The host members' perspectives on an international partnership of a short-term study abroad program in Hong Kong.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As universities and colleges send thousands of students to study abroad each year, there are many issues and concerns as well as benefits and challenges for study abroad students and sending institutions that have been identified in current empirical studies and scholarly literature. However, little research has been done to examine international partnerships and the impacts of study abroad programs from host members’ perspectives. Designed as a qualitative research study, a case study methodology was utilized to gather in-depth information in order to gain insights into host members’ cultural perceptions and experiences interacting with study abroad students in an established international partnership between a host organization in Hong Kong and a sending institution in Canada. Guided by two overarching research questions, detailed descriptive data were collected from 16 semi-structured one-on-one interviews and three subsequent focus group meetings with a total of 23 participants at the host organization. Findings from this study highlight the complexity in international partnership development that requires each partner to understand and accept the cultural differences from their own cultural lenses. Also, this study reveals that host members' cultural perceptions have the potential to influence their decision-making and their experiences when working with others who are from a different cultural context. The implications of this study's findings not only indicate the important social, cultural and organizational factors that have influenced different stages of a partnership development, but also contribute to our understanding of how host members’ perceptions of their own and other cultural similarities and differences contribute to an increased cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity at the host organization when hosting the study abroad students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".