Institutional Readiness and Capacity for Internationalization of Philippine Public Administration Universities and Colleges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs) are encouraged by the Philippine Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) to adopt a strategic and programmatic approach in implementing internationalization programs, at par with those in top-tier HEIs in the region and across the globe. In this regard, this study aims to focus on, and assess the institutional readiness and capacity for internationalization of selected Philippine HEIs offering degree programs in public administration and allied disciplines, based on indicators from Iuspa’s (2010) study on internationalization effectiveness. The study used the following methods for evaluating institutional readiness and capacity: 1) appraisal of the content of 63 HEI websites, 2) survey of 40 HEIs on internationalization and comparability, 3) review of national standards and guidelines on internationalization and comparability, 4) focused group discussions with faculty members of selected HEIs, and 5) key informant interviews from faculty members and experts in PA and other related fields. Results of the study indicate that priority for internationalization and comparability remains low among the HEIs studied. This may be attributed to the generally low capacity of most of the HEIs for implementing such programs. Moreover, compared with other HEIs in the region, the PA degree programs in the Philippines lack international reputation and visibility. The study suggests future directions and policy recommendations in line with the current goals of the CHEd to improve internationalization and comparability of PA degree programs in the country.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".