreignfaculty and the content courses taught in English. Thus, our number one recom-

mendation is that the recruitment and retention of foreign faculty be viewedwithin an integrated framework involving the foreign faculty, existing faculty,

administration, and students with the end goal of increasing the productivity andcompetitiveness of all parties involved.

Within this framework, recruitment ought to be viewed as the beginning of a

process, not a goal in itself. A period of recruitment is followed by a process of

initial adjustment and information exchange. The building of networks, processes,and structural and administrative changes to the environment follows andforeign faculty can become part of the resources that can be drawn to inform

and recruit new faculty. Throughout the process, existing faculty, administrators,and students also go through an adjustment and with it, the institution changes.The recruitment and retention of foreign faculty is therefore a process of constant

change, renewal, and evaluation. After taking stock of an institutions capacity tochange and beginning the process, all parties need to find ways of consistentlyassessing the changes, evaluating them, making further changes, or reversingsome changes that have not been sufficiently successful.

We have placed particular emphasis on research. The importance of research

can easily be overlooked but needs to be dealt with explicitly by invitinginstitutions. All faculty, domestic and foreign, benefit from an increase incollaborative research opportunities. Institutions become more competitive along

the way. Thus, another recommendation is to identify ways in which the localinstitutional standards differ from global standards and to explicitly determinewhich standards, norms, and practices will be targeted for adjustment and whichwill remain largely unchanged. Make these goals explicit, chart a course of

change over time, and evaluate the results periodically.Teaching styles are personal, fielddetermined, institutionallybound, and

culturally determined. Flexibility remains a good standard for all professors

globally. Nevertheless, at least some local standard may be applicable regardlessof this global flexibility. Also, students will necessarily have to make a substantialadjustment regardless of the sensitivity of the professor. Our recommendation isthat student considerations be included in the framework deployed to attract andretail foreign faculty. To this end, student feedback should be solicited and

students should have their own orientation. In this scenario, standing attitudesand perceptions should be addressed and expectations concerning globalacademic standards should be made explicit.

Foreign faculty members are generally committed to the adjustment effort as


17/22


199

evidenced by the risks they take in seeking foreign employment and their desireto be in Korea. It is not unreasonable to expect them to make adjustments as

well. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to assume they can work in an environmentthat is in the process of adjustment and that has not been fully internationalized.However, existing faculty can be called upon to augment the adjustment processby mentoring new foreign faculty members and sharing ideas. Making expec-

tations and information explicit and widely available to students and faculty andproviding ongoing support are a good beginning to a long process dedicated toincreasing productivity and competitiveness not only for Korean universities, but

also for all parties involved.Finally, as we stated at the beginning of this article, we hope that our

generation of an integrated framework for the recruitment and retention offoreign professors into Korean universities, encompassing student, faculty, andadministrative considerations, sets the stage for further research. It is important,

therefore, that we highlight some potential shortcomings of our efforts in orderto motivate future related research efforts. This article represents a proposedframework based upon a substantive literature review and our own observations

and experience, and is therefore necessarily limited in scope. The proposedframework developed in this article is the beginning. Further research mayunearth diverse viewpoints concerning native faculty or student perceptions ofour recommendations or it may discover related components to incorporate into

the framework. Researchers concentrating on educational administration or policymay be able to delve deeper into assessment criteria for an educational insti-

tutions capacity for change given our initial recommendations, the feasibility ofsome of our recommendations at the institutional level, or potential crossculturaldifficulties associated with the implementation of an integrated multiple actor

framework in Korea and elsewhere.

1) Collectively, the two of us have experience working abroad in over 20 countries, over 25years of university teaching experience (one of us on three continents) and eight years ofteaching experience at the university level in Korea. One of us has resided in Korea forroughly 18 years, has completed a Masters degree at a Korean university, and speaks fluentKorean. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the inclusion of our backgroundinformation to bolster the credibility of our observations and the subsequent recommen-dations we generate.

2) In fact, the literature also details the importance of family, local schooling, spousal adjust-ments, and community and support services outside the workplace. We have restricted ourdiscussion, here, to the university setting.

3) See Fassinger (1995) for a discussion of culture and nonverbal misinterpretation in partici-pation, or Weaver & Qi (2005) for a review of the participation literature in general.

4) Risk and cultural preferences for generalvsspecific, as well as perceptions regarding contractagreements, are part of a wider literature tied to cross cultural negotiation. As an example,Metcalf et al. (2006), in their fivecountry study on comparative negotiation behavior, find anoverwhelming preference for specific agreements, with Americans and Finns demonstratingthe lowest preference for general agreements. For reasons of brevity, we do not delve intothis extensive literature, citing, instead, from studies specifically focusing on professors.


18/22


200

Address for correspondence

Douglas R. Gress

Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Geography EducationSeoul National University

599 GwanakRo, GwanakGuSeoul 151748, Korea

Tel: 82 2 880 7739Fax: 82 2 882 9873Email: [email protected]

References

Bala, S. (2008, September 22). Drawn to the bright lights of Singapore. FinancialTimes. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.nbs.ntu.edu.sg/announcements/public/images/attachments/FT 22Sep08.PDF

Binh, D. (2009, August 14). Deputy PM launches new university project. VietnamNews Agency. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://vietnamnews.vnagency.

com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01EDU140809Bovee, C., & Thill, J. (2005). Business Communication Today. New Jersey: Pearson

Prentice Hall.Cervantes, M. (2004). Attracting, retaining and mobilizing high skilled labour. In

Global Knowledge Flows and Economic Development (pp. 5171). Paris: OECD.Cortazzi , M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D.

McNamara, & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education: Issues in

teaching and learning (pp. 7690). London: Routledge.Cushner, K. (1992). Human diversity in education: An integrative approach. New

Jersey: McGrawHill.

Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce D., Harding T., & Laxer, C.(2003). Addressing student cheating: Definitions and solutions. ACM SigCSEBulletin, 35(1), 172184.

Dostie, B., & Lger, P. (2006). Selfselection in migration and returns to unobser-

vable skills. Skills Research Initiative Working Paper Series, No. 2006 D09. MicroEconomic Policy Analysis Branch, Industry Canada and Policy ResearchDirectorate, Human Resources and Social Development, Canada. Retrieved

June 22, 2009, from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/easaes.nsf/vwapj/SRIsr04.pdf

/$FILE/SRIsr04.pdfEisenkraft, H. (2005). Putting out the welcome mat. Office of University Affairs,

Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/puttingoutthewelcomemat.aspx


19/22


201

Fassinger, P. (1995). Professors and students perceptions of why students par-ticipate in class. Teaching Sociology, 24, 2533.

Francesco, A., & Gold, B. (2005). International organizational behavior. New Jersey:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Fry, H., Ketterridge, S., & Marshall, S. (1999). Understanding student learning. InHandbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic

practice (pp. 826). NY: Routledge.Gareis, E., & Williams, L. (2004). International faculty development for fulltime

and adjunct faculty: A program description. The Journal of Faculty Development,

20(1), 4553.Gipps, C. (1999). Sociocultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in

Education, 24, 355392.Gulli, C. (2009 August 10). Smartening up: Presidents of seven smaller universities

take aim at the big five. Macleans. Retreived August 20, 2009, from http://

oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/08/12/smartening up/Greenbaum, P., & Greenbaum, S. (1983). Cultural differences, nonverbal regulation

and classroom interaction: Sociolinguistic interference in American Indian

education. Peabody Journal of Education, 6(1), 1633.Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.Hayden, M., Levy, J., & Thompson, J. (2007). The sage handbook of research in

international education. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hofstede, G. (1997). The business of international business is culture. In H.VernonWortzel, & L. Wortzel (Eds.), Strategic management in a global economy

(pp. 483493). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Howard, J. (2002). Do college students participate more in discussion of traditionaldelivery courses or in interactive telecourses? Journal of Higher Education,73(6), 764780.

Ihlwan, M. (2009, May 8). Asia seeks its own brand of business schools.Businessweek. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.businessweek.com

/globalbiz/content/may2009/gb2009057_031418.htmlIndustry Canada. (2008). International mobility of highly skilled workers: A synthesis

of key findings and policy implications. MicroEconomic Policy Analysis Branch,Industry Canada and Policy Research Directorate, Human Resources and

Social Development Canada. Ottawa.

International Centre for Migration Policy Development. (2005). Highly skilledmigration. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

United Nations Secretariat, New York. Retrieved Jun 5, 2009, fromhttp://huwu.org/esa/population/meetings/fourthcoord2005/P01_ICMPD.pdf

Jung, S. R. (2009). The return of the cheat sheet season: Cheating and plagiarismat KU. The Granite Tower: Korea University English Magazine. Retrieved April23, 2009, from http://granite.korea.ac.kr/ news/articleView.html?idxno=619

Kershaw, A. (2005). Wanted: 11,000 new professors. Queens Alumni Review, 1824.Lee. S. H. (2003). The changing academic workplace in Korea. In P. Altbach


20/22


202

(Ed.), The Decline of the Guru: The Teaching Profession in Developing and MiddleIncome Countries (pp. 167198). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts.Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 7194.

Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELTJournal, 54(1), 3136.

Martin D., Sheard, J., Bareiss C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C.(2003). Addressing student cheating: Definitions and solutions. ACM SIGCHEBulletin, 35(2), 172184.

McBey, K., & McKenna, S. (2006, March). Internationalizing Canada's universities:Where do international faculty fit in? Paper presented at the conference ofInternationalizing Canadas Universities. York University, Toronto, Canada.

McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1), 3741.

McNeill, D. (2008). South Korea seeks a new role as a highereducation hub.Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(28), A1A24.

Metcalf, L., Bird, A., Shankarmahesh, M., Aycan, Z., Larimo, J., & Dewar, D. V.

(2006). Cultural tendencies in negotiation: A comparison of Finland, India,Mexico, Turkey, and the United States. Journal of World Business, 41, 382394.

Meyer, K. (2007). Student engagement in the classroom: An examination of studentsilence and participation. Paper submitted to the Instructional Development

Division, National Communication Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois,USA.

Niehoff, B., Turnley, W., Yen, R., & Chwen, S. (2001). Exploring cultural diffe-rences in classroom expectations of students from the United States andTaiwan. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 289293.

Noir sur Blanc. (2001). Internationalisation of recruitment of higher education professors.Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.noirsurblanc.com/pdf/en/prof_en.pdf

OECD. (2004). International mobility of the highly skilled. OECD Policy Brief.Retrieved August 21, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/20/1950028.pdf

OsmanGani, A. M., & Tan, W. L. (2005). Expatriate development for AsiaPacific:

A study of training contents and methods. International Journal of Human

Resources Development and Management, 5(1), 4156.

Park, S. S. (2009). Students largest ethnic group in US for three years. The Korea

Times Online. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/02/117_38894.html

Richard, O. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A

resource based view. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164177.Richards, T., Fisher, D., & Fraser, B. (1996, November). Gender and cultural

differences in teacher student interpersonal behavior. Paper presented at theconference of the Educational Research Association, Singapore and the


21/22


203

Australian Association of Research in Education. Singapore.Richardson, J., McBey, K., & McKenna, S. (2006). International faculty in Canada:

An exploratory study. SRI Working Paper Series, No. 2006 D22.

Richardson, J., & Zikik, J. (2007). The darker side of an international academiccareer. Career Development International, 12(2), 164186.

Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been

plagiarized? Psychological Record, 47, 113122.Roig, M., & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes toward cheating in self and others by

college students and professors. The Psychological Record, 44, 312.

Roig, M., & Marks, A. (2006). Attitudes towards cheating before and after theimplementation of a modified honor code: A case study. Ethics & Behavior,16(2), 163171.

Sarkisian, E. (1997). Teaching American students: A guide for international faculty andteaching assistants in colleges and universities. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.

Schneider, B., & Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: The school andhome environment of East Asian students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,21(4), 358377.

Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. (2003). Managing across cultures. London: PearsonEducation.

Schaffer, M., & Harrison, D. (1998). Expatriates psychological withdrawal frominternational assignments: Work, nonwork and family influences. Personnel

Psychology, 51(1), 87118.Seo, J. E. (2009, August 5). Quality education a necessary investment. JoongAng

Daily. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2908313

Slovenia Press Agency. (2009, August 7). University chancellor calls for exchange ofknowhow. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=f&id=1416102

Stewart, E., & Bennett, M. (1991). American cultural patterns: A crosscultural

perspective. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.Templar, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence,

realistic job previews, realistic living conditions previews, and crosscultural

adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 15473.The National. (2009, July 26). Incentives needed for top academics. Retrieved August

20, 2009, from http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090727/OPINION/ 707269933/1033/EDITORIALS?template=opinion

Times Higher Education. (2008). World University Rankings, 2008. Retreived January15, 2009, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=243&pubCode=1

Tonkin, H. (2001). Language learning, globalism, and the role of English. ADFLBulletin (Association of Departments of Foreign Languages) 32.2, 59. Retrieved

August 9, 2007, from http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/TONKIN/pdfs/langlearning.pdf


22/22


204

UNESCO. (2006). Guidelines on Intercultural Education. Retrieved April 20, 2009,from www//eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/

80/33/c2/cf.pdfVan de BuntKokhuis, S. (2000). Going places: Social and legal aspects of

international faculty mobility. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 4755.Varner, I. (2000). The theoretical foundation for intercultural business communi-

cation: A conceptual model. The Journal of Business Communication, 37(1), 3957.

Wan, G. (1996, October). The learning experience of Chinese students in American

universities: A crosscultural perspective. Paper presented at meeting of theCIEA Midwest Regional Conference. Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Weaver, R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: Collegestudents perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570601.

Welch, A. (1997). The peripatetic professor: The internationalization of the

academic profession. Higher Education, 34, 323345.Yip, G. (1995). Total global strategy: Managing for worldwide competitive advantage.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Documents

Integration of Foreign Faculty Into Korean Universities