ITF - UTSA Provost Home - The University of Texas at San Antonio

ITF Evaluation Study, 2010 12Data analysisThe method used to analyze consensus building data was constant comparative. In thismethod, each researcher constantly compares data codes (specific words and phrases) andgroups them into categories and subcategories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). To help focus theconsensus building, we began data collection and analysis within the four categories (scholars,research, study abroad, curriculum) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As new data were collectedfrom each group, we compared the first set of data with the new data. These comparisons theneither confirmed the categories or led to new categories (e.g., contextual). This recursiveprocess continued until data collection was complete and no new categories were detected.FindingsA summary of the key findings from the cross-case analysis are offered below.ScholarsThe category of student scholars had a focus on international students withrecommendations for more effective means for evaluation and greater support (coursework,research, professional development, scholarships) of international students. Therecommendations regarding faculty scholars included the facilitation of collaborativeopportunities for faculty exchange, collaborative real-time teaching across institutions, andsupport for campus family scholar housing.ResearchThere was one recommendation regarding international research—raising awarenessthrough research fairs. The majority of the recommendations focused on global research—establishing cooperative arrangements among faculty, student, and staff for research exchange;supporting interdisciplinary approaches to research; developing research projects focused onglobal issues or problems; and encouraging and supporting joint research endeavors. Inaddition, there was discussion about exchange use of research facilities with internationaluniversities.Study AbroadStudy abroad was mentioned more frequently in the student group than in the facultyor staff/administrator groups. Even so, study abroad received less focus than the othercategories perhaps due in part to the fact that study abroad is already institutionalized, orbecause study abroad is considered unaccessible by our largely commuter and non-traditionallyaged student population. The focus of recommendations was on collaboration (increasecollaboration among departments and colleges in study abroad efforts and establishcooperative arrangements among faculty, student, and staff for study abroad) and funding (donot assume all students will be able to be funded to study abroad).CurriculumCategories under curriculum included program of study, interdisciplinary, corecurriculum, foreign language, awareness and engagement, and communication. In essence,students, faculty, staff/administrators recommend identification of courses with a global focus(program of study); identify global themes and develop problem-focused classes that studyglobal issues or problems, and develop an interdisciplinary major in internationalization(interdisciplinary); infuse global themes in and across core curriculum (core curriculum); have astronger focus on foreign language study (foreign language); encourage awareness of andengagement with international and global curriculum development and seminars