





































Microsoft Word - GRHE-V2N1-p46


Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

46 
 

Original Paper 

Retaining International Faculty: Meeting the Challenge 

Lois Spitzer1 & Jiangyuan Zhou2* 

1 School of Education, Stockton University, Galloway, New Jersey, USA 
2 Office of the Provost, Stockton University, Galloway, New Jersey, USA 
* Jiangyuan Zhou, Office of the Provost, Stockton University, Galloway, New Jersey, USA 

 

Received: November 11, 2018  Accepted: November 27, 2018 Online Published: December 21, 2018 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v2n1p46             URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v2n1p46 

 

Abstract 

The benefits of the presence of international faculty on university campuses are widely acknowledged. 

Their integration into campus life creates a global atmosphere and provides rich resources to 

encourage globalization efforts on campus. We set out to explore the perceptions of the challenges 

faced by our international faculty, with the further goal of meeting these challenges and increasing 

their retention. To probe these perceptions and address the challenges they identified, we created and 

disseminated a survey and interviewed our international faculty. The results of the study will be used to 

increase the retention of international faculty at our institution. The actions we propose will be to 

create more opportunities to socialize, provide more legal support, recruit more international students, 

offer mentorship based on cultural affinity, and make English language support and speech 

modification services available to international faculty and encourage them to take advantage of these 

services. 

Keywords 

faculty development, international faculty, international faculty retention, internationalization of 

higher education, internationalizing the campus, campus globalization initiatives  

 

1. Introduction 

The benefits of the presence of international individuals on university campuses are acknowledged by 

everyone in higher education. Their presence and integration not only create a global atmosphere, but 

also provide rich resources to encourage globalization efforts on campus. How can universities increase 

the presence and retention of international faculty on our college campus? What steps can be taken to 

meet their social, cultural, academic, and linguistic needs? In this study, the authors have set out to 

explore the perceptions of the challenges faced by the international faculty at our university to be able 

to meet these identified needs thereby resulting in increased retention rates. We believe that if these 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

47 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

challenges are met, we will see an increase in the retention rates of international faculty at our 

university. The results and recommendations of this study can also be considered to increase retention 

rates of international faculty at other IHEs.  

Attracting and retaining quality faculty is very important to educational institutions as low faculty 

retention rate can potentially create both monetary and academic consequences (Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute, 2012, as cited in Soomro, 2013). International faculty have become an essential part of higher 

education institutions (Altbach, 2003; Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2010; Manrique & Manrique, 1999). 

They are active in doing research, integrating global perspectives to teaching and learning, and overall 

enhancing students’ global learning (De Wit, 2002; Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2010). For most colleges, 

attracting and retaining a diversified faculty is a high priority in their strategic planning (Phillips, 

Dennison, & Davenport, 2016). However, criteria for retaining a highly qualified faculty in higher 

education in many cases are vague and unclear (Soomro, 2013). It is a wonder why so little research 

has looked at the issues facing international faculty, especially considering that in 1998, Finkelstein, 

Seal, and Shuster (as cited in Phillips, Dennison, & Davenport, 2016) reported that 26.6% of all new 

faculty in this country are foreign born, as are 17% of senior faculty. According to a 2006 report from 

the National Center for Education Statistics, between 1993 and 2003, there was a 96.6% increase in 

non-resident faculty and in fall 2015, the same organization reported that 19.4% of post-secondary 

faculty were non-resident aliens (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). The Institute of 

International Education reported that the number of international scholars in the United States 

increased from 115,098 in the 2009-2010 academic year to 124,861 in the 2014-2015 academic year 

(Herget, 2016). 

International individuals bring various benefits to their institutions, including promoting international 

exchange programs, enhancing domestic students’ and scholars’ global perspectives, contributing 

economically to the institutions and local communities, and boosting the national and global rankings 

of the institutions. It is vital for schools to remain competitive and attract more internationals to 

develop global learning on campus and promote universities nationally and globally (Restoring U.S. 

Competitiveness for International Students and Scholars, 2006). 

Herget (2016) asserts that a big predictor of the success of international faculty is not where they are 

from but whether they are at an institution that provides adequate support and resources for these 

faculties. In order to identify these areas of needed support, previous research investigated the 

challenges faced by international faculty. International faculty at various institutions identified their 

most salient and often overlapping challenges as being logistical, social, cultural, academic, and 

linguistic. Logistical difficulties are often the result of visa restrictions and residency issues (Foote, Li, 

Monk, & Theobald, 2008). Kastberg (2014) examined the social challenges that face all working-class 

faculty, international and domestic. In interviews with faculty, Kastberg documented that some of the 

social challenges faced may be difficulty in finding housing, schools for children, and jobs for their 

partners. Members of other cultural and linguistic groups (regardless of their citizenship status) face 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

48 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

social and cultural challenges, such as the absence of a social and professional network of friends and 

difficulty in socializing and interacting with colleagues (Redden, 2008). According to Thomas and 

Johnson (2004), international faculty reported the lack of collegiality in U.S. colleges leading to “a 

sense of isolation and loneliness” (Thomas & Johnson, 2004, as cited in Phillips, Dennison, & 

Davenport, 2016, p. 6). Academic and cultural challenges include not fully understanding the higher 

education system of the U.S., and specifically the culture of the school at which they are working 

(Gahungu, 2011; Redden, 2008). Some also report that majority students are culturally insensitive, 

disrespectful, and question their expertise (Phillips, Dennison, & Davenport, 2016). Linguistic 

challenges may include international faculty encountering prejudice when it comes to language 

capacity (Lee & Janda, 2006). 

The goal of our project was twofold: 1) to identify the specific challenges reported by international 

faculty at our institution, a medium-sized state university in a rural community on the east coast, and 2) 

to make suggestions as to how our institution can address these challenges. We begin with a discussion 

of the methodology, move on to a discussion of the results, and finally offer recommendations based on 

the results. 

 

2. Method 

Wells (2007) defined international faculty as “all faculty members other than American born U.S. 

citizens” (p. 77), Sarkisian (2006) referred to “foreign nationals teaching in American college 

classrooms” (p. 113). Mamiseishvili and Rosser (2010) loosely defined it as “some who are drawn 

from outside the United States” (p. 51). Without a clear definition, it is difficult to apply the data, and 

its reliability is compromised (Yudevich, Altbach, & Rumble, 2017). For the purpose of this study, we 

decided to create an intentionally specific definition of international faculty: international faculty are 

all members of other cultural and/or linguistic backgrounds who primarily identify with those 

backgrounds and have global perspectives, attitudes and values. This group includes those on visas, 

visiting scholars, short-term and long-term faculty, U.S.-born citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens, and 

permanent residents. It may include American-born faculty members who have spent significant time 

abroad and who self-identify as international. 

A survey was created in which international faculty at our university were asked to rate their perceived 

challenges in three areas: communication, university support and professional/academic support. This 

survey was distributed by email to the faculty with a request that anyone who considered themselves to 

be an international individual complete the survey. As stated above, since there is no set definition of 

international and we could not ascertain an exact number of international faculty on campus, we 

decided to leave it up to individuals to self-select. 

As a follow-up, we decided to select two representatives from each school at our university to probe 

their perceptions more deeply. We asked two specific questions: 1) What is the biggest challenge you 

have encountered since you came to [our university] as an international faculty? and 2) Do you have 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

49 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

any suggestions about how [our university] can better recruit or retain international faculty? We 

held interviews with the purpose of collecting personal reflections on this topic. Responses are 

summarized in the themes recorded below. The results of the both the survey and the interview were 

collected and analyzed. The challenges that became evident were then brought forth to the 

administration and suggestions as to how to address these challenges were made. We also sought to 

identify those practices that are appreciated by the international faculty and affirm these positive 

practices already employed by the university. 

 

3. Results 

Our results shed light on the varied perceptions of our international faculty. Our survey yielded the 

following results: we received 82 responses between September 27, 2016 and March 23, 2017 

(approximately six months). 

3.1 Survey Results 

As shown in Figure 1, 47% of the participants are not U.S. citizens. As for participants’ education 

history, 64% received the K-12 education outside of the U.S., 51% received undergraduate education 

outside the U.S., and 15% received graduate education outside of the U.S. 

 

 
Figure 1. Citizenship and Education History of the Participants 

 

Figure 2 reveals that participants reported that 67% had lived in the U.S. more than 15 years, 23% had 

lived in the U.S. between seven and 15 years, and 11% had stayed in the U.S. less than seven years. As 

for teaching or working at a U.S. institution, 41% of the participants reported that they had more than 

15 years of experience, 36% reported between seven and 15 years of experience, and 23% had less than 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

50 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

seven years of experience. As for this specific institution, 20% of the participants reported that they had 

taught or worked here for more than 15 years, 26% had seven to 15 years of experience, and 54% has 

less than seven years here. 

 

 
Figure 2. Amount of Time in the U.S., Years Working in a U.S. Institution and Years at Current 

Institution 

 

The citizenship of the participants is shown in Figure 3. Survey participants reported being citizens of 

21 countries, including China (15 citizens), Canada (four citizens), Malaysia (four citizens), Turkey 

(four citizens), Germany (three citizens), India (three citizens), Russia (three citizens). There were two 

citizens of each of the following five countries: Denmark, Puerto Rico, Romania, Spain, St. Kitts and 

Nevis, and one citizen for the following nine countries: Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Honduras, Iran, Israel, 

Jamaica, South Korea, and U.K. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

51 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 3. Citizenship of the Participants 

 

As for participants’ self-identified cultural affiliations, Figure 4 notes that participants reported feeling 

affiliated with 20 cultures, with eight participants with U.S. culture, four with Italian culture, three with 

Puerto Rican culture, two with Jewish culture. There was one participant with each of the following 16 

cultures: Caribbean, Dominican Republican, Eastern European, English, Euro-American, French, India, 

Israel, Jamaican, Japan, Polish, Romania, Russian, South African, Spanish, and Ukrainian. 

 

 
Figure 4. Self-Identified Cultural Affiliation of the Participants 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

52 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In Figure 5, 11 languages are reported as dominant, including English (34 participants), Chinese (nine 

participants), Spanish (four participants), Korean (two participants), Russian (two participants), Turkish 

(two participants), and one participant for each of the following five languages: Bulgarian, Farsi, 

German, Malayalam, and Portuguese. 

 

 

Figure 5. Dominant Languages of the Participants 

 

Figure 6 notes that participants reported having communication difficulties with the following target 

groups: administration, colleagues, students, students’ parents, and community members. Participants 

reported having the most communication difficulties (e.g., being misunderstood) with students 

(Mean=1.97), and the fewest difficulties with students’ parents (Mean=1.46). They reported the need to 

repeat themselves the most with students (Mean=1.91) and the least with students’ parents 

(Mean=1.25). Participants reported wanting to limit interactions as much as possible the most with 

administration (Mean=1.51) and the least with students (Mean=1.11). They reported being ignored 

while giving input or being asked a question the most with administration (Mean=1.68) and the least 

with students (Mean=1.17). They further reported more culturally inappropriate gestures from 

community members (Mean=1.47) and fewer from students’ parents (Mean=1.22). Participants did not 

further specify these gestures in the survey.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

53 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 6. Means of Communication Difficulties of the Participants 

 

Participants’ satisfaction with university support as reported in Figure 7, showed that they were most 

satisfied with the community service (Mean=3.77) and least satisfied with language support 

(Mean=2.58). 

 

 

Figure 7. Means of Participants’ Satisfaction with University Support 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

54 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

As for the participants’ satisfaction of professional/academic support Figure 8, participants showed 

they were most satisfied with library services (Mean=4.09) and least satisfied with travel funds 

(Mean=3.28). 

 

 

Figure 8. Means of Participants’ Satisfaction with Professional/Academic Support 

 

3.2 Interview Responses 

A sample of the verbatim responses from our interview questions regarding suggestions on alleviating 

the challenges faced by international faculty were categorized into the following themes: 

Theme 1: Lack of social support. 

“Maybe consider creating some clubs or groups for International faculty, so that they can have the 

opportunity to meet/know each other”. 

Theme 2: Lack of legal support. 

“If Stockton wants to better retain international faculty, Stockton may consider paying the application 

fees for Permanent Residency application as it does for H1-b working visa. Many universities pay for 

the faculty members’ permanent residency applications. If Stockton does the same, I think it will help 

Stockton to retain the international faculty”. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

55 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

“As someone who lived under this uncertainty until just a few months ago, I certainly appreciate 

calling attention to this important issue and offering resources. But I also think in addition to such 

individual efforts, Stockton as an institution needs to make a more consistent effort to support all 

employees through the visa/green card and other immigration paper work/processes. These have 

always been complex and involve a great deal of financial and other stress; navigating it requires a 

supportive employer. I can only imagine that the process has become even more fraught now. But in my 

experience, there is no uniform or consistent support for this at Stockton, it is often left to the individual 

going through the process to negotiate with the Deans or supervisors adding yet another layer of 

stress”. 

Theme 3: Too few international Students. 

“What the university can do is to recruit more international students, which would truly make the 

campus global. The presence of more international students would in turn facilitate the integration of 

the international faculty into the larger community”. 

Theme 4: Need for mentors. 

“Assigning a [additional] mentor from the same [similar] culture who can help the person be familiar 

with local communities”. 

Theme 5: Language barrier. 

“Cultural differences make me feel sometimes it is difficult to join conversations. Maybe a little 

language barrier as well”. 

 

4. Discussion 

Our survey and interview data indicated that international faculty had experienced various 

communication difficulties on campus. Their biggest challenges were with students and administrators. 

The two main problems that were identified were the need to repeat themselves and being 

misunderstood, which both result in poor satisfaction ratings with the language services on campus. 

International faculty also felt ignored; this leads to low satisfaction ratings with the professional and 

academic support for sabbatical and travel funds. 

Suggestions were also made to improve the experience of international faculty and the following 

suggestions were gleaned from the data collected from the personal interviews: 

Suggestion 1: Increase social support. 

Creating social clubs/groups would support the social needs of international faculty. 

Suggestion 2: Offer additional legal support. 

Offering more legal support in the form of immigration legal specialists and financial assistance to 

cover the cost of permanent residency applications would be helpful. 

Suggestion 3: Recruit international Students. 

Recruiting more international students to create a more internationalized campus and community would 

help with the integration of international faculty. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Suggestion 4: Provide mentors. 

Initiating a mentorship program that pairs international faculty with members from the similar 

cultural/linguistic background would provide professional development. 

Suggestion 5: Offer language support. 

Making ESL and speech modification services available to international faculty and encouraging them 

to take advantage of these services would increase their confidence and engagement with the campus 

community. 

4.1 Limitations of Study 

Unfortunately, we could not get an exact number of international faculty at our institution from our 

human resources office because international status is not identified or collected by our university. So, 

while we acknowledge the limitations of this study, namely that we have an admittedly limited sample 

(N=82), we decided to pursue this study because of the useful information it can provide our institution 

to grow and retain international faculty on our campus. Undoubtedly, there are other campuses with a 

number of international faculty with the same goals that are experiencing similar challenges. We 

believe the results of our study will also be of use to other institutions who are working towards 

comprehensive internationalization. While acknowledging these limitations, we understand that all 

college communities must start somewhere and we are optimistic that we are poised to grow and to 

facilitate that growth; therefore, we need to explore the challenges that face us so we can address them. 

 

5. Conclusion 

Our study has shown that the majority of our international faculties have positive perceptions of the 

practices of our university. The international faculty who participated in the survey and interviews 

made specific suggestions, and we plan to integrate these ideas into future steps to be proposed to the 

institution. The actions we propose will be to create more opportunities to socialize, provide more legal 

support, recruit more international students, offer mentorship based on cultural affinity, and make 

English language support and speech modification services available to international faculty and 

encourage them to take advantage of these services. 

We hope that this study will inform our university about the perceptions of international faculty, 

encourage other institutions to carry out studies to improve the experience of international faculty, and 

add to the growing body of literature that seeks to increase the retention of international faculty on our 

campuses. 

 

Acknowledgements 

This research was funded by a Diversity Grant from the Provost’s Office at Stockton University. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

57 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Altbach, P. G. (2003). Centers and peripheries in the academic profession: The special challenges of 

developing countries. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The decline of the guru: The academic profession in 

the third world (pp. 1-23). New York: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982568_1 

De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and 

Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood 

Publishers. 

Foote, K. E., Li, W., Monk, J., & Theobald, R. (2008). Foreign-born scholars in U.S. universities: 

Issues, concerns and strategies. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), 167-178. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701731322 

Gahungu, A. (2011). Integration of foreign-born faculty in academia: Foreignness as an asset. 

International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(1). 

Herget, A. (2016, August). Foreign-born faculty face challenges. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from 

https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=1012 

Kastberg, S. M. (2014). The im/mobility of working-class academics. In N. Maadan, & M. Tight (Eds.), 

Academic Mobility (pp. 136-177). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-362820140000011018 

Lee, G., & Janda, L. (Fall, 2006). Successful multicultural campus: Free from prejudice toward 

minority professors. In Multicultural Education. Retrieved July 11, 2017, from 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ759643.pdf 

Mamiseishvili, K., & Rosser, V. J. (2010). International and citizen faculty in the United States: An 

examination of their productivity at research universities. Research in Higher Education, 51(1), 

88-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9145-8 

Manrique, C. G., & Manrique, G. G. (1999). The multicultural or immigrant faculty in American 

society. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press. 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016). Retrieved December 5, 2018, from 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_315.20.asp 

Phillips, S. L., Dennison, S. T., & Davenport, M. A. (2016). High retention of minority and 

international faculty through a formal mentoring program. To Improve the Academy, 35(1). 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20034 

Redden, E. (January 24, 2008). Integrating international faculty. In Inside Higher Education. Retrieved 

July 11, 2018, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/24/international 

Restoring U.S. Competitiveness for International Students and Scholars. (2006). NAFSA: Association 

of International Educators. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from 

http://www.nafsa.org/Policy_and_Advocacy/Policy_Resources/Policy_Reports/Restoring_U_S__

Competitiveness_for_International_Students_and_Scholars/ 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

58 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Sarkisian, E. (2006). Teaching American students: A guide for international faculty and teaching 

assistants in colleges and universities. Cambridge, MA: Derek Bok Center for Teaching and 

Learning. 

Soomro, T. R. (2013, May). Faculty retention in higher education. International Journal of Higher 

Education, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p147 

Wells, R. (2007). International faculty in U.S. community colleges. New Directions for Community 

Colleges, 138, 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.284 

Yudkevich, M., Altbach, P., & Rumbley, L. (Eds.). (2017). International faculty in higher education. 

New York: Routledge. 

 

 


