Organizational and Societal Impact of Studying in Japan: STEM faculties in China and Mongolia

• In Event: Reforms, sustainable development, and social change in higher education (II)

Proposal

The impact of study abroad experience is well established for individuals’ professional and personal competencies, careers, and outlook on life. In many developing countries, these individuals are also believed to spur their home nation's social, economic, cultural, and academic development while influencing the relationship between their home and host countries (Campbell, 2016; Enkhtur, 2019). Previous studies on international education’s contribution to home-country development discussed how graduates contribute to their workplaces and communities. For example, Wilson (2015) proposed two pathways through which alumni of international scholarship programs make significant contributions to society: the "elite multiplier" and the "catalytic multiplier." The elite multiplier pathway involves selecting the best individuals in their respective fields, training them overseas, and promoting them to influential positions, particularly in decision-making roles within the government. The catalytic multiplier effect occurs when a critical mass of graduates are employed in teaching, knowledge production, research, and technological advancements. However, collecting critical mass in academia, a hub of research, teaching, and knowledge advancement, does not guarantee institutional or societal impact (e.g., Vanichakorn, 2006).

On the other hand, Asian graduates from Japanese universities perceived working in academia in their home countries as one of the most impactful ways to share knowledge, foster international research partnerships, and create innovative technologies based on their education in Japan (MEXT, 2015; Enkhtur, 2019). However, similar to most studies in the field, these findings are based on subjective statements of personal experiences lacking objective measurements or evaluation indicators (e.g., Dassin et al., 2018). Therefore, to explore Japanese graduates’ organizational and societal impact after graduation, we are conducting a comparative study in Chinese and Mongolian higher education institutions (June 2022-Feb 2023, funded by Murata Foundation in Japan).

The Chinese government and higher education institutions implemented policies to attract foreign-educated talents back to the home country, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), such as the “Thousand Talents Plan” (Central Organization Department of PRC, 2008) by providing attractive financial supports. These strategic supports have been successful in academic organizations in China (Shen & Wang, 2018). On the other hand, the Mongolian government aims to strengthen its higher education and build research universities by improving educational quality and developing international academic partnerships, particularly in engineering fields. In 2014, the Mongolian government launched the “Mongolian Engineering Higher Education Development Project,” a ten-year ODA loan technical cooperation project from the Japanese government. One of the main aims of this project is to strengthen the teaching and research environment at two national universities in the field of engineering through graduate-level study abroad programs (JICA, 2014). However, in both countries, graduates’ performance in higher education is not explored in depth considering individual, organizational, and societal contexts. Drawing on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model (as adopted by Martel, 2018; Jonbekova et al., 2022),
with three main levels of impact—individual, organizational, and societal impacts; we aim to identify factors related to graduates’ post-study abroad outcome, output, and impact.

Our evaluation model (survey study and semi-structured interview) is based on our recent pilot study on Mongolian graduates who studied in Japan for a graduate degree under an international scholarship from the “Mongolian engineering higher education project.” Therefore, at CIES annual conference, we will present this evaluation model followed by preliminary findings from the comparative research study. In the following sections, we present the pilot study and the indicators we identified for the evaluation study.

In this pilot explanatory sequential mixed methods study, 31 graduates (out of 66) participated in the survey study (55% Ph.D., 45% Masters program graduates), and 11 graduates (6 Ph.D., 5 Masters degree graduates) gave individual semi-structured interviews that continued for 60 to 90 minutes. Conducting hierarchical agglomerative clustering (Ward's minimum variance method) followed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, we identified five types of graduates by their output level in research, publication, technological innovation, teaching, and curriculum development. Graduates’ degrees, job positions, and level of decision-making responsibility had a significant relationship with their level of output.

Graduates with Ph.D. degrees working as full-time faculty members had the highest impact in the universities regarding sharing knowledge, supervising students, changing their pedagogies, and developing new curricula. On the other hand, master’s degree graduates working as full-time faculty members or researchers had the highest output in research and innovation. Interviews with graduates from each group illustrated that junior-level teaching faculties are often overloaded with classes with less time devoted to research and innovation. Conversely, Master's degree graduates had fewer teaching responsibilities and more chances to conduct research. Coupled with their aspirations to pursue Ph.D., these groups were most active in research and developing new technologies; however, they faced more challenges in research funding. In addition, our qualitative study showed that the contextual factors in the department, relationship with stakeholders, and graduates’ agency play important roles.

Besides contributing to the organization through teaching and research, graduates felt they contributed to the Japan-Mongolia relationship by sharing their learning experiences and research works with others beyond their workplaces (56%). Moreover, 68% of participants viewed that their activities with social impact increased, while 73% worked in professional associations outside academia. Some (27%) founded a new company or NGO with a social impact, while others (27%) worked as NGO governing board members in their professional fields.

Based on this pilot study result, we refined the survey and interview instruments to evaluate faculty member's and researchers’ post-study abroad impact at individual, organizational, and societal levels. We hope our study will foster important discussions around the evaluation of study abroad programs, particularly as professional development at higher education institutions, and how the governments and institutions may maximize the organization and societal impacts.

Authors

• Ariunaa Enkhtur, Osaka University

• Ming Li, Osaka University

• Xixi Zhang, Osaka University

• Oyundelger Enkhtur, Osaka University