Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector: Textual Analysis of Institutional Internationalization Plans Volume 4, 2019 Accepted as an empirical research article by Editor Mary Ann Bodine Al-Sharif │Received: April 1, 2019│ Revised: August 4, September 3, September 9, 2019 │ Accepted: September 12, 2019. Cite as: Unangst, L., & Barone, N. (2019). Operationalizing “internationalization” in the community college sector: Textual analysis of institutional internationalization Plans. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 4, 177-196. https://doi.org/10.28945/4435 (CC BY-NC 4.0) This article is licensed to you under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. When you copy and redistribute this paper in full or in part, you need to provide proper attribution to it to ensure that others can later locate this work (and to ensure that others do not accuse you of plagiarism). You may (and we encour- age you to) adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any non-commercial purposes. This license does not permit you to use this material for commercial purposes. OPERATIONALIZING “INTERNATIONALIZATION” IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SECTOR: TEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONALIZATION PLANS Lisa Unangst * Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA unangstl@bc.edu Nicole Barone Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA baronena@bc.edu * Corresponding author ABSTRACT Aim/Purpose This paper evaluates three community college internationalization plans using quantitative textual analysis to explore the different foci of institutions across three U.S. states. Background One of the purposes of community college internationalization is to equip fu- ture generations with the skills and dispositions necessary to be successful in an increasingly globalized workforce. The extent to which international efforts have become institutionalized on a given campus may be assessed through the analysis of internationalization plans. Methodology We use the textual analysis tool Voyant, which has rarely been employed in edu- cational research, being more frequently applied in the humanities and under the broad heading of “digital scholarship”. Contribution Extant literature examining internationalization plans focuses on the four-year sector, but studies centered on the two-year sector are scarce. This study ad- dresses that gap and seeks to answer the research questions: How do communi- ty colleges operationalize internationalization in their strategic plans? What terms and/or concepts are used to indicate international efforts? Findings Key findings of this study include an emphasis on optimization of existing re- sources (human, cultural, community, and financial); the need for a typology of open access institution internationalization plans; and the fragmentation of in- ternational efforts at the community college level. https://doi.org/10.28945/4435 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ mailto:unangstl@bc.edu mailto:baronena@bc.edu Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 178 Impact on Society It is clear that internationalization at community colleges may take shape based on optimization of resources, which begs the question, how can education sec- tor actors best support open access institutions in developing plans tailored to the local context and resources at hand? Future Research We recommend additional use of quantitative textual analysis to parse interna- tionalization plans, and imagine that both a larger sample size and cross-national sample might yield interesting results. How do these institutional groupings op- erationalize internationalization in the corpus of their plans? Keywords internationalization, community college, quantitative textual analysis, digital scholarship, international students INTRODUCTION Valeau and Raby (2016) assert that community college international programs “play a key role in providing the skills needed for a competitive, globally competent workforce and for a citizenry who are cultured, transformative, and empowered to support reform at the local and global level” (p. 163). International education scholars and practitioners have long recognized the influence of globalization on U.S. community colleges and how these institutions have responded over time (Raby & Valeau, 2007). Globalization is understood here as a blurred economic and political phenomenon with neo- colonial aspects, and one which Altbach and Knight (2007) assert pushes “21st century higher educa- tion toward greater international involvement” (p. 290). This shift also relates to internationalization, defined by Knight (2003) as “the process of integrating international, intercultural or global dimen- sions into the purpose, functions, or delivery of postsecondary education” (p. 2). Recent scholarship on this topic has moved beyond the original, primary focus on the four-year sector, and an emerging area of interest addresses internationalization efforts in U.S. community colleges. Over time, scholars and practitioners have emphasized the salience of community college interna- tionalization. Woodin (2016) asserted that how community colleges internationalize has critical impli- cations for the global and local economies in which the institution is situated. Similarly, Dellow (2007) highlighted the importance of internationalizing community college academic and technical programs, citing globalization’s impacts on future employment opportunities for students. It is evi- dent that community college internationalization is seen as a tool for advancing both economic and student development; it is through the various institutional conceptualizations of internationalization that we parse how international activities are defined and described through the textual analysis of internationalization plans at three institutions. According to the 2017 Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses report, fewer than 30 percent of community colleges surveyed had an articulated internationalization plan (Helms & Brajakovic, 2017). Given the expanding nature of internationalization in U.S. higher education, the ability to ac- cess and analyze internationalization plans is necessary to describe, measure, and evaluate how inter- nationalization transpires in the community college setting. Through the use of Voyant, a web-based text analysis tool, this study seeks to understand the salience and operationalization of internationali- zation efforts in community college internationalization plans through the following research ques- tions: 1. How do community colleges operationalize internationalization in their strategic plans? 2. What terms and/or concepts are used to indicate internationalization efforts? Through the analysis of three community college internationalization plans, this study begins to ad- dress the gap in the literature on what we know about community college internationalization through the lens of strategic plans. Background information on the history of internationalization, how internationalization has typically been measured, and barriers to internationalization at commu- Unangst & Barone 179 nity colleges are presented. The study concludes with a discussion of the findings and recommenda- tions for further research. BACKGROUND In order to assess the extent to which community colleges have kept abreast of internationalization activities, scholars have sought to measure internationalization across a number of domains using primarily quantitative approaches. For example, the survey conducted by the American Council on Education (ACE) titled Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses (Helms & Brajakovic, 2017) measures the state of internationalization at U.S. higher education institutions across several compre- hensive internationalization indicators: an articulated institutional commitment to internationaliza- tion, administrative structure and staffing, curriculum, co-curriculum, and learning outcomes, faculty policies and practices, student mobility, and collaborations and partnerships. Though community col- leges have typically represented a small portion of the institutions sampled in the Mapping survey, scholars have called into question the extent to which all of the internationalization dimensions used in this survey and other tools that measure campus internationalization are relevant to community college settings (Woodin, 2016). One indicator that is noted as a particularly important dimension across many of the existing interna- tionalization tools is an articulated institutional commitment or strategic internationalization plan (Community Colleges for International Development [CCID], 2015; Green & Siaya, 2005, Helms & Brajakovic, 2017; Ivey, 2009). While the current study does not seek to measure internationalization across U.S. community colleges, it does aim to shed light on community colleges’ articulated com- mitment to internationalization and the how these institutions operationalize internationalization in the corpus of their internationalization plans. Scott (1992) asserts that internationalization plans are critical to the advancement of a college or university’s internationalization efforts. These written commitments are crucial for “expressing institutional commitment, defining institutional goals, in- forming stakeholders’ participation, as well as informing and stimulating stakeholder involvement in internationalization initiatives” (Childress, 2009, p. 291). It is clear that internationalization plans serve a vital role in how internationalization activities are identified, defined, and communicated. Yet what do we know about the study of internationalization plans and how internationalization is operationalized across various higher education institutions? In one study, Childress (2009) analyzed internationalization plans at 31 institutions and found that these plans accomplish several goals in- cluding offering guidelines for internationalization, garnering buy-in from campus stakeholders, ex- plaining the meaning and goals of internationalization, encouraging collaboration between depart- ments, and serving as a tool for fundraising. In another qualitative multi-case study on internationali- zation plans at Jesuit institutions, Nguyen (2018) found that the institutions in the study engaged in preliminary internationalization activities (e.g., recruiting international students, internationalizing the curriculum, increasing opportunities for study abroad and global partnerships), but operated with fragmented internationalization plans. While these studies offer important insights into the role of internationalization plans, the literature on these plans is scant and these studies did not include any analysis of community college plans. INTERNATIONALIZATION AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES International education has been part of community colleges since the late 60s when those working to expand international education opportunities began to look to community colleges as a potential avenue and resource (Raby & Valeau, 2007). The increasing number of international education pro- grams during this time sparked the establishment of the Community Colleges for International De- velopment (CCID) in 1967, a non-profit organization that “empowers an international association of community, technical, and vocational institutions to create globally engaged learning environments” (CCID, n.d., para 2). Since its inception, CCID has collaborated with member institutions in order to integrate and embed international experiences across each campus sector. Member institutions are Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 180 encouraged to use CCID’s framework for comprehensive internationalization tool in order to self- assess progress on internationalization efforts (CCID, 2015). This tool is further detailed in the fol- lowing sections. As globalization played a larger role in American higher education, community colleges experienced increased growth in international activity, which was characterized by four phases: recognition, ex- pansion and publication, augmentation, and institutionalization (Raby & Valeau, 2007). The recogni- tion phase, which took place between the mid-60s and the mid-80s, was largely characterized by the establishment of study abroad and international student support programs at several community col- leges, and the establishment of CCID and the American Council on International and Intercultural Exchange (ACIIE) (Raby & Valeau, 2007). This phase was supplanted by increased dissemination of information on community college internationalization, increased documentation and financial re- sources to support international efforts, and the expansion of international support offices (Raby & Valeau, 2007). The third phase, augmentation, endured during the 1990s and was marked by concert- ed international student recruitment and the rise of study abroad programs (Raby & Valeau, 2007). Finally, institutionalization has been characterized by the inclusion of international efforts into insti- tutions’ strategic plans, mission, and vision statements, growth among study abroad and international student services, and a push for institutional leaders to drive internationalization efforts (Raby & Valeau, 2007). Though the past several decades have demonstrated valiant efforts on the part of community colleg- es to pursue international activities, these efforts have been measured and assessed using several tools and met with varying levels of success. M EASURIN G IN TERNATIONALIZATION AT COM M UN ITY COLLEGES With a greater emphasis being placed on creating campuses that are responsive to international edu- cation, scholars have sought to measure the extent to which community colleges are internationaliz- ing. The Mapping survey has often provided the data necessary for researchers to examine interna- tionalization trends specific to two-year institutions. Green and Siaya (2005) reported on the first in- ternationalization index developed from an ACE survey created to measure the extent to which community colleges engaged in internationalization using the following metrics: articulated commit- ment, academic offerings, organization infrastructure, external funding, institutional investment in faculty and international students and programs. The authors classified community colleges as highly active or less active based on their internationalization score, with 60 percent of community colleges being categorized as less active (Green & Siaya, 2005). Harder (2010) drew upon 2006 Mapping data to examine internationalization trends at suburban, ru- ral, and urban community colleges. The author found that rural community colleges internationalized at lower levels than urban and suburban two-year campuses and institutional support was one of the leading indicators for successful internationalization (Harder, 2010). This analysis resulted in recom- mendations for increasing institutional support in resource-constrained environments, including ar- ticulating a commitment to internationalization through strategic plans and mission statements, ad- vocating for support from senior-level administrators, and establishing global focused learning out- comes. Around this same time period, the Community Colleges for International Development (CCID) de- veloped a framework for comprehensive internationalization that two-year institutions could use to self-assess areas for development and improvement. The 2015 iteration of this framework enables community colleges to assess their efforts across the following indicators: leadership and policy, or- ganizational structure and personnel, teaching and learning, co-curricular, international student sup- port, study abroad, professional development, and partnerships (CCID, 2015). This framework also allows institutions to assess their internationalization progress along a continuum (e.g., seeking, build- ing, reaching, and innovating) (CCID, 2015). Unangst & Barone 181 Copeland, McCrink, and Starratt (2017) advanced Harder (2010) and Green and Siaya’s (2005) work to create the Community College Internationalization Index (CCII), which incorporates contempo- rary shifts in internationalization efforts. This index seeks to measure internationalization efforts at the institution level for public community colleges (Copeland et al., 2017). This tool allows institu- tions to track internationalization efforts while taking institutional context and community into ac- count; a feature not present in Green and Siaya’s 2005 instrument. Higher education leaders, scholars, and practitioners continue to grapple with how best to interna- tionalize their campuses, particularly in light of increasing enrollment of international students across all sectors of postsecondary education and continued political, social, and economic shifts around globalization. Attempts to internationalize community colleges have not come without challenges, several of which are further described. BARRIERS TO IN TERNATIONALIZATION AT COM M UN ITY COLLEGES Though there are several noted impediments to internationalization at community colleges, this study will briefly describe three of the most commonly cited obstacles: financial constraints, the inclusion of internationalization in the institution’s mission or strategic plan, and support from faculty and sen- ior-level administrators, who serve as key drivers of international efforts in the two-year sector. In addition to examining these barriers, the authors also underscore the political context in which com- munity colleges – and their respective internationalization plans – are situated. Given that the majori- ty of these institutions are public, they are subject to the political whims of the state policy contexts they are embedded in, as well as federal level trends, which indirectly impact state decision-makers as well as the overall education landscape. At present, the narrative of the ruling party in Washington is one of significantly constrained immigration, including refugee and asylee admissions (Trump, 2017). Further, recent enrollment data reflects that the number of international students pursuing under- graduate and graduate degrees in the U.S. has fallen since 2017 (Redden, 2018); shifts in international student enrollment necessarily affect established and ongoing process of internationalization. There- fore, while this article describes barriers to internationalization in terms of resources, and a lack of strategic planning and engagement from key stakeholders, the authors understand that our analysis takes place in a challenging political time and context. Resource constraints Limited financial resources present a significant barrier to the development of international educa- tion and study abroad programs. Amidst competing priorities, the revenue necessary to develop and maintain international programs proves challenging to sustain, particularly during a time when state support for higher education is increasingly on the decline (Bissonette & Woodin, 2013; Green, 2007; Raby & Rhodes, 2018). It is typical that international programs and staff that support these programs are the first to be cut in times of financial austerity, thus limiting the extent to which international programs can be established and sustained (Green, 2007; Raby & Valeau, 2007). Due to the uncertain nature of funding for public higher education, community colleges find it challenging to designate resources in an institution’s budget for international efforts, which has implications for sustainability (Bissonette & Woodin, 2013). Articulated commitments Bissonette and Woodin (2013) assert that “a well-communicated and well-implemented strategic plan will set international education on track for long-term success” (p. 22). However, research consistent- ly finds that the lack of a clear, articulated strategy on internationalization is a barrier to these efforts. In one qualitative study on internationalization at an urban community college, McRaven and Somers (2017) found that there was disagreement among the college president, administrators, and trustees on whether a commitment to internationalization efforts should be included in the mission statement and strategic plan. This point is particularly salient given that senior leaders and administrators serve Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 182 as the “first line of advocacy and sets the tone for programmatic changes” (Raby & Valeau, 2016, p. 13). Further complicating this issue is a lack of overall institutional strategy when deciding which international activities to pursue. Green (2007) notes that typical internationalization plans refer to one or two activities (e.g., study abroad or recruiting international students) and fail to integrate in- ternationalization goals with other institutional goals, including student learning outcomes. The im- portance of strategic plans cannot be overstated as these plans typically serve as one metric of an institution’s commitment to internationalization. Lack of faculty and leadership support Among both faculty and senior administrators, a lack of support for international efforts serves as another hindrance to achieving internationalization goals (Green, 2007; Harder, 2010). These views may stem from several sources. For example, scholars have noted a tension around the perception of the mission and goals of community colleges. Raby and Valeau (2016) stated, “although there is no national community college policy that opposes internationalization, there remains a belief that serv- ing the local community is the opposite of a global connection” (p. 16). The desire to serve local over global needs may also stem from how administrators and faculty value international activities. While some institutional leaders may fail to see the value in internationalizing their campuses, other faculty, staff, and administrators may hold negative views toward international education or intercul- tural learning in general (Gore, 2009; Green, 2007). For administrators and faculty who hold positive views of international education, further restrictions are placed on internationalization efforts when faculty and leaders have limited experience or opportunities to engage in international activities (Bi- sta, 2016). Unfortunately, these views have negative consequences which often result in fewer admin- istrators and faculty leading international efforts, despite their critical role in this area. METHODOLOGY This examination of three community college internationalization plans uses the open-source, online textual analysis platform Voyant (described as a collection of analytical tools by its creators) (Rock- well & Sinclair, 2016). While Voyant is not a new product – it was launched in 2003 – it has rarely been used in educational research, instead being more frequently applied in the humanities and under the broad heading of “digital scholarship”. We offer here a brief introduction to the platform before presenting our data, based on textual analysis of three internationalization plans. The developers of Voyant describe it as combining “the capabilities of personal-computer-based pre- indexing tools, such as TACT, with more accessible Web-based tools that can find text and create indexes in real time” (Rockwell & Sinclair, 2016, p. 11). In short, Voyant is a website that allows any user to either upload documents or to enter website URLs and conducts an indexing and correlation of the words contained in those documents or on those webpages. It then visualizes this data in a number of ways: through word clouds (of the corpus of documents and individual documents), dis- tribution graphs, and indices of word frequency and phrase frequency (for instance, how often “in- ternational recruitment” is used in a given document). It also offers the correlation and significance level (p-value) of sets of two words within those documents or webpages. While there is no formal limit on the number of documents or website URLs that may be analyzed at a given time, in general a larger corpus will result in a longer processing time, and may also return an error. Rockwell and Sinclair (2016) view Voyant as a component of a larger project they refer to as Agile Hermeneutics (AH), which is defined as a pragmatic collaborative practice. At its heart it is pair work, and because only one person has his or her hands on the comput- er it requires dialogue between those participating. The paired scholars alternate between in- terpreting the results of text-analysis tools, and looking ahead, and reflecting back on what is needed. This then maximizes the dialogue between the scholar function and the develop- Unangst & Barone 183 ment function to the point where they are woven into an organic whole. (Rockwell & Sin- clair, 2016, p. 8) AH encourages interdependence of research community members and experimentation, which is also reflective of digital scholarship as a whole. Here, improvements to software and analytic tools are largely open source and with attribution readily given. Contributors, participants, and researchers may be pursuing vocational or avocational projects; in this mode, Rockwell and Sinclair (2016) have constructed Voyant as a platform that “mixes tools as panels much like those in a comic book, creat- ing a medley, or commedia, that encourages ‘serious play’” (p. 11). It is clear that Voyant does not interpret meaning (Rockwell & Sinclair, 2016). For instance, a word cloud produced by a given university’s mission statement – taking our home institution Boston Col- lege as an example – might display “Boston” in the largest font size and most frequently used word in the document. Devoid of context, we might interpret this finding to mean that the mission state- ment is closely tied to local community-based initiatives, that town-gown relations are strongly valued by the College. However, this analysis would miss that the use of Boston might reflect the title of the institution being used repeatedly. This also relates to Rockwell and Sinclair’s warning of “the disap- pearance of the author” (2016, p. 20) and, by extension, context and intentionality, in Voyant analysis. Finally, a word about our selection of community college sites. We employed purposeful sampling to obtain publicly available internationalization plans of three institutions located in different states with distinct frameworks for higher education policy and funding (Patton, 2002). Our decision to select three plans was based on the application of quantitative textual analysis, which can provide huge amounts of data from relatively short documents (data that, in turn, must be culled in order to pre- sent a standard length journal article). Further, though we do not claim generalizability here, we found the examination of community colleges in varied contexts to be an important pre-requisite to looking at correlations and frequencies for the purposes of an exploratory analysis. Thus, we empha- size that Shoreline Community College (Washington), Pima County Community College district (Ari- zona) and Harper College (Illinois) are not representative, but reflect distinct goals, contexts, and stakeholders (Campus Internationalization Leadership Team (CILT) Shoreline Community College, 2012; Office of International Education, 2013; Pima County Community College District Board of Governors, 2016) ANALYSIS In an effort to consider this grouping of internationalization plans, we first used Voyant to evaluate the corpus of documents. The five most frequently used words in the corpus were: global (260), in- ternational (229), students (218), community (199), and college (180) (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019c). Though this is not the particular emphasis of the paper at hand, we do find the use of “global” and “international” to pose several possible research questions: are these terms used interchangeably in all internationalization documents? Does “global”, for instance, tend to refer to economic phenomena? A visualization of keywords in the corpus is provided in Figure 1. We examined the corpus for keywords identified by ACE and Madeline Green as essential to the campus internationalization process in the community college setting (Green, 2007; Helms & Brajakovic, 2017). Terms without statistically significant correlations at the p < 0.05 or p. < 0.01 lev- els included “leaders*” (encompassing leadership, leaders, and leader), which was used 50 times in the corpus; “study abroad” 44 times; language* 25 times; research* 19 times; resource* 17 times; agree- ment twice; and articulation once. We further found that invest* (which would include investment), infra* (which would include infrastructure), and mobilit* (which would include mobility), were each used zero times. We find particularly notable the omission of mobility or mobilities here, given that these terms are so frequently employed in the internationalization literature (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Clifford & Montgomery, 2017; Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015; Hudzik, 2011; Leask, 2015). Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 184 Figure 1: Word Map, Corpus of Community College Internationalization Plans We examined the corpus for keywords identified by ACE and Madeline Green as essential to the campus internationalization process in the community college setting (Green, 2007; Helms & Brajakovic, 2017). Terms without statistically significant correlations at the p < 0.05 or p. < 0.01 lev- els included “leaders*” (encompassing leadership, leaders, and leader), which was used 50 times in the corpus; “study abroad” 44 times; language* 25 times; research* 19 times; resource* 17 times; agree- ment twice; and articulation once. We further found that invest* (which would include investment), infra* (which would include infrastructure), and mobilit* (which would include mobility), were each used zero times. We find particularly notable the omission of mobility or mobilities here, given that these terms are so frequently employed in the internationalization literature (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Clifford & Montgomery, 2017; Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015; Hudzik, 2011; Leask, 2015). Our impression at this point was that the emphasis of internationalization plans surveyed was on recognizing and capitalizing upon the international people and activities already present on the rele- vant campuses, rather than on intentionally expanding activities to pursue some new version of in- ternationalization, for instance new student mobility initiatives or pools of funding for international faculty research. We further probed this concept by examining word pairing correlations in the cor- pus. Correlations in Voyant are: calculated by comparing the relative frequencies of terms. A coefficient that approaches 1 indicates that values correlate positively, that they rise and fall together. Coefficients that ap- proach 0 indicate little correlation. Approaching -1, terms correlate negatively (as one term rises, the other falls). (Dickerson, 2018, p. 10) Most correlations generated by Voyant across the three internationalization plans were not statistical- ly significant at the p < 0.01 or p < 0.05 levels (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019b). We include in Tables 1-3 select word pairings of particular interest. Notably, among the strongest positive correlations among all statistically significant results is between the terms “college” and “global” (r = 0.8319009, p = 0.04001096). This of course reflects the topic of internationalization plans (in a sense it is reflexive) Unangst & Barone 185 and again begs the question, how is “global” distinct from “international”? Among the strongest negative correlations was between the terms “global” and “diverse” (r = -0.9990782, p = 0.027336972), which is interesting as it seems to echo the artificial divide between diversity in the U.S. sphere and internationalism described by Olson, Evans, and Shoenberg (2007) among others (Maturana Sendoya, 2018). Importantly, a number of keywords highlighted by ACE and Madeline Green did appear in the cor- pus of internationalization plans examined, and could be tested for correlations through Voyant (Green, 2007; Helms & Brajakovic, 2017). These include both fund* (18 results in corpus) and organ- iza* (23 results in corpus). Further, partner* was displayed 30 times (including 18 instances of “part- nerships”, six of “partnership”, five of “partners”, and one instance of partner). In turn, collaborat* appeared 16 times in the corpus (including seven instances of “collaboration”, four instances of “collaborate”, two instances of “collaborative”, and once for each of “collaborated”, “collabora- tions”, and “collaboration”). We include statistically significant word pairing correlations with part- ner* and collaborat* at the p < .01 level below. This was an area of particular interest, as we imagined that institutional partnerships and collaborations might discuss and display innovative or emerging approaches to internationalization. Table 1. Word pairings with partner* and collaborat*, sorted by strength of correlation Rounded to the one hundredth place Term 1 Term 2 Correlation (r) Significance (p) Term 3 Correlation (r) Significance (p) Office Partner* 0.31 0.01 Collaborat* 0.31 0.01 Efforts Partner* 0.30 0.01 Collaborat* 0.30 0.01 Plan Partner* 0.29 0.01 Collaborat* 0.30 0.00 Academic Partner* 0.29 0.01 Collaborat* 0.29 0.01 Culture Partner* 0.29 0.00 Collaborat* 0.29 0.00 New Partner* 0.29 0.01 Collaborat* 0.29 0.01 Goals Partner* 0.29 0.00 Collaborat* 0.29 0.00 Mission Partner* 0.28 0.01 Collaborat* 0.28 0.00 Statement Partner* 0.28 0.00 Collaborat* 0.28 0.00 Training Partner* 0.27 0.01 Collaborat* 0.28 0.00 Diverse Partner* 0.27 0.00 Collaborat* 0.28 0.00 Educational Partner* 0.27 0.00 Collaborat* 0.27 0.00 Again, our impression based on the word pairings of partner* and collaborat* (which exactly parallel each other) is that the community colleges surveyed are primarily working within their existing struc- tures and practices to develop and implement their internationalization plans. However, we observe that there is a positive correlation with “new”, which indeed indicates innovation in this area. We also underscore the appearance of both “mission” and “statement” here, pointing towards an alignment of institutional values and goals with potential or actual partner institutions. Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 186 Finally, academic*, which appears 28 times in the corpus, is correlated with several key terms at the slightly weaker p < .05 level (results displayed in Table 2) (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019b). No correla- tions were found to be statistically significant at the p < .01 level. We underscore these findings given that academic considerations are typically fundamental to an internationalization plan or strategy. Table 2. Word pairings with academic*, sorted by strength of correlation Rounded to the one hundredth place Term 1 Term 2 Correlation (r) Significance (p) Office Academic* 0.23 0.04 Efforts Academic* 0.23 0.04 Plan Academic* 0.22 0.03 Culture Academic* 0.22 0.03 Goals Academic* 0.22 0.03 New Academic* 0.22 0.04 Statement Academic* 0.22 0.02 Mission Academic* 0.22 0.03 Diverse Academic* 0.21 0.02 Training Academic* 0.21 0.03 Educational Academic* 0.21 0.03 Again, we observe here a close connection between academic functions and the existing structures of the given institution: existing offices, mission, institutional culture, and so forth. There is no clear emphasis, for instance, on emerging uses of technology to facilitate student group work across bor- ders or a nascent focus on establishing a robust program of international visiting scholars (Bissonette & Woodin, 2013). Finally, we probed the term “internationalization” itself. The correlations of relevant word pairings at the p < .01 level, we imagined, might indicate the key areas of focus across the three institutional plans as a whole (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019b). Given that all statistically significant correlations with “internationalization” at the p < 0.01 level are negative, indicating an inverse relationship between the two terms in question, Table 3 displays words that tend not to appear together in the same phrase. As we do not see clear groupings by, for in- stance, internationalization as administrative function (Briggs & Ammigan, 2017; Perez-Encinas & Rodriguez-Pomeda, 2017), internationalization as economic goal (Ho, Lin, & Yang, 2015; Sá, 2018), internationalization in the classroom (Leask & Carroll, 2011; Niehaus & Williams, 2016), or interna- tionalization as philosophy (Brooks & Waters, 2011; Deardorff, 2004), we find that the appearance of “internationalization” throughout these documents is characterized by a lack of cohesion. In short, there seem to be multiple conceptions and operationalizations of “internationalization” at work. In- terestingly, the phrase that used “internationalization” most often across the corpus was “interna- tionalization efforts”, which appeared six times, and can refer to any activity in place at a given higher education institution (HEI). Unangst & Barone 187 Table 3. Word pairings with internationalization, sorted by strength of correlation Rounded to the one hundredth place Term 1 Term 2 Correlation (r) Significance (p) Director Internationalization -0.35 0.01 Develop Internationalization -0.35 0.01 Experience Internationalization -0.33 0.01 Office Internationalization -0.33 0.00 Efforts Internationalization -0.32 0.01 Staff Internationalization -0.31 0.01 Strategic Internationalization -0.31 0.01 Academic Internationalization -0.31 0.01 Plan Internationalization -0.31 0.00 New Internationalization -0.30 0.01 Culture Internationalization -0.30 0.00 Goals Internationalization -0.29 0.00 Mission Internationalization -0.29 0.00 Statement Internationalization -0.28 0.00 Training Internationalization -0.28 0.01 Educational Internationalization -0.28 0.01 Diverse Internationalization -0.28 0.00 IN DIVIDUAL IN TERNATIONALIZATION PLAN S With respect to the particular areas of focus of the internationalization plans of Harper College, Pima County Community College District and Shoreline College, we find distinctions in the use of key terms. Faculty engagement is clearly emphasized at Harper College, student recruitment at Pima Community College District and research at Shoreline College (see Figures 2-4) (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019d). Again, these disparate areas of focus seem to echo the results of word pairing correlations noted previously – each community college surveyed emphasizes a distinct area of internationaliza- tion that suits its state context, constituents, mission, and goals (Bissonette & Woodin, 2013). Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 188 Figure 2: Corpus, visualization of “faculty” word frequency (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019d) Figure 3: Corpus, visualization of “recruitment” word frequency (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019d) Figure 4: Corpus, visualization of “research” word frequency (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019d) Given that our results based on the corpus of internationalization plans did not clearly elucidate how students are discussed by the HEIs, as a final point of analysis we examined how this term appears across the three documents. As displayed by Figure 5, “students” was used much more often in the Shoreline College internationalization plan (168 times) than other plans surveyed (50 times com- bined) (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019a). Unangst & Barone 189 Figure 5: Bubble line chart of “students” among internationalization plans (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019a) Indeed, Pima county community college district’s internationalization plan encompasses organiza- tional goals (“establish a language institute” for ESL), community-workforce goals (“identify oppor- tunities for workforce development in the international arena”), and staff/faculty development goals (“intercultural training”) in addition to one student-centered goal (as distinct from increased interna- tional student recruitment). Importantly, no action items for students themselves are identified in the plan – they seem not to be constructed as participants or agents in the proposed internationalization processes, but rather objects or passive recipients. For instance, “infusing global knowledge into the curriculum” is a process that has not included student experts reflecting on their own learning. This framing, of course, contradicts the student development literature and may be critically viewed (Thomas, Hill, O’ Mahony, & Yorke, 2017; Yosso, 2005). Somewhat similar to the formulation of internationalization goals at Pima, Harper College under- scores organizational and faculty-oriented goals (“foster a culture of accountability in all areas of international education”), though it does seek to “optimize participation by students and faculty in international education programs”. Interestingly, another strategic goal is to “achieve greater integra- tion of international students into life of college”; again, we observe here a contradiction with the critically-oriented literature on international student experience, which resists a deficit orientation and emphasis on assimilation. In contrast, Shoreline community college states that its campus internationalization goals are “inter- nationalizing the curriculum, creating opportunities for meaningful interaction between domestic and international students, enhancing the global competence of college employees, and engaging the community on international issues” (Campus Internationalization Leadership Team (CILT) Shoreline Community College, 2012, p. vi). A main point of emphasis in Shoreline’s internationalization plan is the overlap between the goals of the general education outcomes and campus internationalization, inherently centering the student experience. Further, a key asset of the campus is identified as “a stu- dent body that is multinational, multiethnic, and multilingual. In particular, a majority of our interna- tional students are from the one of the more dynamic regions in the world: Hong Kong, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea, [and] China” (Campus Internationalization Leadership Team (CILT) Shoreline Community College, 2012, p. v). In addition, Shoreline surveyed peer institutions in the area to learn about the student support programs that might be relevant to diverse and international student groups, highlighting possible initiatives for adoption or adaptation at Shoreline itself. However, stu- dents are also excluded from the leadership or organizing group, comprised exclusively of faculty and staff members. Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 190 DISCUSSION PAUCITY AN D T YPES OF IN TERNATIONALIZATION PLAN S As observed in our introduction, this paper is quite focused in its scope, comprising an analysis of three community college internationalization plans. This is a choice informed by the paucity of community college internationalization plans made publicly available, which may reflect several dy- namics at individual institutions. As suggested by Childress (2009), institutional leadership may be reluctant to support the development of internationalizations plans in resource constrained envi- ronments that are also subject to close public scrutiny, which indeed describes almost all community college settings with very few, well-resourced exceptions. She writes that “if institutional leaders [are] not certain they could allocate the resources to carry out particular goals for internationalization, then written commitments to those goals in internationalization plans [are] neither in their best inter- est nor in the best interest of the institution” (Childress, 2009, p. 299-300). By extension, we find it likely that an awareness of limited financial resources may be driving the emphasis on internationalization within established institutional structures and processes evidenced by this textual analysis. In other words, this may reflect internationalization through optimization of existing resources (human, cultural, community, and financial) rather than a framework for expansion of those same resources. This seems a ripe area for further inquiry: can internationalization as pro- cess and strategic goal at open-access institutions be seen through a lens of resource identification and capitalization, and if so, how might the outcomes of internationalization differ at the two-year level? Further, how might a focus on optimization of resources be seen with a systems perspective; where are the detailed plans that outline how bureaucratic and siloed administrative units may be uni- fied in pursuit of internationalization (McRaven & Somers, 2017)? We also consider Childress’ finding that “internationalization plans were explained as irrelevant for some institutions in which internationalization has already been integrated into the fabric of the insti- tution” (Childress, 2009, p. 299) and that plans may be most appropriate for community colleges that are in the initial stages of internationalization. Among the three internationalization plans in focus here, two (Pima County and Harper) seem to fall into this “early stage” category, urging greater insti- tutional cohesion and basic organizational orientation towards international students and topics. However, Shoreline’s internationalization plan is layered and reflects already-ingrained institutional approaches to supporting international students, activities, and curriculum, and thus seems to indi- cate that this college has found an internationalization plan relevant to its continued evolution, par- tially contradicting Childress’ finding. Might this indicate a consideration of internationalization plan typology, including the emerging (for colleges outlining nascent internationalization processes) and the evolving (for colleges seeking to deepen or iterate their internationalization processes)? This area for future research would be distinct from a typology of institutional culture as relevant to interna- tionalization processes as proposed by Bartell (2003). “IN TERNATIONALIZATION AT H OM E” (IAH ) Leask has argued the importance of internationalization at home in the four-year institutional con- text, observing that as the vast majority of students will not study abroad, internationalizing all as- pects of a college or university’s operations to internationalize the home campus experience is vital ( 2010, 2015). In practice, this can mean reviewing a core curriculum to integrate internationally- relevant learning objectives; revisiting existing syllabi to include international authors; requiring stu- dents to cite international authors in their written work; and many other initiatives within and outside of the classroom itself. This emphasis on IaH has also been described and encouraged in the two year sector by Custer and Tuominen (2017), among others. Further, IaH is sometimes characterized as optimizing existing institutional structures (Beelen & Jones, 2015), a clear theme identified in the analysis here. Unangst & Barone 191 Working within established institutional frameworks also comes with its own set of challenges. As Hunter (2018) recently argued in the European context, drawing from interviews with university ad- ministrators, the “staff interviewed highlighted that many of the challenges they faced in dealing with international activities lay in institutional structures and practices that were not supportive of the needs of internationalization” (p. 17). This begs the question, as the community colleges surveyed here propose various internationalization goals, to what extent they have already streamlined struc- tures to support success. In a sense, the advantage of creating new collaborations and initiatives in support of internationalization is that structures can be tailored; working through existing structures may optimize resources – but can those resources be appropriately channeled through potentially archaic or entrenched organizational channels? That is to say, are detailed plans for organizational realignment supporting internationalization missing from these internationalization plans because they have already been proposed or achieved? Or are they not yet in existence? Again, we seem to be pointing towards the need for a systems perspective or organizational theory frame, given that com- munity college internationalization plans do not appear to be proposing new staff or faculty roles, and instead reallocating institutional resources. TARGETED IN TERNATIONALIZATION As noted, faculty engagement is emphasized at Harper College, student recruitment for Pima Com- munity College District, and research at Shoreline College. Further, across all three documents we fail to find clear trends in conceptualizing internationalization as administrative function, internationali- zation as economic goal, internationalization in the classroom, or internationalization as philosophy. In short, “internationalization” lacks cohesion in the corpus of documents; instead, internationaliza- tion is operationalized in distinct and disparate ways, but ways that are clearly tailored to institutional context. This lack of cohesion may be seen as a fragmentation of what internationalization means in practice, which is not necessarily negative. This fragmentation would indeed indicate a different direction from the homogenization of higher education recently discussed by De Wit, Gacel-Ávila, and Jones, (2017), who have written that “little space is left for new and innovative ideas for internationalization, embedded in the local and institutional context” (p. 223). What we seem to be observing in the community college space is a closer attention to stakeholder needs and institutional mission and re- sources. Indeed, previous work has indicated that this is a distinctive feature of the open access land- scape (Bissonette & Woodin, 2013; Custer & Tuominen, 2017). However, fragmentation of internationalization in the community college sector might also indicate an opportunity to engage mid-level organizational units, such as district level “faculty curriculum councils [that] could dramatically enhance internationalization and create faculty buy-in with a rela- tively modest financial outlay” (McRaven & Somers, 2017, p. 442). That is to say, while we acknowledge that two-year institutions are embedded in their local settings, district or even state level groups may also be well connected to stakeholder needs and resource constraints and be in a position to offer consistent guidance and useful resources in at least some areas. Faculty councils, for example, might be in a position to identify specific texts or instructional tools appropriate to medical assistant programs and thereby “flesh out what it means to be international and local at the same time” (McRaven & Somers, 2017, p. 444). Such an approach would also address the issue of including in- ternational content in “core” or required classes, rather than electives alone (Beelen & Jones, 2015). Similarly, community actors may add capacity and direction to community college internationalization efforts. Service learning programs by definition are meant to be guided by community-based actors, and frequently incorporate international and intercultural elements (Berry & Chisholm, 1999). Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 192 LIMITATIONS There are several limitations to this study that necessitate mention. The primary limitation is the sample size of data, guided by our experimentation with a new analytical tool producing large amounts of data. As previously noted, our sample was limited to publicly available internationaliza- tion plans that could be accessed online. Future research might use different search criteria to locate community college internationalization plans including personal outreach to relevant staff members using member directories from community college professional organizations, such as Community Colleges for International Development (CCID). It is clear from our analysis that future research using a similar analytic approach with a larger sample is warranted and necessary in order to advance our understanding of internationalization plans at these institutions. A second limitation to our analysis was the type of data analyzed. We initially attempted to analyze mission and vision statements on community college websites, but found that these data sources did not include the type of information necessary for an in-depth analysis. There was little mention of global or international goals in the mission and vision statements on community college websites, which may be indicative of the extent to which community colleges publicly embrace internationali- zation efforts given their historical local focus. Finally, textual analysis on its own, devoid of context, can be considered a limitation. We have attempted to address this limitation of the tool by situating selected word and phrases into the broader context and conversation on internationalization at community colleges. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This study sought to identify how internationalization was operationalized in three community col- lege internationalization plans. In our analysis and in line with existing literature, we found that finan- cial resources may be a critical factor in determining internationalization activities. Additionally, this analysis shows the extent to which institutional context and culture influences the stage at which community college internationalization plans are in their development. While recommendations for further research are noted throughout this study, we acknowledge that our study was indeed limited by the extent to which internationalization plans were publicly available. It is possible that though we were able to locate and access several plans, that these documents were not intended for audiences outside of campus and community stakeholders. There may exist institutional plans that go into greater depth and detail around international activities and efforts. The analysis of a larger sample of strategic plans may yield additional findings and insights on internationalization trends across a great- er variation of community colleges. REFERENCES Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Jour- nal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542 Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59– 72). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5 Berry, H. A., & Chisholm, L. A. (1999). Service-learning in higher education around the world: An initial look. The In- ternational Partnership for Service-Learning. Bissonette, B., & Woodin, S. (2013). Building support for internationalization through institutional assessment and leadership engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(161), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20045 https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20045 Unangst & Barone 193 Bista, K. (2016). Faculty international experience and internationalization efforts at community colleges in the United States. In R. L. Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, practices, research, and case studies (pp. 23–38). New York, NY: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137- 53336-4_3 Briggs, P., & Ammigan, R. (2017). A collaborative programming and outreach model for international student support offices. Journal of International Students, 7(4), 1080–1095. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1035969 Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of higher education. Cham: Pal- grave Macmillan. Campus Internationalization Leadership Team (CILT) Shoreline Community College. (2012). Advancing campus internationalization: Report to the president’s senior executive team. Shoreline. Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in Interna- tional Education, 13(3), 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315308329804 Clifford, V., & Montgomery, C. (2017). Designing an internationationalised curriculum for higher education: Embracing the local and the global citizen. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(6), 1138–1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1296413 Community Colleges for International Development. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved from https://www.ccidinc.org/about-us/ Community Colleges for International Development. (2015. FCI assessment tool. Retrieved from https://www.ccidinc.org/fci-assessment-tool/ Copeland, J. M., McCrink, C. L., & Starratt, G. K. (2017). Development of the community college internation- alization index. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(4), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317697541 Custer, L., & Tuominen, A. (2017). Bringing “internationalization at home” opportunities to community col- leges: Design and assessment of an online exchange activity between U.S. and Japanese students. Teaching Sociology, 45(4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16679488 De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., & Jones, E. (2017). Voices and perspectives on internationalization from the emerg- ing and developing world. In H. de Wit, J. Gacel-Ávila, E. Jones, & N. Jooste (Eds.), The globalization of in- ternationalization: Emerging voices and perspectives (pp. 221–233). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657547 Deardorff, D. (2004). Internationalization: In search of intercultural competence. International Educator, 13(2), 13–15. Dellow, D. A. (2007). The role of globalization in technical and occupational programs. New Directions for Com- munity Colleges, 2007(138), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.280 Dickerson, M. (2018). A gentle introduction to text analysis with Voyant tools. Irvine. Retrieved from https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt6jz712sf/supp/Dickerson_TextAnalysisVoyantT ools_112018.pdf Gore, J. E. (2009). Faculty beliefs and institutional values: Identifying and overcoming these obstacles to educa- tion abroad growth. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 282–302). New York, NY: Routledge. Green, M. F. (2007). Internationalizing community colleges: Barriers and strategies. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(138), 15–24. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.277 Green, M. F., & Siaya, L. M. (2005). Measuring internationalization at community colleges. American Council on Edu- cation: Washington, D.C. Harder, N. J. (2010). Internationalization efforts in United States community colleges: A comparative analysis of urban, suburban, and rural institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(1), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011.525186 Helms, R. M., & Brajakovic, L. (2017). Mapping internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2017 edition. Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_3 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_3 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1035969 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315308329804 https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1296413 https://www.ccidinc.org/about-us/ https://www.ccidinc.org/fci-assessment-tool/ https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317697541 https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16679488 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657547 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.280 https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt6jz712sf/supp/Dickerson_TextAnalysisVoyantTools_112018.pdf https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt6jz712sf/supp/Dickerson_TextAnalysisVoyantTools_112018.pdf https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.277 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011.525186 Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 194 Helms, R. M., Rumbley, L. E., Brajkovic, L., & Mihut, G. (2015). Internationalizing higher education: National policies and programs. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/news- room/Pages/Internationalizing-Higher-Education-Worldwide-National-Policies-and-Programs.aspx Ho, H. F., Lin, M. H., & Yang, C. C. (2015). Goals, strategies, and achievements in the internationalization of higher education in Japan and Taiwan. International Education Studies, 8(3), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p55 Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://shop.nafsa.org/detail.aspx?id=116E Hunter, F. (2018, January). Training administrative staff to become key players in the internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education, 92, 16–17. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.92.10217 Ivey, T. (2009). Curriculum internationalization and the community college. (Published doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest dissertations and theses database. (305080778) Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. Leask, B. (2010). “Beside me is an empty chair”: The student experience of internationalisation. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 3–17). New York: Taylor & Fran- cis. Retrieved from http://www.routledge.com/books/Internationalisation-and-the-Student-Voice- isbn9780415871280 Leask, B. (2015). A conceptual framework for internationalisation of the curriculum. In B. Leask, Internationaliz- ing the Curriculum (pp. 26–40). Abingdon: Routledge. Leask, B., & Carroll, J. (2011). Moving beyond “wishing and hoping”: Internationalisation and student experi- ences of inclusion and engagement. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.598454 Maturana Sendoya, I. (2018). Internationalization and multiculturalism: Natural and unaware partners. Chestnut Hill. McRaven, N., & Somers, P. (2017). Internationalizing a community college: A view from the top. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(7), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1195306 Nguyen, B. (2018). Internationalization at Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States: Tensions between the Jesuit mission and internationalization in strategic plans (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10786680) Niehaus, E., & Williams, L. (2016). Faculty transformation in curriculum transformation: The role of faculty development in campus internationalization. Innovative Higher Education, 41(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9334-7 Office of International Education. (2013). Strategic plan for the internationalization of Harper College. Palatine. Olson, C. L., Evans, R., & Shoenberg, R. F. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging the gap between internationalization and multicultural education. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://store.acenet.edu/showItem.aspx?product=311885&session=0869335B85BD442199A0DDF37C91 F3BB Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Perez-Encinas, A., & Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2017). International students’ perceptions of their needs when going abroad: Services on demand. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317724556 Pima County Community College District Board of Governors. (2016). Executive summary of the 2015-2016 out- comes of PCC’s strategic plan for internationalization. Tucson. Raby, R. L., & Rhodes, G. M. (2018). Promoting education abroad among community college students. In H. Barclay Hamir & N. Gozik (Eds.), Promoting inclusion in education abroad (pp. 114–132). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, Inc. https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Internationalizing-Higher-Education-Worldwide-National-Policies-and-Programs.aspx https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Internationalizing-Higher-Education-Worldwide-National-Policies-and-Programs.aspx https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p55 https://shop.nafsa.org/detail.aspx?id=116E https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.92.10217 http://www.routledge.com/books/Internationalisation-and-the-Student-Voice-isbn9780415871280 http://www.routledge.com/books/Internationalisation-and-the-Student-Voice-isbn9780415871280 https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.598454 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1195306 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9334-7 http://store.acenet.edu/showItem.aspx?product=311885&session=0869335B85BD442199A0DDF37C91F3BB http://store.acenet.edu/showItem.aspx?product=311885&session=0869335B85BD442199A0DDF37C91F3BB https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317724556 Unangst & Barone 195 Raby, R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back to forecast the future. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(138), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.276 Raby, R. L. & Valeau, E. J. (2016). Global is not the opposite of local: Advocacy for community college interna- tional education. In R. L. Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, practic- es, research, and case studies (pp. 9–22). New York, NY: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137- 53336-4_2 Redden, E. (2018, November 13). New international enrollments decline again. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/new-international-student-enrollments-continue- decline-us-universities Rockwell, G., & Sinclair, S. (2016). Hermeneutica: Computer-assisted interpretation in the humanities. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Sá, C. M. (2018). Forget the competition trope. International Higher Education, 95, 11–12. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.95.10720 Scott, R. A. (1992). Campus developments in response to the challenges of internationalization: The case of Ramapo College of New Jersey. Springfield, VA: CBIS Federal. Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2019a). Bubblelines. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from http://voyant-tools.org Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2019b). Correlations. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from http://voyant-tools.org Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2019c). Terms. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from http://voyant-tools.org Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2019d). Trends. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from http://voyant-tools.org Thomas, L., Hill, M., O’ Mahony, J., & Yorke, M. (2017). Supporting student success: strategies for institutional change. London: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge- hub/supporting-student-success-strategies-institutional-change Trump, D. J. (2017). Executive order protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. Retrieved Feb- ruary 20, 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation- foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/ Valeau, E. J., & Raby, R. L. (2016). Building the pipeline for community college international education leader- ship. In R. L. Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, practices, research, and case studies (pp. 212–223). New York, NY: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336- 4_11 Woodin, S. (2016). Calls for accountability: Measuring internationalization at community colleges. In R. L. Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, practices, research, and case studies (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_10 Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.276 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_2 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_2 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/new-international-student-enrollments-continue-decline-us-universities https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/new-international-student-enrollments-continue-decline-us-universities https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.95.10720 http://voyant-tools.org/ http://voyant-tools.org/ http://voyant-tools.org/ http://voyant-tools.org/ https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/supporting-student-success-strategies-institutional-change https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/supporting-student-success-strategies-institutional-change https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/ https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_11 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_11 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53336-4_10 https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector 196 BIOGRAPHIES Lisa Unangst is a PhD candidate at the Boston College Lynch School of Education and Human Development. Her research interests include edu- cational policy and practice supporting displaced students in comparative, trans-national context; international alumni affairs; and quantitative textu- al analysis. Lisa worked previously at Cal State East Bay, the California Institute of Technology, and Harvard University. Nicole Barone is a PhD candidate at the Boston College Lynch School of Education and Human Development. Her interests center on college access, diversity, and inclusion in international education, and study abroad at community colleges and Minority Serving Institutions. She has worked previously at Diversity Abroad, Bunker Hill Community College, and the University of Washington. Operationalizing “Internationalization” in the Community College Sector: Textual Analysis of Institutional Internationalization Plans Abstract Introduction Background Internationalization at Community Colleges Measuring Internationalization at Community Colleges Barriers to Internationalization at Community Colleges Resource constraints Articulated commitments Lack of faculty and leadership support Methodology Analysis Individual Internationalization Plans Discussion Paucity and Types of Internationalization Plans “Internationalization at Home” (IaH) Targeted Internationalization Limitations Recommendations for Future Research References Biographies