Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions:

A Comparative Study in Taiwan and Japan

Robin Jung-Cheng Chen1, Sophia Shi-Huei Ho2, Futao Huang3, *Ying-Yan Lu4

1
Department of Education, National Chengchi University, Taiwan (robin@nccu.edu.tw)
2
Institute of Educational Administration and Evaluation, University of Taipei, Taiwan
(shihuei@utaipei.edu.tw)
3
Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan (futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp)
4
Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan
(R091087@kmu.edu.tw)
*Correspondent author

Abstract
Purpose – The internationalization of higher education institutions (HEIs) is the top stage of
international relations among universities, and it is no longer regarded as a goal but as a means
to improve the education of sustainability. As institutional commitments to internationalize
higher education continues to grow, so does the need to critically consider the intended purposes
and actual outcomes of the resulting programs and policies. This study focuses on how
institutional international policies influence outcomes of internationalization in East Asia,
especially in Taiwan and Japan.
Design/methodology/approach – 3,158 participants, including 1,192 Taiwanese and 1,966
Japanese academics, were recruited to complete the Academic Profession in the Knowledge
Society (APIKS), an international survey examining the change in academic work in HEIs. The
study mainly used two variables (institutional international policies and outcomes of
internationalization) to answer the research questions, and all variables have high reliability and
validity.
Findings – Three main results are: (1) Both Taiwanese and Japanese academics have higher
agreements on the outcomes of internationalization for enhancing academic quality and
increasing mobility of students; (2) clear strategy for internationalization can significantly
influence teaching-oriented HEIs on internationalization in both countries; and (3) funding for
faculty members to undertake research abroad can significantly influence research-oriented
HEIs on internationalization in both countries.
Originality/value – This study provides insight into the relationship between institutional
international policies and the outcomes of internationalization in Taiwan and Japan. It also
offers some empirical evidence for university leaders to implement managerial strategies for
internationalization to promote better higher education on sustainability in HEIs.
Keywords: Higher education, institutional international policies, internationalization,
sustainability of education
Paper type: Research paper
1
Introduction
The internationalization of higher education institutions (HEIs) in numerous East Asian
countries has been discussed as a critical aspect of responding to globalization-related
challenges and needs (Appe, 2020). Global recognition has become a significant benchmark for
evaluating university performance, increasing the pressure to compete internationally (Kuroda
et al., 2018). In developed East Asian nations, the creation of world-class universities and the
focus on improving the world university rankings of educational institutions are often
incorporated into the agenda for university internationalization, and HEIs have adopted
strategic policies to achieve these goals (Williams et al., 2021). To determine the optimal
strategy for the internationalization of HEIs, the motivations driving a nation’s pursuit of
internationalization must first be clarified. Nowadays, Asian governments emphasize education
for sustainability, focusing on international cooperation to promote sustainable education
development. Blasco et al. (2021) suggested that the internationalization of HEIs is a “necessary
value” and that the goals should be established at the start of the internationalization process to
facilitate education for sustainability.
The perception that the internationalization of HEIs can improve the sustainability of
education, research, and the institutions themselves increased in prominence when HEIs,
national and regional governments, and other organizations began investing considerably in
internationalization efforts (Helms et al., 2015). Consequently, the need to monitor the
internationalization performance of universities for education sustainability became necessary
(Liu, 2022). Various studies and projects have been implemented to develop measures to
evaluate university internationalization, aiming to determine the dimensions and useful
evaluation indicators on education for sustainability. These dimensions may include (1) students,
(2) staff, (3) administration, (4) funding and finance, (5) curricular and academic services, (6)
research, (7) teaching, and (8) other factors (Williams et al., 2021). The identified indicators
indicate the importance of assessing and enhancing the sustainability of an HEI’s international
dimension, which is evaluated based on its stated aims and objectives.
Larsen (2016) noted that internationalization is changing the institutional organization and
management of HEIs. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (Hénard
et al., 2012) suggested that an HEI should clarify its academic orientation (e.g., research or
teaching orientation), consider its missions and objectives and the institutional environment
affecting internationalization, understand the related factors to manage them competently,
explore the relationships between institutional academic orientation and institutional
international policies, and achieve favorable internationalization outcomes. In this context, a
topic worth exploring is the types of institutional international policies that should be adopted
for research- and teaching-oriented HEIs to achieve enhanced internationalization outcomes
(Shin and Kehm, 2013).
The present study explored the relationships between institutional international policies
and internationalization outcomes in Taiwan and Japan from a comparative perspective, thereby
2
making three main contributions to the literature. First, it addresses the literature gap about
internationalization outcomes in two East Asian countries. Second, it explores the relationships
between institutional international policies and internationalization outcomes from a
comparative perspective. Third, it applies a complex concept to investigate the moderating
effect of institutional academic orientation on the relationships between institutional
international policies and internationalization outcomes, focusing on the extant research on the
internationalization of HEIs in Taiwan and Japan.
Based on the purposes above, the present study proposed three research questions as
follows:
RQ1: What are the internationalization outcomes of HEIs in Taiwan and Japan?
RQ2: How do institutional international policies influence the internationalization outcomes
of HEIs in Taiwan and Japan?
RQ3: Does institutional academic orientation moderate the relationships between institutional
international policies and the internationalization outcomes of HEIs in Taiwan and Japan?

Theoretical background
Global Trends in Internationalization of Higher Education
Internationalization as a concept and strategic agenda is a relatively broad and varied
phenomenon in HEIs, driven by a dynamic combination of political, economic, sociocultural,
and academic rationales (Brandenburg et al., 2020). Its impact on countries and institutions
varies according to their particular contexts.
In the current global knowledge society, the concept of internationalization of higher
education has become globalized, demanding further consideration of its impact on policy and
practice as more countries and types of institutions worldwide engage in the process (Watabe
and Ota, 2021). Knight (2004) indicated that the reasons for internationalization can be
categorized into four groups: political, economic, academic, and social-cultural. The political
reason is often considered more important at the national than institutional level. The economic
sense has increasing importance and relevance in developed countries worldwide. The
academic reason is linked directly with enhancing the teaching and learning process and
achieving excellence in research and scholarly activities. The social-cultural reason for
internationalization is changing, considering the potential impact of globalization.
Internationalization for the higher education of society aims to “benefit the wider
community, at home or abroad, through international or intercultural education, research,
service and engagement” (de Wit, 2020). Therefore, HEIs are suitably positioned to educate
communities on internationalization and education for sustainability. Although HEIs vary in
geographical and historical context, missions, and structures, they can make decisions, organize,
and transform themselves to promote education sustainability into institutional and
international practices. Woldegiyorgis et al. (2018) believe that international cooperative

3
research, academic mobility, international scholarships, international curriculum studies,
cultural values, and historical and political context are the most important reasons for the
internationalization of higher education on education for sustainability.
Overall, the reasons for the internationalization of higher education are mobility and
exchanges for students and teachers, teaching and research collaboration, academic standards
and quality, research projects, international and intercultural understanding, promotion and
profile of the institution, and international student recruitment. Thus, HEIs must implement
internationalization strategies through a critical understanding of their meaning and purposes
and develop an international approach based on their society's unique values and culture to
achieve sustainable education development.

Internationalization of Higher Education in Taiwan: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes

Universities in Taiwan have undergone significant transformations in terms of institutional
mission and vision. One of their main drivers has been the extraordinary development of
internationalization.
The first document that focuses on the international dimensions is the White Paper for
Universities. In 2001, this official paper identified the problem that “the degree of
internationalization was insufficient” (Ministry of Education Taiwan, 2001, p. 54). Therefore,
the universities were criticized for not being internationalized. In reaction to such concern, two
related programs—Enhancing International Competitiveness of University Plan and Improving
English Proficiency of Higher Education Students—were released in 2002 to remedy this
deficiency. The adopted strategies intended to enhance engagement with foreign universities
through greater mobility and better language proficiency. With the greater pursuit of a world-
class university and the new positioning of the nation-state on the global stage, the Ministry of
Education (MOE) in Taiwan began to construct world-class universities in the early 2000s. The
Executive Yuan initiated the Higher Education Macro Planning (HEMP) to propel the
development of higher education and the country’s international competitiveness. Research-
oriented universities were set to be funded for their academic performance by concentrating on
selective institutions. In echoing this academic competition and international visibility, the
Development Plan for World-class Universities and Research Centers of Excellence Initiative
was implemented by MOE in 2005. The main concern for such initiatives was to raise the
research standards and international publications to enhance international competitiveness on
the global stage. Indeed, creating a higher proportion of foreign staff and students on campus
has been the primary criterion for achieving better rankings (Tang, 2019).
One of the prominent measures in Taiwan to internationalize higher education has been
recruiting international students, thus emulating many Western and Asian countries (Mok and
Yu, 2016). The Executive Yuan in 2004 announced that “expanding recruitment of foreign
students” was included in its national development plan. Five years later, in 2009, a Policy

4
Blueprint was released, stressing the importance of admitting non-local students. This move
indicates that education is deployed to exercise its soft power as cultural currency (Lee, 2015).
The Whitepaper for Talent Cultivation also lists enhancing “students’ international
competitiveness” as one of its goals. Released in 2013, it highlights that students should be
equipped with international mobility, foreign language proficiency, multicultural literacy, and
global citizenship. To extend the internationalized learning environment and education
innovation, a Free Economic Pilot Zone was proposed in 2013. Under this virtual free trade
zone, foreign education providers can operate branch campuses or set up joint programs with
local HEIs.
The New Southbound Policy was strategically launched in 2016 to enhance the integration
with this wider region socially, economically, and educationally. The program admits students
from Southeast Asia in cooperation with industries under the hope that these students can be
trained with hands-on skills. Extending the effort of the Development Plan for World-class
Universities and Research Centers of Excellence Initiative that ended in 2015, a new higher
education policy—Higher Education Sprout Project—started in 2018. This project integrates
various purposes, such as fostering teaching innovation, social responsibility, and research
excellence, into a comprehensive scheme. Unlike the previous project focused on achieving
academic excellence, the new scheme aims to ground the local and link the international.
Research internationalization is not the only focus of the latest initiative, which pursues broader
objectives such as teaching innovation. Furthermore, the Global Talent Recruitment Program
(Yushan Scholar Program) was implemented to recruit the brightest scholars with add-on
salaries from overseas organizations. Such a move supports the stance that Taiwan performs
better than before in university league tables and research.

Internationalization of Higher Education in Japan: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes

In 1983, amid Japan’s reign as an inexorable economic force, Nakasone announced an
ambitious plan entailing the recruitment of 100,000 international students into HEIs in Japan.
Contrary to Nakasone’s egocentric or nationalistic ideas of internationalism, the Ministry of
Education, Culture, and Sports (MEXT) focused on ensuring that the nation maintains a
competitive edge in a world racing toward globalization. It laid out that the intended aims of
this plan were to promote international exchange for the sake of (1) education and research, (2)
international understanding and cooperation, and (3) human resource development – especially
in developing countries (Ninomiya et al., 2009). Thus, reaching out and recruiting excellent
international students into Japan’s HEIs was vital. This plan led to the establishment of various
support systems for international students.
In the mid-1990s, the Association of International Education, Japan (AIEJ) established the
Tanki ryugaku suishin seido (short-term international education program), which in 2001 began
offering international students studying in Japan an allowance of 80,000 yen per month, round-
trip airfare, and a bonus of 25,000 yen if a student was successful in his/her application of a
5
scholarship. It has succeeded in encouraging the establishment of short-term international
education programs using English as the language of instruction in Japan’s national universities
(Tsuneyoshi, 2005). In January of 2008, then Prime Minister Fukuda revealed a government
policy that would open Japan up to the rest of the world, or more precisely, to more international
students. Specifically, the ministries and organizations would be responsible for attracting
international students to study in Japan, overseeing application and qualification processes,
assisting with immigration procedures, supporting students in finding accommodation and with
their matriculation, and finally providing those international students seeking employment in
Japan with career guidance (Japan SIG, 2008).
In 2011, the Inter-University Exchange Program, or the Re-inventing Japan Project, was
established by MEXT. This project emphasizes the development of English proficiency (rather
than other languages) to raise study abroad statistics (Rose and McKinley 2018). To sustain
outbound mobility and foster global citizens, MEXT looked to encourage HEIs to administer
policies and programs that promote international education and study abroad through Go
Global Japan Project 2012. Since 2014, MEXT has implemented a 10-year funding program
under the Top Global University Project (hereafter TGUP). The TUGP employs two
approaches to internationalization. One is rooted in supporting the development of first-class
universities that produce top-ranked research (Type A), and the other sponsors educational
reforms at universities for them to be relevant in a global context (Type B) (Yamada and
Yamada, 2016). Despite these differences, all selected universities are required to meet the
common goals indicated by MEXT. These objectives have been broken down into three
categories: (1) internationalization, (2) governance, and (3) educational reform.

Methodology
Data Collection
The research population for this study was academic staff employed in full-time positions in
Taiwanese and Japanese public or private universities. Before the data collection, we compiled
a list of potential participants' email addresses using contact information publicly available on
universities’ websites. The potential participants were contacted by email, including relevant
information about the research. The purpose of the survey was explained in our opening
remarks, and confidentiality was guaranteed to the respondents. The data were collected via
web-based electronic questionnaires.
The study uses data from the international survey of the Academic Profession in the
Knowledge-Based Society (APIKS). This survey was conducted in over 30 countries regarding
six themes: career and professional situations, general situations and activities, teaching,
research, external activities, governance and management, and academics in formative career
stages (APIKS-IDB, 2021). All participating countries used the same survey, and the data were
collected in 2018. Based on our research purpose, the analytical variables used in this study

6
were extracted from APIKS, including four questions about the respondents’ background
(academic field, academic preference, gender, and age), eight items assessing institutional
international policies, and nine items examining the outcomes of internationalization.
Of the 4,500 staff members, 3,158 cases, including 1,192 Taiwanese and 1,966 Japanese,
were used after missing values were excluded from the analysis, with a 70.2% valid response.
According to Table 1, there was more natural science than social science academics in both
countries; there were more teaching-oriented than research-oriented academics in Taiwan; on
the contrary, there were more research-oriented than teaching-oriented academics in Japan;
there were more male academics than females in both countries; as to academic age, there were
more middle-aged academics in both countries. To verify the sample’s representativeness, we
have compared the demographic distribution of the population and sample of this survey and
found that the survey respondents represent the total population relatively well according to
their factors.

Table 1
Demographics of research respondents
Individual Demographics Taiwan Japan
Factors (N = 1,192) (N = 1,966)
Frequency % Frequency %
Academic field Social science 576 48.3 598 30.4
Natural science 616 51.7 1,368 69.6
Academic Teaching 748 62.8 515 26.2
Preference Research 444 37.2 1,451 73.8
Gender Male 772 64.8 1,604 81.6
Female 420 35.2 362 18.4
Age Below 40 123 10.3 390 19.9
40-55 731 61.3 911 46.3
Above 55 338 28.4 665 33.8

7
Variables and Measures
This study used two variables (institutional international policies and the outcomes of
internationalization) to answer the research questions. All participants were asked to rate the
frequency with which they experienced these instructional practices using a 5-point ordinal
response scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). An Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) was conducted on the data from each country to examine the variables' construct validity
and internal consistency.
First, Institutional International Policies variable included eight survey items. Principal
axis factoring with varimax rotation was used to assess the construct validity. The values of the
KMO index for the Taiwan and Japan datasets were .889 and .878, respectively; Bartlett’s tests
of sphericity were statistically significant, with ꭓ2Taiwan (28) = 4443.821, p < .001, and ꭓ2Japan
(28) = 6747.257, p < .001. Thus, these results demonstrated the adequacy of the data for EFA.
The total variances explained by the eight items were 55.01% and 53.08%, with factor loadings
ranging from .636 to .790 and from .602 to .799 for the Taiwan and Japan samples, respectively.
In addition, each variable's internal consistency is tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability
coefficients for the construct in the Taiwan and Japan datasets were .883 and .869, respectively.
Second, the Outcomes of Internationalization variable included nine survey items. The
values of the KMO index for the Taiwan and Japan datasets were .920 and .864, respectively;
Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were statistically significant, with ꭓ2Taiwan (36) = 6527.894, p < .001,
and ꭓ2Japan (36) = 7878.474, p < .001. The total variances explained by the three items were
60.45% and 62.84%, with factor loadings ranging from .687 to .828 and from .576 to .805 for
Taiwan and Japan samples, respectively. The reliability coefficients for the construct in the
Taiwan and Japan datasets were .916 and .872, respectively. These survey items have internal
consistency, as Cronbach’s alpha is relatively high. These factors explain a considerable
amount of the variance of the items reported in Table 2.

Data Analysis
To answer our research questions, we proposed three research frameworks. First, we analyzed
the data on outcomes of internationalization using descriptive statistics. Second, Pearson
product-moment correlation analysis was used to explore the relationships between institutional
international policies and the outcomes of internationalization. Moreover, to further examine
the moderating effect of institutional academic orientation on the relationships between
institutional international policies to the outcomes of internationalization in both countries,
moderated multiple hierarchical regression was conducted to confirm the relationships among
each item of the three variables. Additionally, before conducting the regression analysis, the
multicollinearity among the independent variables was cross-checked, and there was no severe
violation of general rules – the variance inflation factor (VIF) of the independent variables was
lower than 10. There were no missing values and no outliers identified in the data.

8
Table 2
Variables, survey items, number of items, variances of construct validity, and reliability
Taiwan Japan
N of
Variables Survey items variances of reliability variances of reliability
items
construct validity construct validity
Institutional 1. Strategy for internationalization (P1) 8 55.01% .883 53.08% .869
International Policies 2. International exchange programs for students
(P2)
3. Funding for faculty members to undertake
research abroad (P3)
4. Funding for visiting international students (P4)
5. Funding for visiting international scholars (P5)
6. Recruitment of faculty members from foreign
countries (P6)
7. Funding for faculty members to attend
international conferences (P7)
8. Encouraging faculty members to publish
internationally (P8)
Outcomes of 1. Enhanced prestige (O1) 9 60.45% .916 62.84% .872
Internationalization 2. Enhanced academic quality (O2)
3. Increased revenue (O3)
4. Enhanced research networks (O4)
5. Increased mobility of students (O5)
6. Increased mobility of faculty (O6)
7. Weakening cultural identity (O7)
8. Increased brain gain (O8)
9. Increased costs associated with
internationalization (O9)

9
Results
Descriptive statistics on the outcomes of internationalization in Taiwan and Japan HEIs
As shown in Table 3, the results of descriptive analysis for outcomes of internationalization
indicated that: (1) Taiwanese academics have much higher agreement on the outcomes of
internationalization for enhancing prestige, enhancing academic quality, increasing mobility of
students, and increasing brain gain; and (2) Japanese academics have much higher agreement
on the outcomes of internationalization for enhancing prestige, enhancing academic quality,
enhancing research networks, and increasing mobility of students. On the whole, Taiwanese
and Japanese academics have higher agreements on the outcomes of internationalization for
enhancing prestige, academic quality, and student mobility.

Table 3
Results of descriptive analysis for outcomes of internationalization in Taiwan and Japan HEIs
Outcomes of Taiwan Japan
internationalization M SE M SE
Enhanced prestige 3.76 0.97 3.00 1.10
Enhanced academic quality 3.63 0.98 3.03 1.11
Increased revenue 3.47 1.04 2.30 1.02
Enhanced research networks 3.52 1.00 3.28 1.06
Increased mobility of students 3.66 1.02 3.11 1.09
Increased mobility of faculty 3.50 0.96 2.81 1.02
Weakening cultural identity 3.48 1.18 2.60 0.92
Increased brain gain 3.57 1.02 2.59 0.99
Increased costs associated
3.55 0.99 2.31 1.10
with internationalization

Correlation analysis between institutional international policies and the outcomes of

internationalization in Taiwan and Japan HEIs

According to Table 3, the study adopted correlation analysis to explore further what kinds
of institutional international policies have the highest correlation with internationalization
outcomes, which has been considered much better developments in Taiwan and Japan HEIs.
Based on Table 4, the findings showed that: (1) For Taiwan HEIs, greater policies on
encouraging faculty members to publish internationally can significantly enhance prestige (r
= .632), greater policies on funding for faculty members to undertake research abroad can
significantly enhance academic quality (r = .552), greater policies on funding for visiting
international students can significantly increase mobility of students (r = .633), greater policies
on strategy for internationalization can significantly increase international brain gain (r = .560);

10
(2) For Japan HEIs, greater policies on strategy for internationalization can significantly
increase institutional prestige (r = .491), greater policies on funding for visiting international
scholars can significantly enhance academic quality (r = .500), greater policies on funding for
faculty members to undertake research abroad can significantly increase research networks (r
= .500), and greater policies on recruitment of faculty members from foreign countries can
significantly enhance mobility of students (r = .472).

Moderated multiple hierarchical regression analysis on the outcomes of internationalization

through institutional academic orientation and institutional international policies in Taiwan
and Japan HEIs
As shown in Table 5, except for the predictive effect of institutional international policies, it
also pointed out that institutional academic orientation could significantly predict the outcomes
of internationalization in Taiwan and Japan HEIs. To further explore the relationships between
institutional academic orientation and institutional international policies on the outcomes of
internationalization, we adopted moderated multiple hierarchical regression analysis to
examine how each item of institutional international policies affects the outcomes of
internationalization moderated by institutional academic orientation.
According to Table 5, we found that: (1) For Taiwan teaching-oriented HEIs, institutional
international policies of greater strategy for internationalization (β = .477) and funding for
visiting international students (β = .260) can significantly and positively influence the outcomes
of internationalization. (2) For Taiwan research-oriented HEIs, institutional international
policies of funding for faculty members to undertake research abroad (β = .215) and
encouraging faculty members to publish internationally (β = .190) can significantly and
positively influence the outcomes of internationalization. (3) For Japan teaching-oriented HEIs,
institutional international policies of strategy for internationalization (β = .234) and recruitment
of faculty members from foreign countries (β = .280) can significantly and positively influence
the outcomes of internationalization. (4) For Japan research-oriented HEIs, institutional
international policies of funding for faculty members to undertake research abroad (β = .297)
and funding for visiting international scholars (β = .329) can significantly and positively
influence the outcomes of internationalization.

11
 Table 4
The relationships between institutional international policies and the outcomes of internationalization in Taiwan and Japan HEIs

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9
P1 1.00 .580** .418** .506** .456** .447** .417** .336** .491** .432** .312** .412** .430** .436** .124** .171** .254**
P2 .681** 1.00 .434** .619** .487** .430** .370** .269** .261** .320** .162** .348** .365** .326** .055* .105** .242**
P3 .506** .545** 1.00 .494** .568** .405** .588** .384** .283** .338** .240** .500** .312** .370** .028 .126** .140**
P4 .490** .523** .615** 1.00 .667** .486** .422** .310** .282** .320** .192** .350** .400** .351** .060** .167** .228**
P5 .479** .510** .652** .719** 1.00 .478** .526** .408** .310** .500** .220** .440** .373** .386** .078** .191** .221**
P6 .542** .477** .410** .430** .420** 1.00 .477** .364** .344** .324** .279** .335** .472** .401** .136** .212** .276**
P7 .433** .420** .426** .465** .467** .431** 1.00 .554** .339** .369** .312** .389** .278** .366** .099** .180** .144**
P8 .481** .404** .345** .380** .350** .442** .480** 1.00 .325** .390** .290** .343** .255** .336** .147** .227** .149**
O1 .541** .477** .403** .430** .410** .431** .366** .632** 1.00 .652** .629** .524** .456** .555** .350** .387** .335**
O2 .541** .469** .552** .476** .460** .380** .355** .425** .729** 1.00 .490** .653** .463** .549** .262** .325** .290**
O3 .440** .393** .342** .359** .345** .313** .298** .269** .583** .545** 1.00 .434** .392** .486** .348** .356** .224**
O4 .544** .487** .449** .453** .453** .372** .381** .424** .653** .685** .590** 1.00 .564** .562** .254** .315** .366**
O5 .477** .402** .335** .633** .359** .344** .359** .351** .468** .461** .555** .551** 1.00 .671** .289** .323** .398**
O6 .500** .444** .445** .459** .438** .383** .375** .359** .598** .604** .553** .649** .630** 1.00 .381** .430** .363**
O7 .429** .350** .305** .299** .300** .327** .304** .306** .418** .351** .579** .512** .638** .532** 1.00 .592** .368**
O8 .560** .462** .393** .393** .406** .410** .416** .451** .585** .565** .564** .626** .573** .605** .648** 1.00 .408**
O9 .454** .381** .328** .349** .331** .330** .332** .364** .511** .457** .424** .484** .445** .507** .453** .584** 1.00
Note: 1. The correlation coefficient of the right-upper part is for Japanese HEIs; The correlation coefficient of the left-lower part is for
Taiwanese HEIs. 2. ** p < 0.01

12
Table 5
Moderated multiple hierarchical regression analysis of beta standardized coefficients on the outcomes
of internationalization through institutional international policies in Taiwan and Japan HEIs
Outcomes of Internationalization
Taiwan Japan
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Individual variables
Academic field (social science=1, natural .004 -.012 .005 -.003
science=2)
Academic preference (teaching=1, research=2) .010 .008 .018 .018
Gender (male=1, female=2) .022 .020 -.018 -.015
Age -.037* -.026* -.048* -.046*
Independent variables-
institutional international policies
Strategy for internationalization (P1) .640*** .369*** .181* .280***
International exchange programs for students .025 -.028 .010 -.113
(P2)
Funding for faculty members to undertake -.103 .134* .119 .168*
research abroad (P3)
Funding for visiting international students (P4) .213* .102 -.014 -.069
Funding for visiting international scholars (P5) -.044 -.038 .012 .230***
Recruitment of faculty members from foreign .027 .105 .339*** .159
countries (P6)
Funding for faculty members to attend -.068 .054 .036 .005
international conferences (P7)
Encouraging faculty members to publish .161 .113* .104 .132
internationally (P8)
Interaction variables
P1*teaching-oriented HEIs .477*** .234*
P2*teaching-oriented HEIs .084 -.039
P3*teaching-oriented HEIs .226 -.145
P4*teaching-oriented HEIs .260* .063
P5*teaching-oriented HEIs .163 .170
P6*teaching-oriented HEIs .035 .280**
P7*teaching-oriented HEIs .241 .007
P8*teaching-oriented HEIs -.048 .081
P1*research-oriented HEIs -.070 -.044
P2*research-oriented HEIs .187 .197
P3*research-oriented HEIs .215* .297*
P4*research-oriented HEIs -.051 .219
P5*research-oriented HEIs .174 .329*
P6*research-oriented HEIs -.101 .041
P7*research-oriented HEIs .041 .057
P8*research-oriented HEIs .190* .022
F value 62.657*** 66.178*** 50.619*** 52.310***
Adj R2 .509 .523 .436 .443

13
Discussion
In the present study, a questionnaire was used to elicit the views of academics in Taiwan and
Japan regarding the internationalization outcomes that they perceived as most favorable, the
extent to which various institutional international policies have been implemented in their
respective countries, and the results of these policies. The present study’s findings can serve as
a reference for policymakers in Taiwan and Japan, providing clear insights into a few critical
dimensions of the phenomenon under study. In our conclusion, several key dimensions
identified through our analysis are discussed.
First, our results revealed that the academics in Taiwan and Japan strongly agreed that
internationalization outcomes enhance prestige, academic quality, and student mobility. The
recent wave of globalization and the increasing emphasis on world university rankings have
motivated the governments of Taiwan and Japan to increase their efforts to develop first-class
universities. Several global university ranking lists enable the comparison of institutions in the
global higher education sector; for each ranking, a slightly different set of indicators and
methods is applied that considers dimensions such as global prestige, the proportion of
international students, and international research collaboration.

Enhancing prestige
HEIs must be “intensely concerned with reputation and prestige” (Geiger, 2004) to successfully
operate within the educational market, where they compete and are constantly being compared
and scored on rankings and league tables. The current academic environment in Taiwan and
Japan emphasizes the value of research in enhancing academic prestige (Lee, 2015). In a study
that focused on top universities, Marginson (2007) highlighted that the research capacity of
Taiwan’s HEIs is a crucial component that is measured and considered in rankings. Such
research capacity indicates that the staff of an institution is highly professional and capable of
achieving favorable citation results in high-impact journals. By contrast, Japan’s HEIs prioritize
the recruitment of accomplished researchers and talented students, provide innovative facilities
with excellent internal operating processes, and design creative and up-to-date plans and
programs as a part of their strategy to attain long-lasting academic prestige (Cyrenne and Grant,
2009). The present study expands on the aforementioned literature by exploring the differing
viewpoints of Taiwanese and Japanese academics on how the internationalization of HEIs can
enhance their prestige. In conclusion, encouraging faculty members to publish internationally
and employing international research cooperation strategies are excellent internationalization
policies that HEIs in Taiwan and Japan can implement to enhance their prestige.

Enhancing academic quality

With the increasing emphasis on the role of the nation-state on the international stage, the
Foundation for International Cooperation in Higher Education of Taiwan (FICHET) was jointly
established in 2006 by Taiwan MOE and all universities. The FICHET seeks to promote

14
Taiwan’s HEIs internationally by facilitating international cooperation, educational exhibitions,
and conference hosting and promoting Taiwanese academics and culture. The main focus of
such initiatives is raising research standards and increasing the number of international
publications for its staff to enhance the international competitiveness and academic quality of
Taiwan’s HEIs. In Japan, international collaborations have been steadily increasing in research
and scholarly publication (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, 2019). The
Japanese government has been providing considerable funding to create more opportunities for
cross-border research collaboration and increase such partnership’s productivity. For instance,
the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science offers grants and research fellowships to
Japanese researchers who intend to spend an extended period (1–2 years) abroad and foreign
researchers willing to research at Japanese universities. Overall, various motivations and
intentions drive HEIs to support international research collaboration that can enhance their
academic quality, and funding is also provided for faculty members to undertake research
abroad or for visiting international scholars to conduct research. These trends indicate that the
process of HEI internationalization in Taiwan or Japan is mainly perceived as an academic
endeavor directly linked to achieving excellence in research and scholarly activities.

Increasing mobility of students

East Asian countries have increasingly been adopting strategies to increase student mobility.
These strategies include study abroad programs, recruiting international students and faculty
members, collaborations with overseas universities, and developing an international curriculum
(Gao, 2019). With globalization, Japan’s universities must integrate their national education
system with international education. In an increasingly knowledge-based economy, recruiting
excellent international students and retaining them after graduation can contribute to a country’s
economic strength. Furthermore, our findings indicate that recruiting foreign faculty members
plays a pivotal role in increasing the mobility of students in Japan’s HEIs. According to Knight
(2008), international faculty in non-English speaking environments often contribute
substantially to increasing the number of English-taught courses and degree programs in an HEI
while also increasing the English-language orientation of the HEI. The use of English for
teaching and research is widely regarded as an important factor in the internationalization of
HEIs. In Japan, creating an environment where international students and faculty members can
live and work with Japanese students is essential for cultivating talent and connecting Japan
with foreign countries (Ota, 2018). For Taiwan, the implementation of the New Southbound
Talent Development Program (2017–2020) denoted the efforts of the Taiwanese government
to change its international recruitment policy from the one-way recruitment of international
students to an approach characterized by mutual talent mobility and co-cultivation involving
neighboring countries. Given internationalization's educational and industrial needs, Taiwan
has introduced customized professional training courses and scholarships explicitly created to
attract outstanding foreign talent. Our study also revealed that encouraging local and

15
international students to participate in exchange and research programs is an effective policy
for achieving regional talent sharing and circulation. In summary, recruiting international
students and faculty members and encouraging local and international students to interact can
actively strengthen academic and educational exchange with foreign countries and increase
students’ mobility, thereby fulfilling the international objectives of HEIs in Taiwan and Japan.

Second, institutional academic orientation can significantly influence the relationships

between institutional international policies and internationalization outcomes. In higher
education, universities are often classified as teaching-oriented or research-oriented. Teaching-
oriented universities mainly focus on promoting knowledge acquisition and students' holistic
development. That is, it fosters and encourages the thinking ability of a person while cultivating
their creativity and social and cultural sensibilities, thereby establishing a foundation for civic
engagement in diverse fields. Research-oriented universities are further subdivided by their area
of focus, and these universities primarily focus on advancing research. They invest considerable
resources into research, providing meaningful and extensive opportunities for their students and
faculty members to participate in research. Although Taiwanese and Japanese academics at top
research universities must balance their teaching responsibilities with their research and
publishing goals, they must still adopt various teaching or research strategies to overcome the
challenges of institutional policies aimed at the internationalization of HEIs.

Influence of institutional academic orientation on internationalization of HEIs in Taiwan

The internationalization of HEIs in Taiwan can be traced back to the 1990s. During that time,
Taiwan’s higher education system underwent substantial changes in terms of student and
institutional growth (Hou, 2015). In 2011, the Taiwanese government announced its goal of
expanding international student recruitment, driven by various growing trends, including an
aging population, a low birth rate, and an active attitude toward recruiting international students
from traditional exporting countries (e.g., European countries and the United States) and
neighboring countries (e.g., Japan, South Korea, and China). To transform Taiwan into an East
Asian higher education hub, the Taiwanese government began to develop Taiwanese students'
global mobility competence and foster international students' education, focusing on
sustainable development (Chan, 2014). At present, the Taiwanese government regards the
policy of using English as a medium of instruction (EMI) as a method for promoting university
internationalization, and it has implemented EMI for various academic subjects (Fenton-Smith
et al., 2017). To pursue the target of establishing world-class universities, the Taiwanese
government has launched the Higher Education SPROUT Project (2018–2022) to enhance the
quality of Taiwan’s universities, promote their multifaceted development, and support them in
increasing their international competitiveness and build leading research centers. Moreover, in
the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century, scientific and technological innovations are
necessary for progress. International cooperation can take the form of joint research projects,

16
joint conferences, the sharing of major research facilities, reciprocal visits by researchers and
scientists, the exchange of information for creating innovative research ecosystems, and the
training of world-class innovative and entrepreneurial talent; these developments contribute to
the vibrancy of Taiwan's research innovation and industrial development.
Through statistical data analysis, the present study discovered that institutional academic
orientation considerably influenced the internationalization outcomes of Taiwan’s HEIs.
Teaching-oriented universities should: (1) adopt effective teaching strategies (e.g., EMI
programs) to cultivate global talent to ensure the continued growth and sustainable development
of Taiwan’s higher education; and (2) implement effective teaching projects to recruit and
nurture talent and expand the foundation of Taiwan’s human resources to increase student
mobility. Research-oriented universities should: (1) enhance their research and innovation
quality and strengthen their international academic influence and visibility through crucial
research projects to promote their international academic prestige; and (2) launch joint research
projects to promote the bilateral movement of outstanding researchers and scientists through
appropriate research programs for enhancing academic quality.

Influence of institutional academic orientation on internationalization of HEIs in Japan

The Japanese government has been leading the internationalization of higher education through
various initiatives and funding. Ninomiya et al. (2009, pp. 119–122) classified the
internationalization policies and initiatives implemented by the Japanese government into
“three primary phases” spanning the period from 1950 to the present day. The first stage (1950–
1980) is characterized by a few national policies targeting international students. To promote
mutual understanding between Japan and the United States, the Japanese government sent
Japanese students to the United States to learn about democracy and acquire various skills and
knowledge. During the second stage (1980–2000), Japan’s MOE proposed the following
policies in line with its aims for the internationalization of HEIs: (1) promote international
exchange and cooperation in education, sports, and culture; (2) expand Japanese language
education for foreigners; and (3) improve the education framework for Japanese children
overseas and children returning from overseas. In the third stage of internationalization, which
extends from 2000 to the present day, the Japanese government formulated policies and
programs to promote international education, research, and study-abroad activities in HEIs. The
Japanese government also embedded EMI goals in many of its internationalization policies.
The Project for Global Human Resources Development and the Top Global University (TGU)
Project (Brown, 2017) include incentives for institutions to establish or expand EMI offerings,
which provide more opportunities for Japanese students to develop a high level of English
proficiency before joining the workforce.
The Japanese government has recently implemented the TGU internationalization policy
to realign institutional operations for internationalization comprehensively. The policy includes
(1) expanding EMI offerings; (2) recruiting international students and faculty members; (3)

17
creating research centers and branch offices (for student recruitment) worldwide; and (4)
establishing joint and double-degree programs with foreign universities. Furthermore, the
Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development Program
(SATREPS), a Japanese government-initiated program that promotes international joint
research between Japan and developing countries, was launched to strengthen the means and
frameworks for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to address
global issues (Ashida, 2022).
Through statistical data analysis, the present study discovered that institutional academic
orientation considerably influenced the internationalization outcomes of Japan’s HEIs.
Teaching-oriented universities should: (1) adopt appropriate teaching projects to strengthen
their international exchange and educational collaborations with other universities, thereby
improving their international competitiveness and increasing the mobility of their students; and
(2) promote practical teaching projects (e.g., Top Global University Project) to increase the
number of full-time foreign faculty, the ratio of international students to local students, the
number of students sent abroad, and the number of subjects taught in foreign languages to
improve the international academic prestige of their institutions. The SATREPS program is
more effective for research-oriented universities because it serves two purposes. First, it can
enhance research networks to increase international cooperation in science and technology
between Japan and developing countries. Second, it can increase developing countries' self-
reliant research and development capacity for promoting academic quality through international
joint research, thereby establishing sustainable research systems that can resolve various
problems, coordinate networking between researchers, and train future human resources in
developing countries and Japan.

Conclusions
Each university has its motivations, objectives, and targets for internationalization; however,
the internationalization of universities is influenced by their institutional academic orientation
and institutional international policies (Knight, 2008). In the present study, differences between
Taiwan and Japan were identified regarding the institutional international policies implemented
to promote the internationalization of HEIs. For teaching-oriented HEIs in Taiwan,
implementing appropriate EMI teaching strategies, international exchange programs, and
teaching activities involving international cooperation can all increase Taiwan’s international
brain gain and promote student mobility. For teaching-oriented HEIs in Japan, implementing
appropriate educational collaboration programs and increasing the recruitment of excellent
international students and faculty members can increase the mobility of students and enhance
international academic prestige. For research-oriented HEIs in Taiwan, promoting the bilateral
movement of outstanding researchers and encouraging international joint research projects can
enhance their academic quality and international academic reputation. For research-oriented
HEIs in Japan, funding faculty members to undertake research abroad and increasing

18
international research cooperation can enhance their research networks and the academic
quality of their research.
Although the present study discussed several differences between the HEIs in Taiwan and
Japan, its quantitative focus overlooks other reasons for these differences. Thus, qualitative
research should be conducted to obtain further insights on this topic. In addition, this study
acknowledges that the challenges of internationalization can influence the sustainability of
educational achievements. However, it also posits that HEIs must identify alternative paths for
supporting institutional international policies by considering multiple perspectives and, more
importantly, achieving SDGs (Liu and Kitamura, 2019).
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development should serve as a framework for
implementing internationalization policies because HEIs generate knowledge related to
international issues and contribute to society by enhancing the quality of teaching and research
within and beyond an institution. Our research findings can serve as a reference for promoting
international collaborations aimed at the internationalization of HEIs, thereby enhancing the
sustainability of education.

References

APIKS-IDB (2021). Academic profession in the Knowledge-based Society (APIKS).

International Database version 1.2 (APIKS-IDB 1.2). 16 January 2023.
https://www.ulapland.fi/APIKS.
Appe, S. (2020), “Internationalization in the context of academic capitalism”, Research in
Comparative and International Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 62-68.
Ashida, A. (2022), The Role of Higher Education in Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals, In Sustainable Development Disciplines for Humanity: Breaking Down the 5Ps—
People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships (pp. 71-84). Singapore: Springer
Nature Singapore.
Blasco, N., Brusca, I., & Labrador, M. (2021), “Drivers for universities’ contribution to the
sustainable development goals: An analysis of Spanish public universities”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13 No.1, Article 89.
Brandenburg, U., H. de Wit, E. Jones, B. Leask, and A. Drobner. (2020), Internationalization
in Higher Education for Society (IHES), Concept, Current Research and Examples of
Good Practice (DAADStudies), Bonn: DAAD.
Brown, H. (2017), “Why and why now? Understanding the rapid rise of English-medium
instruction in higher education in Japan”, Journal of International Studies and Regional
Development, Vol. 8, pp. 1-16.
Chan, S. J. (2014), “Recruiting students from China: Taiwan’s policies and dilemmas it faces”,
Chinese Education and Society, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 65–82.
Cyrenne, P., & Grant, H. (2009), “University decision making and prestige: An empirical

19
 study”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 237-248.
de Wit, H. (2020), “Internationalization of Higher Education”, Journal of International
Students, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. i–iv.
Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., and Walkinshaw, I. (2017), English Medium Instruction in
Higher Education in Asia-Pacific. Springer International Publishing.
Gao, C.Y. (2019), Measuring University Internationalization: Indicators across National
Contexts, Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland AG.
Geiger, R. L. (2004), Knowledge and Money, Research Universities and the Paradox of the
Marketplace, Stanford University Press.
Helms, R.M., Rumbley, L.E., Brajkovic, L. and Mihut, G. (2015), Internationalizing Higher
Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, American Council of Education,
WA, DC.
Hénard, F., Diamond, L., and Roseveare, D. (2012), Approaches to Internationalization and
their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice: A Guide for
Higher Education Institutions, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development.
Hou, A. Y. C. (2015), “Is the Asian quality assurance system for higher education going
glonacal? Assessing the impact of three types of program accreditation on Taiwanese
universities”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 83–105.
Japan SIG. (2008), Japan’s 300,000 International Student Plan. Retrieved from
https://silo.tips/download/japan-s-300000-international-student-plan
Knight, J. (2004), “Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales”,
Studies in International Education, Vol. 8, pp. 5-31.
Knight, J. (2008), Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization,
Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Kuroda, K., Sugimura, M., Kitamura, Y. and Asada, S. (2018), Internationalization of Higher
Education and Student Mobility in Japan and Asia, available at:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266196.
Larsen, M.A. (2016), Internationalization of Higher Education: An Analysis through Spatial,
Network, and Mobilities Theories, Springer, New York, NY.
Lee, J. (2015), “Soft power and cultural diplomacy: Emerging education hub in Asia”,
Comparative Education, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 353–374.
Liu, J., and Kitamura, Y. (2019), The Role of Universities in Promoting Sustainability in Asia.
In Z. Zhong, H. Coates, & J. Shi (Eds.), Innovations in Asian Higher Education (pp. 84-
96). London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Liu, J. (2022), Neoliberal Trends of Higher Education Reforms in China, Japan, and Korea:
Catch-Up and Self-Reorientation. In: Zajda, J., Jacob, W.J. (eds) Discourses of
Globalisation and Higher Education Reforms. Globalisation, Comparative Education and
Policy Research, vol 27. Springer, Cham.

20
Marginson, S. (2007), “Global position and position-taking: The case of Australia”, Journal of
Studies in International Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Ministry of Education Taiwan (MOE). (2001), White Paper for Universities, Ministry of
Education.
Mok, K. H., and Yu, K. M. (Eds.). (2016), Internationalization of Higher Education in East
Asia: Trends of Student Mobility and Impact on Education Governance, New York:
Routledge.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) (2019), Benchmarking
Scientific Research 2019: Bibliometric Analysis on Dynamic Alternation of Research
Activity in the Word and Japan, Retrieved from
https://nistep.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=665
3&item_no=1&attribute_id=13&file_no=2.
Ninomiya, A., Knight, J., and Watanabe, A. (2009), “The past, present, and future of
internationalization in Japan”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol.13 No.2,
pp.117-124.
Ota, H. (2018), “Internationalization of higher education: Global trends and Japan’s challenges”,
Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, Vol. 12, pp. 91-105.
Rose, H., and McKinley, J. (2018), “Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the
globalization of higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 75 No.1, pp. 111-129.
Shin, J.C. and Kehm, B.M. (2013), “The world-class university in different systems and
contexts”, Shin, J. and Kehm, B. (Eds), Institutionalization of World-Class University in
Global Competition, Springer, pp. 1-13.
Tang, C. W. (2019), “To be a first-class department in a first-class university: Perceived effects
of a world-class initiative in two departments in a Taiwanese university”, Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 41 No. 3-4, pp. 275–291.
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005), “Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities
of study abroad programs using English”, Journal of Research in International Education,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-86.
Watabe, Y., and Ota, H. (2021), “Developing a manageable system of internationalization
indicators for universities in Asia”, International Journal of Comparative Education and
Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 81-103.
Williams, J. H., Brehm, W., and Kitamura, Y. (2021), “Measuring what matters? Mapping
higher education internationalization in the Asia–Pacific”, International Journal of
Comparative Education and Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 65-80.
Woldegiyorgis, A., D. Proctor, and H. de Wit. (2018), “Internationalization of Research: Key
Considerations and Concerns”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 22 No.
2, pp. 161–176.
Yamada, A., and Yamada, R. (2016), “Impact of Globalization on Japanese Higher Education
Policy: examining campus internationalization and challenge of Japanese Universities”,

21
Current Politics and Economics of Northern and Western Asia, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-60.

22
 2023 APIKS-CONFERENCE Saturday, 2 September 2023
UNIVERSITY FOR CONTINUING
EDUCATION KREMS Session 2/2
Internationalisation

Internationalization of Higher
Education Institutions: A
Comparative
Study in Taiwan and Japan

Chair: Prof. Barbara Hönig

Presenter: Prof. Sophia Shi-Huei Ho
Co-authors: Prof. Robin Jung-Cheng Chen
Prof. , Futao Huang
Dr. Ying-Yan Lu
 Introduction (1/3)
➢ The internationalization of higher education institutions (HEIs)
in numerous East Asian countries has been discussed as a critical
aspect of responding to globalization-related challenges and
needs (Appe, 2020).
➢ Nowadays, Asian governments emphasize education for
sustainability, focusing on international cooperation to promote
sustainable education development.
➢Blasco et al. (2021) suggested that the internationalization of
HEIs is a “necessary value” and that the goals should be
established at the start of the internationalization process to
facilitate education for sustainability.
2
 Introduction (2/3)
➢Various studies and projects have been implemented to develop
measures to evaluate university internationalization. These
dimensions may include (1) students, (2) staff, (3) administration,
(4) curricular and academic services, (5) research, (6) teaching,
and (7) other factors (Williams et al., 2021).
➢The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(Hénard et al., 2012) suggested that an HEI should clarify its
academic orientation (e.g., research or teaching orientation), and
understand the related factors to manage them competently,
explore the relationships between institutional academic
orientation and institutional international policies, and achieve
favorable internationalization outcomes.
3
 Introduction (3/3)
➢The present study explored the relationships between institutional
international policies and internationalization outcomes in Taiwan
and Japan from a comparative perspective, thereby making three
main contributions to the literature.
 It addresses the literature gap about internationalization outcomes
in two East Asian countries.
 It explores the relationships between institutional international
policies and internationalization outcomes from a comparative
perspective.
 it investigates the moderating effect of institutional academic
orientation on the relationships between institutional international
policies and internationalization outcomes, focusing on the extant
research on the internationalization of HEIs in Taiwan and Japan.
4
 Theoretical Perspective (1/3)

Global Trends in Internationalization of Higher Education

➢Internationalization for the higher education of society aims to
“benefit the wider community, through international education,
research, service and engagement” (de Wit, 2020, p. ii).
➢Woldegiyorgis et al. (2018) believe that international cooperative
research, academic mobility, international scholarships,
international curriculum studies are the most important reasons
for the internationalization of higher education on education for
sustainability.
➢Thus, HEIs must implement internationalization strategies to
develop an international approach based on their society's unique
values to achieve sustainable education development. 5
 Theoretical Perspective (2/3)
Internationalization of Higher Education in Taiwan
➢Released in 2013, Talent Cultivation highlights that students should be
equipped with international mobility, foreign language proficiency,
multicultural literacy, and global citizenship.
➢Higher education policy—Higher Education Sprout Project—started in
2018, focusing on achieving academic excellence, the new scheme aims
to ground the local and link the international.
➢Research internationalization is not the only focus of the latest initiative,
which pursues broader objectives such as teaching innovation.
Furthermore, the Global Talent Recruitment Program (Yushan Scholar
Program) was implemented to recruit the brightest scholars.

6
 Theoretical Perspective (3/3)
Internationalization of Higher Education in Japan
➢To sustain outbound mobility and foster global citizens, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) looked to
encourage HEIs to administer policies that promote international
education and study abroad through Go Global Japan Project 2012.
➢Since 2014, MEXT has implemented a 10-year funding program under
the Top Global University Project (TGUP) to support the development of
first-class universities that produce top-ranked research, and sponsor
educational reforms at universities for them to be relevant in a global
context.
➢Despite these differences, these objectives have been broken down into
three categories: (1) recruiting excellent international students, (2)
international institutional governance, (3) international educational
reform, and (4) international research cooperation. 7
 Methodology-Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 Demographics of research respondents
Individual Demographics Taiwan Japan
Factors (N = 1,192) (N = 1,966)
Frequency % Frequency %
Academic field Social science 576 48.3 598 30.4
Natural science 616 51.7 1,368 69.6
Academic Teaching 748 62.8 515 26.2
Preference Research 444 37.2 1,451 73.8
Gender Male 772 64.8 1,604 81.6
Female 420 35.2 362 18.4
Age Below 40 123 10.3 390 19.9
40-55 731 61.3 911 46.3
Above 55 338 28.4 665 33.8

8
 Methodology-Variables and Measures (1/2)
Table 2 Variables, survey items, number of items, variances of construct validity, and reliability
Taiwan Japan
variances reliability variances reliability
N of
Variables Survey items of of
items
construct construct
validity validity
Institutional International • Strategy for internationalization 8 55.01% .883 53.08% .869
Policies (P1)
• International exchange programs
for students (P2)
• Funding for faculty members to
undertake research abroad (P3)
• Funding for visiting international
students (P4)
• Funding for visiting international
scholars (P5)
• Recruitment of faculty members
from foreign countries (P6)
• Funding for faculty members to
attend international conferences
(P7)

9
• Encouraging faculty members to
publish internationally (P8)
 Methodology-Variables and Measures (2/2)
Table 2 Variables, survey items, number of items, variances of construct validity, and reliability
Taiwan Japan
variances reliability variances reliability
N of
Variables Survey items of of
items
construct construct
validity validity
Outcomes of • Enhanced prestige (O1) 9 60.45% .916 62.84% .872
Internationalization • Enhanced academic quality
(O2)
• Increased revenue (O3)
• Enhanced research networks
(O4)
• Increased mobility of students
(O5)
• Increased mobility of faculty
(O6)
• Weakening cultural identity
(O7)
• Increased brain gain (O8)
•
10
Increased costs associated with
internationalization (O9)
 Methodology-Data Analysis
1. Descriptive statistics were adopted to analyze the data on the
outcomes of internationalization.

2. Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to

explore the relationships between institutional international
policies and the outcomes of internationalization.

3. Moderated multiple hierarchical regression was conducted to

confirm the moderating effect of institutional academic
orientation on the relationships between institutional
international policies to the outcomes of internationalization
in both countries.
11
 Findings (1/4)
Table 3 Results of descriptive analysis for outcomes of internationalization in
Taiwan and Japan HEIs
Outcomes of Taiwan Japan
internationalization M SE M SE
Enhanced prestige 3.76 0.97 3.00 1.10
Enhanced academic quality 3.63 0.98 3.03 1.11
Increased revenue 3.47 1.04 2.30 1.02
Enhanced research networks 3.52 1.00 3.28 1.06
Increased mobility of students 3.66 1.02 3.11 1.09
Increased mobility of faculty 3.50 0.96 2.81 1.02
Weakening cultural identity 3.48 1.18 2.60 0.92
Increased brain gain 3.57 1.02 2.59 0.99
Increased costs associated with
3.55 0.99 2.31 1.10
internationalization

12
 Findings (2/4)
Table 4 The relationships between institutional international policies and the
outcomes of internationalization in Taiwan
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
O1 .541** .477** .403** .430** .410** .431** .366** .632**
O2 .541** .469** .552** .476** .460** .380** .355** .425**
O3 .440** .393** .342** .359** .345** .313** .298** .269**
O4 .544** .487** .449** .453** .453** .372** .381** .424**
O5 .477** .402** .335** .633** .359** .344** .359** .351**
O6 .500** .444** .445** .459** .438** .383** .375** .359**
O7 .429** .350** .305** .299** .300** .327** .304** .306**
O8 .560** .462** .393** .393** .406** .410** .416** .451**
O9 .454** .381** .328** .349** .331** .330** .332** .364**
Note. P1: Strategy for internationalization; P3: Funding for faculty members to undertake research abroad; P4:
Funding for visiting international students; P8: Encouraging faculty members to publish internationally: O1:

13
Enhanced prestige; O2: Enhanced academic quality; O5: Increased mobility of students; O8: Increased brain gain
 Findings (3/4)
Table 5 The relationships between institutional international policies and the
outcomes of internationalization in Japan
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9
P1 .491** .432** .312** .412** .430** .436** .124** .171** .254**
P2 .261** .320** .162** .348** .365** .326** .055* .105** .242**
P3 .283** .338** .240** .500** .312** .370** .028 .126** .140**
P4 .282** .320** .192** .350** .400** .351** .060** .167** .228**
P5 .310** .500** .220** .440** .373** .386** .078** .191** .221**
P6 .344** .324** .279** .335** .472** .401** .136** .212** .276**
P7 .339** .369** .312** .389** .278** .366** .099** .180** .144**
P8 .325** .390** .290** .343** .255** .336** .147** .227** .149**
Note. P1: Strategy for internationalization; P3: Funding for faculty members to undertake research abroad; P5:
Funding for visiting international scholars ; P6: Recruitment of faculty members from foreign countries; O1:
Enhanced prestige; O2: Enhanced academic quality; O4: Enhanced research networks; O5: Increased mobility of
students
14
 Outcomes of Internationalization

Findings (4/4) Independent variables-

Model 1
Taiwan
Model 2 Model 1
Japan
Model 2

institutional international policies

Table 6 Strategy for internationalization (P1) .640*** .369*** .181* .280***
Moderated multiple International exchange programs for students (P2) .025 -.028 .010 -.113
hierarchical Funding for faculty members to undertake research abroad (P3) -.103 .134* .119 .168*
Funding for visiting international students (P4) .213* .102 -.014 -.069
regression analysis Funding for visiting international scholars (P5) -.044 -.038 .012 .230***
of beta standardized Recruitment of faculty members from foreign countries (P6) .027 .105 .339*** .159
coefficients on the Funding for faculty members to attend international conferences (P7) -.068 .054 .036 .005
outcomes of Encouraging faculty members to publish internationally (P8) .161 .113* .104 .132
Interaction variables
internationalization P1*teaching-oriented HEIs .477*** .234*
through P2*teaching-oriented HEIs .084 -.039
institutional P3*teaching-oriented HEIs .226 -.145
P4*teaching-oriented HEIs .260* .063
international
P5*teaching-oriented HEIs .163 .170
policies in Taiwan P6*teaching-oriented HEIs .035 .280**
and Japan HEIs P7*teaching-oriented HEIs .241 .007
P8*teaching-oriented HEIs -.048 .081
P1*research-oriented HEIs -.070 -.044
P2*research-oriented HEIs .187 .197
P3*research-oriented HEIs .215* .297*
P4*research-oriented HEIs -.051 .219
P5*research-oriented HEIs .174 .329*
P6*research-oriented HEIs -.101 .041
P7*research-oriented HEIs .041 .057

15
P8*research-oriented HEIs .190* .022
F value 62.657*** 66.178*** 50.619*** 52.310***
Adj R2 .509 .523 .436 .443
 Discussion (1/7)
• First, our results revealed that the academics in Taiwan and Japan
strongly agreed that internationalization outcomes enhance prestige,
academic quality, and student mobility.
Enhancing prestige
➢ Marginson (2007) highlighted that the research capacity of Taiwan’s
HEIs is a crucial component that is measured and considered in
rankings. Such research capacity indicates that the staff of an
institution is highly professional and capable of achieving favorable
citation results in high-impact journals.
➢ Japan’s HEIs prioritize the recruitment of accomplished researchers
and talented students, provide innovative facilities with excellent
internal operating processes, and design creative and up-to-date plans
and programs as a part of their strategy to attain long-lasting academic
prestige (Cyrenne and Grant, 2009).
16
 Discussion (2/7)

• First, our results revealed that the academics in Taiwan and Japan
strongly agreed that internationalization outcomes enhance prestige,
academic quality, and student mobility.
Enhancing academic quality
➢ Taiwan’s HEIs internationally by facilitating international cooperation,
educational exhibitions, and conference hosting and promoting
Taiwanese academics and culture to increase the number of
international publications for its staff to enhance the international
competitiveness and academic quality of Taiwan’s HEIs.
➢ In Japan, international collaborations have been steadily increasing in
research and scholarly publication (National Institute of Science and
Technology Policy, 2019). The Japanese government has been providing
considerable funding to create more opportunities for cross-border
research collaboration and increase such partnership’s productivity.
17
 Discussion (3/7)
• First, our results revealed that the academics in Taiwan and Japan
strongly agreed that internationalization outcomes enhance prestige,
academic quality, and student mobility.
Increasing mobility of students
➢ For Taiwan, the implementation of the New Southbound Talent
Development Program (2017–2020) denoted the efforts of the Taiwanese
government to change its international recruitment policy from the one-
way recruitment of international students to an approach characterized
by mutual talent mobility and co-cultivation involving neighboring
countries.
➢ In Japan, creating an environment where international students and
faculty members can live and work with Japanese students is essential
for cultivating talent and connecting Japan with foreign countries (Ota,
2018). Furthermore, our findings indicate that recruiting foreign faculty
members plays a pivotal role in increasing the mobility of students in
Japan’s HEIs. 18
 Discussion (4/7)

• Second, institutional academic orientation can significantly influence the

relationships between institutional international policies and
internationalization outcomes.
Influence of institutional academic orientation on internationalization of
HEIs in Taiwan
 Taiwanese government regards the policy of using English as a medium
of instruction (EMI) as a method for promoting university
internationalization, and it has implemented EMI for various academic
subjects (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017).
 To pursue the target of establishing world-class universities, the
Taiwanese government has launched the Higher Education SPROUT
Project (2018–2022) to enhance the quality of Taiwan’s universities,
promote their multifaceted development, and support them in increasing
their international competitiveness and build leading research centers.
19
 Discussion (5/7)

 International cooperation can take the form of joint research

projects, joint conferences, the sharing of major research
facilities, reciprocal visits by researchers and scientists, the
exchange of information for creating innovative research
ecosystems, and the training of world-class innovative talent;
these developments contribute to the vibrancy of Taiwan's
research innovation and industrial development.

20
 Discussion (6/7)

Influence of institutional academic orientation on internationalization of

HEIs in Japan

 During the 1980–2000, Japan’s MOE proposed the following policies

in line with its aims for the internationalization of HEIs: (1) promote
international exchange and cooperation in education, sports, and
culture; (2) expand Japanese language education for foreigners; and
(3) improve the education framework for Japanese children overseas
and children returning from overseas (Brown, 2017).

21
 Discussion (7/7)

 The Japanese government has recently implemented the Top Global

University (TGU) internationalization policy, which includes: (1)
expanding EMI offerings; (2) recruiting international students and faculty
members; (3) creating research centers and branch offices (for student
recruitment) worldwide; and (4) establishing joint and double-degree
programs with foreign universities (Ashida, 2022).

22
 Concluding Remarks (1/4)
➢ In the present study, differences between Taiwan and Japan were
identified regarding the institutional international policies
implemented to promote the internationalization of HEIs.
 For teaching-oriented HEIs in Taiwan, implementing appropriate
EMI teaching strategies, international exchange programs, and
teaching activities involving international cooperation can all
increase Taiwan’s international brain gain and promote student
mobility.
 For teaching-oriented HEIs in Japan, implementing appropriate
educational collaboration programs and increasing the recruitment
of excellent international students and faculty members can
increase the mobility of students and enhance international
academic prestige.
23
 Concluding Remarks (2/4)
 For research-oriented HEIs in Taiwan, promoting the bilateral
movement of outstanding researchers and encouraging
international joint research projects can enhance their academic
quality and international academic reputation.
 For research-oriented HEIs in Japan, funding faculty members to
undertake research abroad and increasing international research
cooperation can enhance their research networks and the academic
quality of their research.

24
 Concluding Remarks (3/4)
➢ Although the present study discussed several differences between the
HEIs in Taiwan and Japan, its quantitative focus overlooks other
reasons for these differences. Thus, qualitative research should be
conducted to obtain further insights on this topic.
➢ In addition, this study acknowledges that the challenges of
internationalization can influence the sustainability of educational
achievements. However, it also posits that HEIs must identify
alternative paths for supporting institutional international policies
by considering multiple perspectives and, more importantly,
achieving SDGs (Liu and Kitamura, 2019).

25
 Concluding Remarks (4/4)

➢ The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development should serve as a

framework for implementing internationalization policies because
HEIs generate knowledge related to international issues and
contribute to society by enhancing the quality of teaching and
research within and beyond an institution.
➢ Our research findings can serve as a reference for promoting
international collaborations aimed at the internationalization of
HEIs, thereby enhancing the sustainability of education.

26
Thank you for your time and attention!

Q&A

27