Building International Engagement Capacity in a Post-Secondary Institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore and analyze international programs at the University of Saskatchewan (USask). The university has an Internationalization plan entitled “Blue Print 2025”. Within that blueprint are objectives that direct the mandate to create international opportunities for programs, collaborations, exchanges, and partnerships. In my position at the university, I engage in collaborations, partnerships, and networks to conduct this work. The study is a system review of the processes that are in place by researching a current problem of practice in this area. There is a potential for increased institutional capacity and cohesion in enacting and facilitating international events at USask. Unless specific faculty or separate units and college programs engage in international partnerships, there is a deficit in the capacity to organize and facilitate certain types of international engagement activities and there is a lack of an institution-wide coordination of internationalization programs. My problem of practice was grounded in understanding how to increase capacity to enact and actualize internationalization engagement activities at USask. Specifically, I investigated the internationalization capacity through a system review of USask focusing on partnerships involving engagement activities, including incoming and outgoing engagement activities. Through this study, I analyzed the University of Saskatchewan’s systems and mechanisms for fostering and executing international engagement activities and programs. The purpose of this study in essence was to uncover the current reality of the deficiencies and strengths and propose system improvement. This program evaluation (system review) involved investigating the lived experience of the participants who enact and engage in international activities, program development and program delivery. A descriptive interpretive qualitative methodology was utilized to analyze semi-structured interviews of five university staff members that are engaged in these activities. Participants were selected to share their perspectives and lived experiences in conducting and facilitating this work. The study’s findings provide some direction in terms of recommendations for USask to bolster communications, continue to find mechanisms that build cohesiveness in internationalization activities and to consider the development of a new position, with the direct responsibility to organize and lead the work of its International Operations Committee. Participants offered insights into the current successes with international programs, and into how programs and partnerships are grounded in the Blueprint 2025; the participants provided insight and recommendations for improved processes to evaluate and actualize the Internationalization goals of the University.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".