EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION ON EFFECTIVE

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

By

RACHEL E. DEAN

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS OF MASS COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2020

© 2020 Rachel Dean

To my international friends

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to offer my sincerest appreciation to the best mentor and advisor I could

have ever hoped to work with, Dr. Rita Men. Your patience, kindness, encouragement, and

genuine care for your students is unmatched. I’m so incredibly thankful for all of your guidance

throughout my time as a Master’s student. When you first spoke on the subject of engagement in

Dr. Hon’s Public Relations Theory course, I knew that it would be an honor and privilege to

work with and learn from you. I truly am so appreciative of all your help and cannot thank you

enough for your continued support!

I would like to thank my two other thesis committee members, Dr. Ferguson and Dr.

Kumaran. Your thoughtful advice, encouraging words, and unwavering support throughout this

entire process is deeply appreciated. I am beyond grateful to have such renowned scholars and

kind-hearted mentors to guide my research.

I would like to thank the best parents a girl could ask for. You have always

unconditionally loved me and supported me to achieve my dreams. I honestly don’t know how I

got to be so lucky! I would like to thank Josh, Kate, Ezra, and Nehemiah for always keeping a

smile on my face! You are one of the brightest parts of my life, and I’m so grateful to have such

a loving and supportive family.

Moses, while 2020 has brought many unexpected surprises, you’ve been the best, most

unexpected blessing I could have ever hoped for. Your prayers, love, and encouragement to

follow my dreams and pursue my God-given talents mean the absolute world to me.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and work family for your endless support and

encouragement over the past three years. Thank you for cheering me on and helping me reach

the finish line!

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................10

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................13

Engagement of International Students; ...................................................................................15 The Responsibility of the University ...............................................................................15

Dialogic Communication and Engagement. ....................................................................16 Purpose of Study .....................................................................................................................18

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................20

Definition of Engagement .......................................................................................................20

Engaging International Students: A Communication Perspective ..........................................24 Theoretical Framework: Dialogic Communication .........................................................25

Dialogic Communication and International Student Engagement ..................................31 Communication Channels and Tactics in Engaging International Students ...........................32

Face-to-Face Communication. ........................................................................................33

Electronic Communication. .............................................................................................34 Online Communication via Social Networking Sites. .....................................................35

Campus-wide Activities and Events ................................................................................37 Orientation Program ........................................................................................................38

Key Stakeholders in International Student Engagement ........................................................39 Domestic Students. ..........................................................................................................40 University Faculty and Staff. ...........................................................................................41

University Counseling and Wellness Center. ..................................................................43

3 METHODS .............................................................................................................................45

Participant Selection ...............................................................................................................46 Data Gathering Procedures .....................................................................................................48 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................49 Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability ..............................................................................50 Ethical and Human Subject Participation ...............................................................................51

6

4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................52

RQ1a: Communication Strategies and the Engagement of International Students ................55 Supportive Communication .............................................................................................56

Clear and Targeted Information Dissemination ..............................................................58 Listening ..........................................................................................................................59

RQ1b: Dialogic Communication and the Engagement of International Students ..................60 Openness and Inclusion ...................................................................................................60 Genuineness .....................................................................................................................61

Empathy ...........................................................................................................................62 Responsiveness ................................................................................................................63

RQ2: Preferred Communication Channels .............................................................................64 Face-to-Face Communication .........................................................................................65

Immediacy of feedback ............................................................................................65 Verbal and non-verbal cues ......................................................................................65

Natural language ......................................................................................................66 Electronic Communication ..............................................................................................66

Reviewability ...........................................................................................................67

Convenience .............................................................................................................67 Social Networking Sites .........................................................................................................68

RQ3: Effective Communication Tactics and Practices ..........................................................69 Social Programming ........................................................................................................69 Academic and Professional Development .......................................................................71

RQ4: Influential Stakeholders and Their Communication Roles ...........................................72 International and Domestic Students (Student Peers) .....................................................72

Faculty and Staff in Colleges and Departments ..............................................................73 University Level Higher Administration .........................................................................74

International Center .........................................................................................................75 Other Campus Partners: Counseling and Wellness Center and Dean of Students

Office ...........................................................................................................................75

5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................77

Communication Strategies and International Student Engagement (RQ1) ............................77 Dialogic Communication and International Student Engagement. ........................................79 Communication Channels and International Student Engagement (RQ2) .............................83

Face-to-Face Communication .........................................................................................84

Electronic Communication ..............................................................................................85

Communication Practices/Tactics and International Student Engagement (RQ3) .................86 Influential Stakeholders and International Student Engagement (RQ4) ................................87 A Co-Orientation Approach to Understanding the Perspectives of University

Professionals and International Students ............................................................................89 Theoretical Implications .........................................................................................................91

Practical Implications .............................................................................................................93 Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................................96

APPENDIX

7

A RECRUITMENT LETTERS ..................................................................................................98

Focus Group Recruitment Letter ............................................................................................99

B INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM ..................................................................100

C FOCUS GROUP INFORMED CONSENT FORM .............................................................104

D INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ..................................................................................................108

E FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL .............................................................................................112

F BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................115

G DRIVERS OF ENGAGEMENT ..........................................................................................116

LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................117

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................126

8

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 International student participants majoring in STEM fields ..............................................53

4-2 International student participants majoring in non-STEM fields ......................................54

4-3 University interview participants. ......................................................................................55

9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

G-1 Drivers of engagement .....................................................................................................116

10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESL English as a Second Language

SNS Social networking site

11

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION ON EFFECTIVE

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

By

Rachel E. Dean

December 2020

Chair: Rita Men

Major: Mass Communication

Grounded in dialogic communication theory, this study sets out to examine how the

university’s strategic internal communication efforts can help engage international students.

International students contribute to the university environment by offering unique insights and

experiences from various cultural and social backgrounds. Yet, international students often

encounter a plethora of social, psychological, cultural, and academic maladjustment issues that

domestic students may not face, such as language and communication barrier, cultural shock,

social isolation, and racial prejudice. Grounded in dialogic communication theory, this study sets

out to examine how the university’s strategic internal communication efforts can help engage

international students. Little empirical research exists regarding how dialogic internal

communication may work in engaging international students in the higher-education context.

Considering the unique barriers that international students may face, genuine empathy,

understanding, openness, and support that underlie dialogic communication may be particularly

relevant. Therefore, the key purpose of the study was to explore how the university’s dialogic

communication may foster international student engagement at the cognitive, psychological, and

behavioral levels. Further, to understand the nuances, the study also examined preferred

12

communication channels, tactics, and best practices in engaging international students, as well as

key stakeholders involved in this process and their communication roles.

Using a co-oriented approach incorporating both perspectives of the university and

international students, we interviewed 16 higher education professionals with at least 5 years of

relevant professional experience working with international students in a Southeastern public

university. Additionally, we conducted two focus groups, one with 9 international students

majoring in STEM fields and the other with 10 international students majoring in non-STEM

fields at this university to identify gaps of perception and provide a holistic understanding of

effective engagement strategies. The major findings revealed supportive communication,

listening, openness and inclusion, genuineness, empathy, and responsiveness as effective

dialogic communication principles when engaging international students. Face-to-face and

electronic communication channels emerged as the most preferred channels of communication

among international students with some varied preferences among STEM and non-STEM

students. Social programming and academic/professional development opportunities were

discussed as key communication practices and tactics that encouraged a greater sense of

connection to others and enhanced learning outcomes. Influential stakeholders included student

peers, faculty and academic staff members, university level higher administration, followed by

personnel from the international center and counseling and wellness center. These findings

further our understanding of dialogic communication and engagement within the higher

education context and provide practical implications to enhance the engagement of international

students from a communicative perspective.

13

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, international student enrollment has increased by 5.5% in the United

States (Open doors Fast Facts, 2018). China, India, and South Korea are the top countries

sending international students to the United States to pursue higher education (Open doors Fast

Facts, 2018). According to the latest Institute of International Student Enrollment (2018) report,

there are 1,094,792 international students enrolled in American universities. As international

student enrollment rises, American universities must implement effective communication

strategies that engage this growing population (Metro-Roland, 2018).

International students contribute to the university environment by offering unique

insights and experiences from various cultural and social backgrounds. Exposure to diverse

cultural ideologies will positively impact American society through a deeper understanding of

the world around us (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013). Establishing diplomatic and diverse

relationships across the university community will improve intercultural communication skills

and break down existing cultural barriers (Koseva, 2018; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013). With

the increase of globalization, establishing meaningful relationships across international borders

can contribute to a successful global economy founded on mutual understanding and respect.

International students make valuable contributions to the academic rigor of American

universities and significant financial contributions to the American economy and job market (Jin

& Schneider, 2019; Koseva, 2018).

University internationalization initiatives offer beneficial outcomes for the entire campus

community. To achieve internationalization across American campuses (McFaul, 2016),

universities must establish a culture built on global awareness, ethnic diversity, inclusion, and

cultural sensitivity (Hagedorn & Mi Chung, 2005). Koseva (2018) asserts that campus

14

communities must promote internationalization efforts by encouraging meaningful interaction

and communication among all campus stakeholders.

International students encounter a plethora of social, psychological, cultural, and

academic maladjustment issues that domestic students may not face (Chen, 1999; Mori, 2000).

Becoming accustomed to a new culture can be immensely stressful and may negatively impact

students’ wellbeing. Linguistic issues are common barriers faced by international students who

are not native English speakers. DuBose (2017) claims that communication difficulties are the

biggest challenge that international students face within the American higher education system.

Omar, Mahone, Ngobia, & FitzSimons (2016) found that over 50% of international students

struggle with English writing, reading, and speaking. Experiences related to professor-student

relationships, teaching and learning styles, and in-class participation may differ from students’

initial expectations of American education (Jin & Schneider, 2019). Students often struggle to

express their thoughts and opinions in class causing feelings of self-doubt and failure (Behl,

Laux, Roseman, Tiamiyu, & Spann, 2017).

While language and communication barriers are major hurdles for international students

studying in the U.S., Koseva (2018) argues that social and cultural stressors are also regularly

experienced among students. Students’ lack of sociocultural knowledge can lead to feelings of

culture shock and homesickness (Yan & Sendall, 2016). Culture shock refers to the range of

emotional and mental feelings experienced while in a new and foreign culture (Koseva, 2018).

Chen (1999) and Arthur (2017) assert that culture shock, social isolation and alienation, feelings

of frustration and discomfort, and racial discrimination and prejudice significantly contribute

cultural maladjustment issues (Chen, 1999; Arthur, 2017; Khanal & Gaulee, 2019). Additionally,

wide-ranging immigration-related legislation and the Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic

15

has ignited a sense of uncertainty prompting many international students to consider attending

institutions outside the United States (Anderson & Svrluga, 2018; Redden, 2020). Concerns

related to immigration include the visa cancellation among 3,000 Chinese students associated

with the Chinese military, increased visa vetting, and the reduced duration of student visas

(Feng, 2020). In relation to COVID-19, college administrators are prepared for a sizable decline

in international student tuition and enrollment caused by the travel restrictions in some countries

and an overwhelming reluctance to travel (Redden, 2020).

Finally, financial concerns are another key issue that international students face upon

their arrival to the U.S. While it is not uncommon for students to struggle with financial

difficulties, international students incur higher tuition fees and lack the financial support of

federal scholarships (Chen, 1999; Omar et al., 2016). Because many international students are

not eligible for federal financial aid or the majority of university scholarships and face a higher

tuition costs, many struggle to meet their financial needs (Hagedorn & Lee, 2005; Koseva,

2018). Students who face challenges integrating within American society for these stated reasons

may feel less satisfied with their educational experience.

Engagement of International Students

The Responsibility of the University

According to Metro-Roland (2018), “The number of international students on US

campuses is seen as a relevant marker of a college or university’s global engagement” (p. 1408).

If universities hope to increase campus internationalization efforts and international student

enrollment, engagement efforts that enhance the student experience are imperative. Extensive

recruitment of international students, followed by a lackluster plan to support these students upon

arrival will negatively influence student satisfaction and decrease the quality of their educational

experience (Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). The university is responsible for fostering a climate of

16

belonging, support, and inclusion across campus (Metro-Roland, 2018). Similarly, Rose-

Redwood and Rose-Redwood (2018) argue, “If higher education institutions are serious about

promoting internationalization, they have a responsibility to ensure that international students are

treated fairly and are not exploited during their educational experiences” (p. 1272). Engaging and

developing meaningful relationships with international students is not a “far-fetched, utopian

dream,” but rather a way for the university to fulfill its moral obligation to ensuring a satisfying

and meaningful education experience for students (Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood, 2018, p.

1273).

Dialogic Communication and Engagement

Key campus stakeholders can engage international students through consistent and

continuous communication. The relationship between the concepts of engagement and dialogue

are often interconnected throughout literature (Taylor & Kent, 2014). According to Lane and

Kent, “Both dialogue and engagement share a focus on achieving responsive communication

between organizations and their stakeholders” (Johnson & Taylor, 2018, p.106). Kent and Taylor

(2002) assert that dialogue consists of two-way communication between participants and

engagement cannot occur without dialogue. Johnson and Taylor (2018) further explain the

connection between communication and engagement stating,

Dialogue involves the respectful and ethical discussion of content that is wide-

ranging and inclusive. The purpose of engagement is to reach stakeholders with

communication that is so interesting to them they pay attention to the content and

respond… Dialogic engagement, necessarily involves focusing on issues of

relevance to stakeholders rather than the typical organizational focus adopted

primarily to achieve organizational goals (p. 113).

Cowan (2017) asserts that the best way to achieve engagement is through internal

communication that permeates throughout the entire organization. In a similar vein, Men and

Yue (2019) argue that open and equal organizational communication with internal stakeholders

17

will engender a positive emotional culture where stakeholders feel appreciated, valued,

empowered, and respected. Two-way communication that displays care and concern for

stakeholders and flows freely throughout the organization will establish transparency and trust

among stakeholders that are essential for stakeholder engagement. Likewise, Ewing, Men, and

O’Neil (2019) argue for organizational leaders to portray empathy, sincerity, care, and interest

when communicating with internal stakeholders. By developing an open and transparent culture

that listens to stakeholders’ concerns and feedback, university leaders can facilitate effective

stakeholder engagement.

Further, when internal stakeholders feel supported to voice their thoughts, favorable

attitudes toward the organization will likely result. Reciprocal dialogue can increase stakeholder

allegiance to the organization and positive word-of-mouth endorsements. The same line of

thought can easily translate to a higher education context. Engaging students could enhance their

sense of belonging to the university, which will prompt students to actively participate on

campus and advocate on behalf of the institution. This is especially important for international

students, a particular group who face unique challenges and barriers, and are important for

advancing universities’ internationalization efforts. Dialogic communication emphasizes the

importance of two-way, responsive communication that considers stakeholders’ interests and

needs, establishes mutually inclusive and respectful attitudes among participants, accepts

differing viewpoints, and urges participants to actively voice opinions and concerns (Kent &

Taylor, 2002). When considering the unique barriers that international students may face,

promoting dialogue that encourages genuine empathy, understanding, and support is crucial for

the successful engagement of international students. Dialogic communication can help students

to feel valued, understood, and respected for who they are and their unique contributions to the

18

university community. Relationships with international students built on dialogic communication

principles may increase student involvement and engagement on campus.

Purpose of Study

Despite the importance of the issue, limited research exists specifically related to

international student engagement from a communicative perspective. The current study

addresses a critical and timely issue of engaging international students who will likely face

significant barriers throughout their education in the United States. Universities must support this

growing population of students to ensure they reach their fullest potential and contribute to the

campus community in meaningful ways. The purpose of this exploratory study is to address this

gap in research and present best communication strategies, tactics, and channels to effectively

engage these students.

Specifically, the researcher will utilize a qualitative approach and conduct two focus

groups, each with 8 to 12 international students, and 16 in-depth interviews with experienced

higher education professionals and communication managers to gain further insight on the

engagement of international students. Incorporating both the university administrators,

communicators, and international student perspectives, this study will shed light on (a) effective

communication strategies that engage international students, (b) preferred communication

channels of international students, (c) best communication tactics that the university can

implement to improve and increase engagement of international students (d) key stakeholders

who engage international students and their communication roles.

The theoretical framework of this study is grounded in Kent and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic

communication theory and will explore how higher education institutions can successfully

engage international students through mutually beneficial and effective communication outputs.

The findings of this study will contribute to the theory-building and advancement of dialogic

19

communication and engagement. Findings will expand the growing body of knowledge on

international student engagement from a communicative perspective and provide guidelines and

best practices for universities to effectively engage this growing student population.

20

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

As mentioned, the current study proposes that international student engagement involves

dialogic communication, which can help promote an inclusive and engaged campus climate. The

literature review will begin by defining the term engagement and discussing the theoretical

framework, dialogic communication. A comprehensive overview covering best strategic

communication strategies and tactics, preferred communication channels, and key university

stakeholders will follow.

Definition of Engagement

Scholarly literature surrounding the definition of engagement has lacked clarity and

consistency (Devin & Lane, 2014). With the rise of technological advancements, engagement is

becoming increasingly important on social and digital media platforms (Jelen-Sanchez, 2017).

Despite the relevance of engagement in organizational settings, public relations scholarship has

produced a scarce amount of research on this topic (Jelen-Sanchez, 2017). Kang (2014) views

the concept of engagement as a psychological state that is characterized by affective

commitment, positive affectivity, and empowerment. Affective commitment includes one’s

dedication, loyalty, or emotional bond to an organization that sustains the relationship. Positive

affectivity is characterized by the excitement, engrossment, or passion that one feels toward an

organization. Empowerment is viewed as a motivational state that propels publics to get actively

involved with the organization. Kang (2014) points out, “Trust leads to enhanced public

engagement with organizations” and “Satisfaction leads to enhanced public engagement with

organizations” (p. 404). Johnson (2014) defined engagement as “A key aspect of organizational

behavior in an operating environment that is increasingly sensitive to power relations, requiring

organizations to be open to the meaning and value that evolves from interactions with diverse

21

stakeholder perspectives” (p. 382). Jelen-Sanchez (2017) notes that scholarship related to

engagement primarily focuses on an organizational attempt to manage relationships with publics

and promote interests of the organization. Dhanesh (2017) proposes a model that places salient

topics of mutual interest as the link that connects organizations and publics. Dhanesh (2017)

defines engagement as,

An affective, cognitive, and behavioral state wherein publics and organizations

who share mutual interests in salient topics interact along continua that range

from passive to active and from control to collaboration, and is aimed at goal

attainment, adjustment, and adaption for both publics and organizations (p. 931).

When organizations engage publics and establish high levels of trust and satisfaction, an

enhanced sense of loyalty and positive word-of-mouth recommendations will likely follow

(Kang, 2014). Kahu (2011) asserts that universities often assume that teaching techniques and

university resources are primary sources of student engagement; however, she notes that

engagement is not simply an outcome of these influences, but a more complex interplay between

what the university and its students can accomplish together. Student engagement can be divided

into 3 categories including affect, cognition, and behavior. Affect refers to a student’s

enthusiasm, interest, and sense of belonging to the university. Cognition is related to a student’s

ability to deeply learn and understand material being taught and self-regulate. Behavior

encompasses the amount of time and effort, interaction, and level of participation the student

exhibits within and outside of the classroom. These 3 components are impacted by structural and

psychosocial influences and proximal and distal consequences (Kahu, 2011). Structural

influences include the university cultural, policies, curriculum, assessment and discipline

implemented by the university while psychosocial influences includes university teaching, staff,

support, and workload as well as the student’s motivation, skills, identity, and self-efficacy all

influence their level of engagement within the university context (Kahu, 2011). Proximal

22

consequences include students’ academic learning and achievement, and social satisfaction and

well-being (Kahu, 2011). Similarly, Appleton, Christenson, Dongjin, and Reschly (2006) view

engagement as having four major subtypes: academic, behavioral, cognitive, and psychological.

Academic engagement is defined as successfully completing academics tasks on-time and taking

credits that meet graduation requirements. Behavioral engagement consists of consistent class

attendance and participation along with a willingness to participate in extracurricular activities

and complete extra credit options. Cognitive engagement focuses on students’ self-regulation,

the relevance of coursework to future goals and endeavors, and value of learning in line with

goal setting. Psychological engagement refers to students’ sense of belonging and identification

with the institution, and the quality of the relationship with school officials and peers.

Hosseler and Bean (1990) assert, students are considered “engaged” when they engage in

educationally purposive endeavors that promote a commitment, obligation, and responsibility to

the university. Quaye, Harper, and Kuh (2015) note that this type of engagement can be observed

as leadership positions in student organizations and active contributions within instructive

settings. Students are considered ambassadors or advocates for their groups and the university as

a whole and feel compelled to uphold the reputation and image of their respective university. It

should be noted that one can be involved in campus and classroom activities, yet not fully

engaged. Quaye, Harper, and Kuh (2015) make a unique distinction between involvement and

engagement by citing effort, purposefulness, and cross-institutional partnerships as critical

components of engagement. Engaged students possess the willingness to succeed academically

through active classroom participation, seek to meet or exceed professor expectations, participate

in campus and community activities and student organizations and events, discuss career and

academic goals with university faculty and advisors, perceive the university as a supportive

23

environment. Kahn (1990) defined personal engagement “as the harnessing of organization

members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves

physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Kahn (1990) goes on

to say,

Personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of a

person's "preferred self" in task behaviors that promote connections to work and

to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full

role performances…. Personally engaging behaviors simultaneously convey and

bring alive self and obligatory role. People become physically involved in tasks,

whether alone or with others, cognitively vigilant, and empathically connected to

others in the service of the work they are doing in ways that display what they

think and feel, their creativity, their beliefs and values, and their personal

connections to others (p. 700).

Cognitively engaged individuals are fully immersed and absorbed in the mission of their work

and committed to fulfilling their work role to the best of their ability to make a substantial

impact. Emotionally engaged employees attach deep connection and meaning and possess

empathy and concern for their work and are considered physically engaged when they bring

vigor, excitement, and energy to their work roles (Men, Sung, & Yue, 2019).

In this thesis, Shen and Jiang’s (2019) definition of engagement was adopted to guide this

study as it complements the key principles of dialogic communication. Shen and Jiang (2019)

extend the Kahn’s (1990) definition of engagement by advancing its conceptualization and

operationalization beyond a purely affective state to provide a more holistic understanding of

employee engagement. The authors clarify the nature of employee engagement to include

employees’ role enactment and expressions of selves at work, which is largely driven by

organization-initiated engagement strategies such as openness, networking, and assurances of

legitimacy. This updated view suggests that truly engaged employees will be more invested,

hard-working, and dedicated to their work (physical engagement); will feel a sense of

excitement, pride, and positivity about their work (emotional engagement); and will remain fully

24

focused and absorbed in their work (cognitive engagement). Shen and Jiang (2019) argue that the

cultivation of an engaged workforce starts with the organization’s key role in motivating

employees’ communicative behaviors stating,

Employees’ engaged state, positive in nature, is a product of organizational

engagement strategies, which reflect organizations’ participation in the meaning

of co-creation and community-building discourse, but also serves as a critical

mechanism connecting organizational engagement strategies and employee

communicative and performance behaviors (p. 45).

In turn, engaged employees will be more fully present and involved in their work by going

beyond standard expectations to speak highly of the organization, voluntarily help and assist

colleagues, and contribute to the overall success of the organization’s bottomline, which

ultimately produces a healthier, more sustainable organization-public relationship.

Engaging International Students: A Communication Perspective

Ammigan and Laws (2018) assert that successful engagement of international students

occurs when the university establishes a culture that embraces principles of belonging and

inclusion. Engagement of this population is vital to ensuring their satisfaction, success, and

willingness to speak positively of the university in the future (Geary, 2016). As discussed,

acclimating to a new society and culture can present significant challenges. Because international

students have a unique set of needs, university personnel must seek to better understand students’

expectations and preferences to best assist them throughout this challenging transition (Wekullo,

2019). Research shows that on-campus engagement initiatives positively contribute to successful

student experiences (McFaul, 2016). Therefore, higher education institutions should optimize

communication strategies, channels, and practices and mobilize campus stakeholders to

effectively engage international students.

The host university plays a crucial role in engaging newcomers by accommodating their

needs, informing them of campus resources, and listening to their academic and personal

25

expectations (Wekullo, 2019). Metro-Roland (2018) states that consistent communication with

students coupled with frequent social activities are critical to building lasting relationships with

international students. Consistent communication includes face-to-face advising appointments,

regular postings on social media accounts, and bi-weekly e-newsletters and e-mails with

upcoming campus events and programs. Li and Peng (2019) assert that supportive

communication through SNS (social networking sites) as well as non-SNS mediated

communication can assist a student’s transition to a new cultural environment. Omar et al. (2016)

state that interpersonal communication between host nationals and international students can

enhance international students’ English-speaking skills and reduce feelings of social isolation.

Connecting international students with a strong support network is a critical component of

engagement. University stakeholders play a major role in the successful engagement of

international students within the campus community.

The purpose of this study is to explore how communication strategies, preferred channels

of communication, best communication tactics and practices, and key campus stakeholders can

enhance international student engagement. This study proposes that the implementation of

dialogic communication principles (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Taylor & Kent, 2014) can increase the

engagement of international students.

Theoretical Framework: Dialogic Communication

Higher education institutions are charged with the responsibility of engaging international

students. Through dialogic communication tactics and strategies, universities can better engage

international students and break down existing social, cultural, and linguistic barriers. Dialogic

engagement consists of more than just two-way communication. Kent and Taylor (2002) argue

that participants must willingly give their whole selves to exchanges by being open, honest,

vulnerable, and accepting of differing viewpoints. Participants must maintain positive, respectful,

26

and mutually inclusive attitudes toward one another (Kent & Taylor, 2002). True engagement

can only occur within responsive, two-way dialogic conversations (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Taylor

& Kent, 2014).

Kent and Taylor’s (2002) dialogic communication theory attempts to reduce ambiguity

surrounding the discussion of dialogue within the field of public relations. Previous literature

describes engagement as a form of one-way communication from the organization to its publics

(Taylor & Kent, 2014); however, there is a shift within public relations scholarship and practice

that focuses less on the management of publics and one-way organizational communication and

emphasizes two-way symmetrical communication between organizations and publics. This shift

in thought places organizations and publics in equal positions within the conversation and

emphasizes the importance of establishing mutually beneficial relationships and increased

understanding stakeholder needs and interests.

Kent and Taylor (2002) discuss five components of dialogue that produce mutually

beneficial relationships between organizations and publics. Organizations are called to make a

commitment to uphold and enforce these principles. First, the concept of mutuality states that

organizations and publics directly impact one another so collaboration and mutual equality can

ensure mutuality. An organizational collaborative outlook seeks to understand outside

perspectives and accept differing points of views as part of the dialogic process (Kent & Taylor,

2002). True dialogue emphasizes reaching mutual understanding rather than debating issues

(Kent & Taylor, 2002). Dialogic exchanges are built on humility and mutual equality so

participants should feel comfortable to openly express themselves without fear of negative

ramifications (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Power struggles of information are non-existent as

conversations flow smoothly between organizations and publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002).

27

Golish and Olson (2000) point out a power imbalance that exists between students and their

instructors in the classroom. Instructors can certainly influence student behavior, and misused

power influence can cause students to feel inferior (Yoke, 2018). Students generally perceive

faculty members as possessing expert knowledge and may feel intimidated to speak up and share

their opinions during class discussions. Students may feel hesitant to voice their thoughts with

instructors who are highly knowledgeable about a subject and may succumb to a more

subservient position in fear of challenging the instructor’s expertise and appearing ill-informed

(Golish & Olson, 2000). It is important to recognize that while a hierarchy of power does exist

within higher education institutions; university officials should be aware of such dynamics and

must continually encourage and support students as deemed necessary.

Secondly, Kent and Taylor (2002) discuss the importance of dialogic propinquity in

which publics are consulted on matters that affect them and are encouraged to voice needs and

desires to the organization. Immediacy of presence, temporal flow, and engagement are key

elements of propinquity. Immediacy of presence calls for the organization to communicate with

publics about issues in the present moment, rather than retroactively informing publics of already

made decisions. Dialogic communication emphasizes the importance of building relationships

and ensuring an “equitable and acceptable future” for all participants (Taylor & Kent, 2002, p.

26). Engagement urges participants to fully and actively get involved in the dialogic conversation

by promoting mutual benefits for all through a commitment to understand, respect, and consider

opposing viewpoints to reach positive and satisfactory outcomes.

Kent and Taylor (2002) assert that relational communication requires genuine empathy,

including supportiveness, communal orientation, and confirmation. According to Kent and

Taylor (2002), empathetic communication enables the organization to build trust with publics by

28

seeking to understand their perspectives. Supportive dialogue promotes mutual understanding

and collaborative conversation among members to reach mutually acceptable outcomes. Due to

increased globalization, relationship building between organizations and publics must also be

applied within a global context. Therefore, public relations scholars and practitioners should

view dialogic communication as conversations that occur both digitally and face-to-face. Finally,

the concept of confirmation occurs when the organization gains publics’ trust through attentive

listening and consideration of their feedback prior to making major decisions.

Additionally, Taylor and Kent (2002) point out, “A sympathetic orientation to publics

may help the organization improve relationships with external groups. However, within any

dialogic relationship lies potential risks- financial, psychological and relational- to the

organization and to the public” (p. 28). Therefore, risk is the fourth feature of dialogic

communication to consider. Risk includes vulnerability, unanticipated consequences, and

recognition of strange otherness. Kent and Taylor (2002) explain that vulnerability and self-

disclosure are relational risks vital to developing strong relationships. Risks may produce

unanticipated consequences since conversations are spontaneous, non-scripted interactions where

participants openly share beliefs without fear of coercion. To openly express ideas and opinions,

participants must feel accepted and respected for who they are. This recognition of strange

otherness occurs when participants feel unconditionally valued for their unique features.

Commitment is the final component of dialogue and emphasizes a commitment to

genuineness, conversation, and interpretation (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Kent and Taylor (2002)

assert, genuine dialogue is comprised of truthfulness and honesty. True relational dialogue and

mutually beneficial outcomes result when participants candidly discuss issues as they arise.

Participants must also be committed to continuing the conversation to better understand differing

29

perspectives. While it is not guaranteed that participants will reach an agreement throughout the

conversation, participants will better understand and value opposing points of view. Dialogic

exchanges may not produce immediate mutually satisfying outcomes; however, desired

outcomes can occur when participants commit to furthering the discussion.

Dialogic communication attempts to produce ethical outcomes that encourage

organizations and publics to communicate on the basis of mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk,

and commitment. Relational dialogue can help organizations to establish and maintain lasting

and fulfilling relationships with publics. Dialogue embraces understanding, truthfulness, honesty,

and uniqueness that allows publics and organizations to interact as equals within the

conversation. Taylor and Kent (2002) state,

If one partner subverts the dialogic process through manipulation,

disconfirmation, or exclusion, then the end result will not be dialogic. Dialogue is

not a process or a series of steps. Rather, it is a product of ongoing

communication and relationships. Since dialogue involves “trust,” “risk” and

“vulnerability,” dialogic participants (and publics) can be manipulated by

unscrupulous organizations or publics (p. 24).

Taylor and Kent (2014) note that engagement is situated within the theory of ethical

dialogue since organizations promote mutual understanding by inviting stakeholders and publics

to join the conversation and form authentic and meaningful relationships.

Taylor and Kent (2014) assert that engagement has always been a component of dialogue

stating,

Every dialogic interaction involves conversational engagement (presentness,

synchronous interaction, respect focus, etc.). A dialogic communicator comes to

an interaction with his/her own beliefs, values, and attitudes, and with the best

interests of his or her own organization and stakeholders in mind, but he or she

also needs to be willing to be changed by the encounter (p. 389-390).

Dialogic communicators seek to engage stakeholders and publics through interpersonal

interactions founded on mutual understanding, patience, self-discovery, and empathy (Taylor &

30

Kent, 2014). Kent and Taylor (2002) assert that commitment and care for other parties are

critical components of dialogue. Engagement, trust, and risk are factors that lead to dialogue

(Taylor & Kent, 2014). Engagement is a necessary component of dialogue since it encompasses

the relational aspect of dialogue built through consistent interaction, trust, valuable feedback,

mutual understanding, and shared views between stakeholders and the organization (Taylor &

Kent, 2014). Dialogic engagement assumes that both the organization and stakeholders are equal

and active participants in the conversation.

Yang, Kang, and Cha (2015) define organization-public dialogic communication as “the

orientation of mutuality and the climate of openness that an organization and its publics hold in

communication to bring about mutually beneficial relationships” (p. 176). Mutuality in dialogic

communication involves mutual dependence between organizations and publics and highly

values the opinions of others (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015). Mutuality orientation is made up of six

attributes: grounding, collaboration, confirmed equality, responsiveness, respect, and empathy.

Grounding refers to the common ground shared between the organization and its publics and

asserts that the organization must consider and involve publics in the decision-making process

(Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015). Collaboration suggests shared communication goals, which are

achieved when participants share opinions and concerns (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015). Confirmed

equality occurs when all parties equally share significant insights during the conversation (Yang,

Kang, & Cha, 2015). Responsiveness of the organization evokes sensitivity and care for

stakeholders by listening to their needs and seeking their feedback (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015).

Finally, respect refers to supporting communicative actions of one another while empathy refers

to the understanding of stakeholders’ feelings on relevant issues (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015).

Furthermore, Yang, Kang, and Cha (2015) discuss openness as a crucial factor of dialogic

31

communication. True dialogue is not possible without open and honest communication (Yang,

Kang, & Cha, 2015). Openness consists of accessibility, genuineness, and transparency.

Accessibility ensures that publics have open access to channels of information and the ability to

express their perspectives on issues (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015). Genuine dialogue promotes a

sincere concern for the needs and interests of publics. Transparency ensures that the organization

discloses necessary information in an open and honest manner (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015).

Feelings of relational trust or distrust will also affect publics’ perceptions of organizations, so it

is imperative for organizations to recognize their responsibility to uphold these values.

Dialogic Communication and International Student Engagement

Universities play a key role in fostering engagement with students (Luo & Jamieson-

Drake, 2013). Two-way dialogic communication becomes increasingly important as universities

attempt to engage international students. Thelen and Men (2018) explored how dialogic

messages from universities on SNS can impact engagement of publics. The authors found that

appealing to the interests and emotions of stakeholders yields a higher level of engagement. It is

advantageous for universities to implement dialogic principles when communicating, informing,

and listening to their stakeholders (Thelen & Men, 2018). Ammigan and Laws (2018) argue that

universities should “seek to create a sense of community and belongingness amongst its

international population and to connect these same people to key ISS (International Student

Services) programs and to other resources across campus” (p. 1306). Interpersonal connections

based on dialogic principles with university campus partners will help international students to

successfully adapt to a new cultural and social environment. Ammigan (2019) suggests that

university administrative leaders should promote a culture that values student experience by

implementing cohesive communication plans outlining the importance of international student

engagement. Open, honest, and authentic communication will enable the university to

32

successfully engage international students. Universities should produce culturally sensitive

programming, utilize campus-wide effective communication strategies, conduct faculty and staff

trainings, and assess program curriculums to encourage engagement efforts. Luo and Jamieson-

Drake (2013) and Ammigan (2019) recommend the implementation of collaborative social

activities that cross-cultural boundaries, such as ethnic and cultural student gatherings, lecture

series exploring culturally relevant hot topics, on-campus employment or leadership

opportunities, and peer-pairing mentoring programs. Academic leaders can support students by

evaluating and adjusting communication plans, academic programs, and campus opportunities to

meet the needs and interests of this student group. Successful engagement of international

students will likely occur when top university administration prioritizes consistent and dialogical

communication with international students. To further explore the issue, based on the above

review of the literature, the following research questions are proposed:

RQ1: What communication strategies most effectively engage international students?

RQ1.1: How does dialogic communication, if at all, influence international student engagement?

Communication Channels and Tactics in Engaging International Students

Universities use a myriad of channels to engage students, ranging from interaction via

social networking sites (SNS) and traditional face-to-face meetings to static forms of

communication through print publications and electronic media (Men & Bowen, 2017). Each

medium offers varying levels of richness and usability, which contributes to student engagement

in differing ways. Face-to-face and social media conversations are less controlled and more

informal, dialogical forms of communication, while electronic and print communications are

more controlled, formal, and one-way (Men & Bowen, 2017). According to Ammigan and Laws

(2018), international students prefer receiving information via email and giving information

during face-to-face meetings. Chen, Jones, and Xu (2012) assert, “Students prefer the less

33

personal, more indirect method of emailing questions” (p. 67). While a phone conversation may

be a more efficient way to quickly ask questions and receive information, students tend to favor a

more indirect method of communication when receiving information (Chen et al., 2012).

Contrarily, Swanson, Renes, and Strange (2018) found that students prefer communicating face-

to-face with university officials for both academic and non-academic purposes. Fujita, Harrigan,

and Soutar (2017) state that international students prefer offline face-to-face interactions with

university officials, but argue that computer mediated communication (CMC) can increase

student engagement. Minimal research exists on how to effectively engage international students

through communication; additional research is needed to discover best communication strategies,

channels, tactics/practices, and preferences.

Face-to-Face Communication

Face-to-face communication builds trust with participants through the use of non-verbal

cues such as body language, eye contact, voice tone, and facial expressions (Men & Bowen,

2017; Swanson, 2018). Face-to-face interactions provide participants with a deeper level of

connection that foster intellectual and social engagement (Arthur, 2017). Sheldon (2013)

suggests implementing an “open-door” policy that encourages students to approach university

officials and freely express their opinions and concerns. Ammigan and Laws (2018) found that

students especially prefer face-to-face communication when giving important information to

university officials. Face-to-face interaction with international students at social and cultural

events can enhance students’ sense of belonging at the university (Ammigan & Laws, 2018).

While face-to-face communication is a widely trusted and preferred method of communication,

some limitations do exist. Men and Bowen (2017) point out that face-to-face communication is

more time-consuming and restricted by geographical barriers, which may pose challenges for

some students.

34

Electronic Communication

Electronic mail (e-mail) can reach a large number of people in a short amount of time

(Men & Bowen, 2017) and allows international students to interact with host nationals in a non-

threatening way (Fujita et al., 2017). Ammigan and Laws (2018) found that students frequently

communicate with and receive information from the university through e-mail correspondence.

According to Ammigan and Laws (2018), students prefer to receive 4 to 5 emails per month with

relevant information such as upcoming campus events, cultural and social programming

information, and immigration requirements. Ha, Joa, Gabay, and Kim (2018) found that e-mails

are often avoided by students due to information overload. Their study showed that faculty e-

mails had the highest readership rate; 72% of students avoided e-mails from student

organizations, 54% of students avoided e-mails from the university or academic departments,

and 39% avoided academic advisor e-mails. Ha et al. (2018) suggest that faculty and university

staff encourage students to frequently check their e-mail inbox, connect students’ e-mail to their

social media accounts, and use other means to get in touch with students who are considered to

be “high risk.” Chen et al. (2012) point out that e-mail communication has reached a “maturity

phase” and may be on the decline as other communication mediums surge in popularity (p. 66).

While electronic communication has the capability to reach a widely spread audience in a timely

and non-intrusive way, the lack of personal cues and inability to explain complex information are

shortcomings of this medium (Men & Bowen, 2017). Chang and Pearman (2018) found that

students prefer communicating with university personnel on instant messaging platforms.

Findings reveal that instant messaging can be a more time efficient way to get feedback from

instructors since students were immediately notified of incoming messages and were not required

to log into their e-mail accounts. The rise of digitalization may prompt university communication

professionals to re-evaluate their methods for communicating with students.

35

Online Communication via Social Networking Sites

Social networking sites (SNS) are easily accessible digital platforms that allow students

to interact with the university and quickly receive information and updates (Sheldon, 2013; Kim,

Wang, & Oh, 2016). SNS offer a more relational, interactive, and personal approach to

connecting with others (Ha et al., 2018). Social tools are not restrained by geographical or

hierarchical barriers and foster two-way conversation by empowering users to share opinions and

provide feedback (Men & Bowen, 2017).

College students are often skilled digital users, so the university has a higher chance of

communicating and facilitating engagement with students on social platforms (Kim et al., 2016).

Ha et al. (2018) found that social media is the most important medium used by college students

as many frequently access Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Ha et al. (2018) encourages

universities to connect with students on SNS saying, “Exploit the potential of using Facebook to

engage students in the campus community and get them involved in student organizations.

Campus and student media certainly are a positive force to facilitate campus involvement” (p.

227). According to Sutherland, Davis, Terton, and Visser (2018), “Exploring social media as a

potential conduit to increase offline student interaction in university communities instead of a

replacement should provide insights into its contribution to strengthening student engagement”

(p. 15). Ha et al. (2018) argue that social media produces positive outcomes among students such

as “collaborative work performance, social capital, and school engagement” (p. 216). Sutherland

et al. (2018) note that while most students do not consistently interact with their university on

social media, simply following the university’s social media profile promotes a stronger feeling

of connection to the university and its community. Fujita et al. (2017) explains that while

students tend to lurk on social media rather than directly interact with university officials,

engagement still occurs because students learn about the university culture from the posted

36

content. “Social media helped enrich the university’s cultural contexts and international students’

cultural learning experiences, as it allowed the university and its community members to

communicate and influence these shared meanings” (Fujita et al., 2017, p. 1128).

The host institution should consistently communicate with international students on

social networking sites (SNS) to reduce acculturative stress and promote cross-cultural adaption

among students (Li & Peng, 2019). While SNS communication does not provide the same level

of rich interaction as face-to-face conversations, SNS communication can help reduce stress by

providing a user-friendly platform where international students can easily interact with host

nationals (Li & Peng, 2019). International students rely heavily on technology-based

communication with host nationals due to language and cultural barriers (Zhao, Kuh, & Carini,

2005; Li & Peng, 2019). Linguistic barriers are not as much of an issue on SNS since students

can thoroughly review and edit responses before posting.

Social media allows students and university personnel to interact and stay connected

until their next face-to-face meeting (Sutherland et al., 2018). International students’ preferences

for social media platforms vary so universities should post on frequently visited platforms to

reach the maximum number of students (Ammigan & Laws, 2018). Posts should also be tailored

to each type of social media platform with specific calls to action so communication campaigns

can achieve engagement goals. Additionally, universities should seek to understand which

platforms are most effective in reaching their international student audience. Li and Peng’s

(2019) study reported that 56% of international students used WeChat, 38% used Facebook, 28%

used Instagram, while fewer students reported using Twitter, Skype, and Snapchat. In this study,

international student participants stated that they would appreciate more consistent information

37

on available cross-cultural activities with domestic students and university personnel across a

wider range of SNS.

Given the linguistic barriers that international students may encounter throughout their

education, international students may prefer different communication channels compared to

domestic students. To further explore the preferred channels of communication among

international students, the following research question is proposed:

RQ2: What are the preferred communication channels to engage international students?

Campus-wide Activities and Events

Campus activities such as educational workshops, English conversation programs,

holiday gatherings, cultural celebrations, and interfaith services can connect students of various

backgrounds and create a stronger campus community (Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood,

2018). Likewise, Ammigan and Laws (2018) agree that frequent and continuous cultural and

social gatherings can help international students to meet new people and form meaningful

relationships. Ammigan and Laws (2018) recommend implementing weekly coffee hours,

welcome receptions, and recreational activities to engage international students. According to

Thomas et al. (2018), Simon Fraser University (SFU) models excellent international student

engagement. SFU hosts cultural celebrations that encourage conversation and promote mutual

understanding among all students. Furthermore, faith-based organizations at SFU unite students

of different religious backgrounds through interfaith events and activities. Thomas et al. (2018)

note that it is equally important to address real-world issues by encouraging all campus

stakeholders to come together in support of meaningful causes. Campus-wide events that combat

racial discrimination and intolerance will help to create a culture of respect and acceptance. Fritz,

Mellenberg, and Chen (2002) define intercultural sensitivity as an “emotional desire of a person

to acknowledge, appreciate, and accept cultural differences” (p. 3). Gordon and Mwavita (2018)

38

assert, all students must be provided with ample opportunity to develop intercultural sensitivity

by actively experiencing other cultures, which can be accomplished through interactions with

diverse groups during intercultural campus events. Metro-Roland (2018) recommends creating

collaborative exercises that allow international and domestic students to work together and learn

from one another.

Orientation Program

It is important for universities to begin engaging students at the start of their academic

career (Metro-Roland, 2018). Omar et al. (2016) stress that coordinating a welcome orientation

at the beginning of an academic year is an effective practical action the university can take to

make students feel like valued members of the community. Ammigan (2019) found that

international students are more likely to recommend a university based on their level satisfaction

with the quality of their educational experience. Orientation programs allow students to feel a

sense of comradery among those in their cohort and gain a stronger understanding of program

requirements and university services, procedures, and resources (Ammigan, 2019). Establishing

a streamlined program that provides valuable guidance for students will prepare them for a

successful future at the university. Orientation programs can provide detailed information about

professional development opportunities, academic degree requirements, English writing and

speaking tutoring and workshops, and student involvement organizations. Geary (2016) argues

that orientation programs offer a structured avenue for students to obtain pertinent information

from the university and begin to develop a support system.

While scholars have addressed the importance of engaging international students,

additional research is needed to provide insight on best communication practices that can

improve universities’ efforts. To address this research gap, the following research question is

proposed:

39

RQ3: What are the best communication practices that the university can implement to improve

and increase the engagement of international students?

Key Stakeholders in International Student Engagement

Freeman’s stakeholder theory asserts that organizational stakeholders include those

affected by the organization and its actions (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & De Colle,

2010). Stakeholders are the organization’s most valuable asset so strong relationships with key

stakeholder groups are vital to the success of any organization. Across the university campus,

there are key internal stakeholder groups who may have significant contact with international

students. The entire campus community including the international student center, university

administration, faculty and staff members, and domestic students should actively participate in

the engagement process. To internationalize a university, all campus stakeholders must work

alongside the international student center to better understand the unique needs of international

students and develop a cohesive communication engagement plan (Koseva, 2018). Ammigan

(2019) calls for campus stakeholders to acknowledge the importance of international student

integration within the campus environment stating,

It is important that institutions capitalize on their existing campus support services

and resources as they create strategic and collaborative engagement opportunities,

both in and out of the classroom. Staff from student affairs, residence life and

housing, dining services, the orientation office, career services, counseling

centers, transportation services, academic departments, etc., must work together to

support the positive experiences of students as well as the educational mission of

the institution as a global community (p. 276).

Zhao, Kuh, and Carini (2005) argue,

A campus cannot simply recruit a critical mass of international students; it must

also intentionally arrange its resources so that international and American students

benefit in desired ways from another’s presence…Thus, any effort to increase the

numbers of international students on campus must also be accompanied by

programs and services that induce these students and their American counterparts

to engage with one another as well as in other educationally purposeful activities

(p. 225).

40

While student recruitment and enrollment are critical components to a university’s

success, university administrators must also consider the quality of the student experience. Key

university stakeholders can certainly play a crucial role in helping students to adapt to a new

environment, understand cultural norms and customs, and develop a strong support network.

Domestic Students

Literature reveals that international students tend to develop friendships with co-national

or multi-national students; however, research shows that building connections with host national

students significantly reduces acculturative stress experienced among international students

(McFaul, 2016). In a similar vein, Arthur (2017) found that international students primarily

connect with those from similar cultural backgrounds who also experience comparable linguistic

and cultural challenges. Interactions and shared experiences between international and domestic

students enhance the overall educational experience and improve intercultural communication

skills needed in an increasingly globalized climate (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013). Additionally,

consistent interaction and communication with domestic students will allow international

students to improve their English linguistic skills and better understand American culture (Luo &

Jamieson-Drake, 2013). Arthur (2017) argues, “All learners can benefit from instruction and

support about the processes of how to engage with each other, foster positive interpersonal

interactions, through understanding and bridging cultural norms” (p. 891). Ammigan (2019) and

Thomas, Ssendikaddiwa, Mroz, Lockyer, Kosarzova, and Hanna (2018) agree that forming

multi-cultural friendships can encourage cross-cultural learning and development.

Universities can engage all students by implementing programs and support services that

encourage international and domestic student interaction. Ammigan and Laws (2018) supports

cross-cultural interaction among international and domestic students by recommending a

“Weekly Coffee Hour” that provides an avenue for developing friendships, improving English

41

language abilities, learning about various cultures, and enjoying the company of others (p. 1309).

Domestic and international student conversation partner and peer-mentoring programs can also

be an effective strategy for building intercultural friendships (Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood,

2018; Geary, 2016). These opportunities bring students of all backgrounds together to discuss

mutual interests, learn about different cultures, and build lasting friendships.

University Faculty and Staff

Cox (1991) asserts that cultural biases stem from prejudiced feelings toward others from

differing cultural backgrounds who then take discriminatory actions against disadvantaged

individuals of a specific cultural group. In order to combat threats of cultural bias, Grapin and

Pereiras (2019) recommend institutions to facilitate mentoring relationships between faculty and

students through multi-cultural education programs and training workshops, and collaborative

learning opportunities both within and outside the classroom. After relocating to a foreign

country, international students often feel a sense of loss and isolation and may rely heavily on the

university for support (Li & Peng, 2019). Li and Peng (2019) state, “Social support is extremely

important in terms of helping international students cope with stress, offering them advice in

difficult situations, and reassuring them of their values” (p. 70). Arthur (2017) states that many

international students depend on academic faculty and academic advisors for direction pertaining

to academic research expectations and career objectives. Likewise, Luo and Jamieson-Drake

(2013) found that relationships with faculty and staff can positively impact international

students’ adjustment to the university. University personnel play a primary role in helping

international students adapt to a new environment by encouraging and facilitating interactions

with local students and clearly explaining course material and academic expectations (Arthur,

2017).

42

Due to the significant amount of interaction between faculty members and students in the

classroom, faculty have a unique opportunity to form meaningful relationships with students.

Glass, Kociolek, Wongtrirat, Lynch, and Cong (2015) assert that faculty members can greatly

influence international students’ sense of belonging within a campus community. International

students feel more comfortable when faculty create an inclusive classroom environment by

implementing effective engagement strategies such as small group class discussions or

collaborative group projects (Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005; Glass et al., 2015; Rose-Redwood &

Rose-Redwood, 2018). Faculty who assign course projects that encourage collaboration between

domestic and international students will help to foster mutual and cultural learning and

understanding.

Faculty members are often viewed by students as mentors who motivate them to reach

their personal, academic, and professional goals (Glass et al., 2015). International students

reported that positive interactions with faculty members were marked by feelings of “joy, trust,

anticipation, and surprise” (Glass et al., 2015, p. 361). When professors respond with care and

concern, students are more likely to feel connected to the entire university community (Glass et

al., 2015). Omar et al. (2016) argue, “Graduate students’ academic success and professional

development for the most part are dependent on the kind of relationship and interaction they

have with faculty advisors” (p. 2). Their study showed over 50% of respondents sought non-

academic advice from international student advisors and felt like social barriers influenced their

academic performance. Findings revealed that positive relationships between faculty advisors

and students can lead to a more successful social transition and understanding of cultural norms.

Likewise, Glass et al. (2015) found that faculty members can actually provide more practical

support for international students than their American peers by offering relevant information

43

about university procedures, local services, and academic expectations. Engagement from faculty

both within and outside of the classroom contributes to successful student learning outcomes and

a sense of belonging. Faculty can also encourage international students to get involved within

the campus community. Luo and Jamieson-Drake (2013) assert,

Institutions should reinforce faculty’s commitment and engagement with

undergraduates…Hence institutions can encourage faculty members, for instance,

to take a more proactive role in helping students develop a positive attitude

toward international interaction and in advising clubs or organizations to be more

open and inclusive. Also, institutions can promote student participation in

international activities by calling upon faculty members to attend such activities

together with students” (p. 98).

To ease the social transition among international students, faculty advisors should participate in

social events with students to encourage their involvement on campus.

Additionally, the international student center is considered the main source of

information for international matters and offers a variety of resources for students to get

connected within the university community (Koseva, 2018). This centralized office can

significantly enhance the quality of international students’ experience since university staff meet

individually with students to provide relevant information and answer their questions. Staff

personnel can inform students about campus organizations and activities, immigration

requirements, health insurance eligibility, social and cultural events, university safety

procedures, and health and wellness resources (Ammigan & Laws, 2018). The international

student center should also educate campus partners about the importance of international student

engagement through educational trainings and workshops.

University Counseling and Wellness Center

It is important to reiterate that international students possess a unique set of needs and

may struggle with emotional or psychological issues. Ammigan and Laws (2018) found that

university counselors play a critical role in the experience of international students. Developing

44

personal relationships with students will help them to feel more comfortable when voicing

questions or concerns and effective communication will enable them to feel supported by the

university. Arthur (2017) states that counselors should be readily available to help international

students address challenges they face related to culture shock, loneliness, financial struggles, and

anxiety. Interpersonal one-on-one support from trusted university counselors can help students

navigate and handle issues they encounter. Counselors should be aware of cross-cultural

engagement opportunities across campus such as student leadership programs, campus social

activities, and volunteer opportunities to help international students adjust to campus life (Arthur,

2017). Counselors can provide interpersonal support to help students struggling with

acculturative stress and inform campus partners about the issues that international students face

through educational trainings and workshops (Arthur, 2017).

The previous discussion provides a deeper understanding of key stakeholders involved in

the engagement of international students. The following research questions are proposed to

identify key stakeholders and their communication roles:

RQ4: Who are the key stakeholders in engaging international students? What are their

communication roles?

45

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

The goal of this research was to examine university professionals’ understanding and

explore international students’ insights on how communication strategies, preferred channels,

and practices and key university stakeholders can effectively engage international students. The

following research questions were proposed to achieve this objective:

RQ1: What communication strategies most effectively engage international students?

RQ1.1: How does dialogic communication, if at all, influence international student engagement?

RQ2: What are the preferred communication channels to engage international students?

RQ3: What are the best communication practices that the university can implement to improve

and increase the engagement of international students?

RQ4: Who are the key stakeholders in engaging international students? What are their

communication roles?

A qualitative methodology is most appropriate to achieve a deeper understanding of

international student engagement. According to Stacks (2011), qualitative research offers an “In-

depth understanding of how certain people or organizations think and operate…Qualitative

methods provide an ability to understand fairly comprehensively how specific members of a

population feel about questions of value, better enabling researchers to elaborate more fully on

their findings” (p. 115). Bansal, Smith, and Vaara (2018) assert, qualitative research allows

scholars to examine themes and patterns that introduce new knowledge and challenge existing

theories. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) point out, qualitative research is centered on

understanding; understanding how people perceive topics, interpret and attach meaning to their

experiences, and make sense of their worlds. Yin (2016) makes a case for the practical

application of qualitative research, since it allows scholars to develop a deeper understanding of

46

how people would cope in a real-world context. Yin (2016) states, “Because qualitative studies

can attend to the contextual richness of these settings, your research will enable you to study the

everyday lives of many different kinds of people and what they think about, under many

circumstances” (p. 3). Qualitative research enables researchers to explore the beliefs and feelings

of participants and discover how their experiences may relate to the research problem. Hence, a

qualitative methodology is most suitable to obtain a richer understanding of effective

international student engagement.

This descriptive, exploratory study sought to gain a deeper understanding of the role

communication in successful international student engagement within a higher education setting.

Semi-structured in-depth interviews with university officials and communication managers

provided insight on the current communication strategies and channels used to engage

international students and future plans for continued engagement. Focus groups with

international students evaluated the effectiveness of the university’s communication efforts to

foster engagement and enhance their educational experience. The study investigated international

students’ preferred channels of communication and their perceptions on university engagement

strategies and practices. Both interviews and focus groups allowed the researcher to identify top

campus stakeholders who are actively involved in the engagement process.

Participant Selection

This study was conducted at a public university located in the Southeastern U.S. For this

study, 16 higher education leaders and communication managers with at least 5 years of

professional experience were interviewed. Interviewees represented various departments and

levels of experience across the university campus including university administrators, college

deans, departmental chairs, communication managers at the University and college levels, and

the International Student Center staff members. Additionally, one focus group of 9 international

47

students majoring in STEM fields and one focus group of 10 international students majoring in

non-STEM fields provided feedback about their experiences. A focus group with international

students evaluated the effectiveness of the university’s communication efforts to foster

engagement and enhance their education experience. The study explored international students’

preferred channels of communication, uncovered effective engagement strategies and practices,

and identified key stakeholders for engaging students.

Purposive and quota sampling strategies were employed to recruit potential interviewees.

Interview participants were selected via purposive sampling based on their professional higher

education experience related to international student engagement. Purposive sampling includes

participants who are very familiar with the research topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposive

sampling ensured that university interviewees would have a sufficient amount of experience and

knowledge of university processes and international student engagement efforts.

Focus group participants were selected via snowball sampling, which allowed the

researcher to recruit participants from hard-to-reach populations (Handcock & Gile, 2011).

While snowball sampling is not considered representative, this sampling technique allows

researchers the ability to efficiently assemble a diverse, targeted group of participants with

reduced time and monetary restraints to provide sufficient insight on the research topic (Sadler,

Lee, Lim, & Fullerton, 2010). For this study, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note that a focus group

is “an interview on a topic with a group of who have knowledge on the topic” (p. 114). This

study revealed how effective dialogic communication with international students can improve

the engagement of students in the future.

Once participants were identified and selected, they were emailed a letter that outlined

the research, confidentiality measures and agreement, and how their participation would

48

contribute to this research topic of international student engagement (see Appendix A). The

researcher concluded interviews once themes and patterns emerged and were thoroughly

established and saturation was reached. Additionally, the 2 focus groups of international students

were conducted to compare and contrast responses between those majoring STEM and non-

STEM fields to establish significant themes and patterns.

Data Gathering Procedures

Prior to conducting interviews or focus groups, the researcher obtained Institutional

Review Board (IRB) approval. During the data gathering process, in-depth interviews and focus

groups were conducted and recorded via an online video platform, in which participants agreed

to by signing informed consent documents (see Appendix B and Appendix C). In-depth

interviews included university professionals from various campus departments and educational

and professional backgrounds who provided insight on current engagement processes.

Respondents discussed the outcomes of existing communication and engagement efforts as well

as plans to further engage students in the future. The focus groups brought multinational students

together in a non-threatening and receptive environment to share about their experiences at the

university. As presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, students from a variety of cultural

backgrounds (e.g. Chinese, Columbian, Nigerian, et cetera) shared their thoughts and feelings on

the research topic. The researcher analyzed feedback to uncover patterns and consistent themes

in their conversation. Students were asked to expand on how university communication

strategies, practices, and preferred channels aided their transition to the university and identified

areas for improvement. Student feedback was crucial to this research study and provided relevant

data on effective communication actions and opportunities for growth.

At the beginning of each interview and focus group, the researcher read a consent form

and gained verbal consent of participants. A protocol guided the interviews and focus groups to

49

ensure the discussion remained on topic (see Appendix D and Appendix E). The protocol

included open-ended questions related to international student engagement. Participants provided

detailed accounts of their experiences related to the research questions. At the conclusion of the

interview and focus group, the researcher collected participants’ background information on their

work experience, age, and job responsibilities (see Appendix F). Data collection was conducted

by the same researcher beginning in March 2020 and concluding in September 2020.

Data Analysis

The grounded theory approach was used to analyze and interpret data. Introduced by

Glaser and Strauss (1967), the grounded theory approach stipulates that theory development

occurs through the collection, analysis, and interpretation of raw data. This research legitimizes

qualitative research methodology and states that theories are “grounded” in the actual data

(Corbin & Strauss, 1990, Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This approach consists of three coding steps:

open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin,

1990; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Open coding refers to the “interpretive process by which data are

broken down analytically (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 12). Throughout open coding, the

researcher analyzed and drew comparisons from similarities and differences found in the data.

As patterns and themes emerged, categories and subcategories were formed based on consistency

of responses. This systematic comparison coding process enabled the researcher to examine and

classify data in a standardized process and reduced the likelihood of researcher subjectivity, bias,

and preconceived notions. Axial coding involves reviewing the categories and subcategories

created during open coding and making sense of the collected data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

This portion of the coding process includes comparing themes and identifying relationships

within the data. The final stage of data analysis is called selective coding where “all categories

are unified around a ‘core’ category, and categories that need further explication are filled-in

50

with descriptive detail” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 14). After thorough review of data during the

open coding and axial coding process, the researcher implemented selective coding by

identifying core themes that emerged from the data.

Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability

Scholars have suggested that credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability

are more accurate criteria to ensuring the objectivity, reliability, and validity of qualitative

research (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Because qualitative research focuses

on ever-changing phenomenon, researchers are unable to reveal objective, fixed findings.

Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert,

Internal validity is a definite strength of qualitative research. In this type of

research it is important to understand the perspectives of those involved in the

phenomenon of interest, to uncover the complexity of human behavior in a

contextual framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is

happening (p. 244).

To achieve validity measures, the researcher employed triangulation and used multiple research

methods to collect data. Member checks were conducted to get feedback from participants

interviewed to ensure the researcher’s interpretation of responses accurately reflected their true

feelings. Data collection continued until emerging findings felt saturated and no new information

surfaced. The researcher’s existing assumptions on communication channels and practices that

would effectively engage international students were documented. Based on previous

experiences and a review of literature, the researcher believed that SNS channels and orientation

programs would play a more influential role in the engagement of international students. Finally,

the researcher’s thesis committee, consisting of renowned scholars in the researcher’s area of

study, reviewed the findings to ensure validity.

Reliability refers to the exact replication of research findings when repeating the study

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Reliability is difficult to accomplish when conducting qualitative

51

research since researchers are trying to better understand how humans react, behave, and respond

to a particular phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because the social world is constantly in

flux, research findings cannot be easily replicated. Therefore, reliability is not an appropriate

expectation of qualitative research. Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend for qualitative

researchers to establish dependability or consistency when conducting research, which is

accomplished when the results make sense and appear to be consistent with the data collected.

An audit trail including the researcher’s detailed notes, reflections, and questions throughout the

study provided an explanation about how the study was conducted. On a similar note,

generalizability refers to when the findings of a study can be applied to and compared with other

audiences and situations. Merriam and Tisdell, (2016) point out that while results of qualitative

studies are not generalizable, findings can be transferred to another setting when the researcher

provides rich, thick, and highly descriptive data.

Ethical and Human Subject Participation

The research followed Fowler’s (2009) ethical research principles of informed consent,

voluntary participation, and confidentiality. Information gathered during the study was kept

secure on the researcher’s passcode-safeguarded personal computer. At the beginning of the

interviews and focus groups, participants were provided information about the possibility of

harm they might encounter during the discussion, their right to withdraw from the study at any

given point, the notion of informed consent, and the University’s IRB approval. Ultimately,

researchers are expected to conduct themselves in an appropriate and ethical manner throughout

the research studies. Therefore, if participants felt uncomfortable at any point during the

discussion, the researcher would immediately redirect the conversation.

52

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how communication can increase

the engagement of international students (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Taylor & Kent, 2014). Few

studies have sought to explain how communication can specifically impact the experience of this

student demographic. To fill this research gap, this study sought to explore how communication

strategies, preferred channels of communication, best communication tactics and practices, and

key campus stakeholders can enhance international student engagement.

In-depth interviews with 16 university officials and communication managers and 2 focus

groups with 9 international students studying in STEM and 10 studying non-STEM majors

revealed several themes related to each of the research questions. In terms of communication

strategies, supportive communication, listening, and clear and targeted information dissemination

emerged as major themes. Thematic responses related to communication strategies that align

with the theoretical framework, dialogic communication, included openness and inclusion,

genuineness, empathy, and responsiveness. Next, face-to-face communication followed by

electronic communication surfaced as preferred channels of communication. Regarding best

communication tactics and practices, participants identified social programming and

academic/professional development opportunities as most effective in helping international

students feel a sense of connection to the university. Finally, both international and domestic

students, and key campus constituents at the university (i.e. administration, Dean of Students

Office, International Center, Counseling and Wellness Center) and college and department (i.e.

faculty and academic staff members) levels were viewed as key stakeholders influential in

successful student engagement.

53

To provide contexts for a deeper understanding of data findings, Table 4-1 and 4-2

outline focus group participant demographics and Table 4-3 outlines interview participant

demographics. The information in this chapter details the study’s findings related to each of the

research questions proposed in Chapter 2 (see Figure 4-1 in Appendix H).

Table 4-1. International student participants majoring in STEM fields

Degree level Field of study College Country of origin Gender

Doctorate Public Health Public Health and

Health Professions

Columbia Male

Master Public Health Public Health and

Health Professions

China Female

Doctorate Environmental

Health

Public Health and

Health Professions

Jamaica Female

Doctorate Agronomy Agriculture and

Life Sciences

China Male

Doctorate Soil and Water

Sciences

Agriculture and

Life Sciences

Nigeria Male

Doctorate Landscape

Architecture

Design,

Construction &

Planning

China Female

Doctorate Construction

Management

Design,

Construction &

Planning

Nigeria Male

Master Computer and

Information

Sciences

Engineering

India Male

Master Mechanical

Engineering

Engineering India Male

54

Table 4-2. International student participants majoring in non-STEM fields

Degree level Field of study College Country of origin Gender

Master Linguistics Liberal Arts and

Sciences

China Female

Master Journalism Journalism and

Communications

China Female

Master

Master

Public Relations

Public Relations

Journalism and

Communications

Journalism and

Communications

China

China

Female

Female

Doctorate Mass

Communications

Journalism and

Communications

China Female

Doctorate Mass

Communications

Journalism and

Communications

Columbia Male

Master Urban and

Regional

Planning

Design,

Construction &

Planning

China Female

Doctorate Museum Studies Agriculture and

Life Sciences

Columbia Female

Master Counselor

Education:

Family and

Marriage

Education

China Female

Master Counselor

Education:

Mental Health

Education China Female

55

Table 4-3. University interview participants.

Position College or Department Gender

Administrator College of Agriculture and

Life Sciences

Male

Staff member Multicultural and Diversity

Affairs

Female

Administrator International Center

Female

Staff member International Center

Male

Staff member International Center

Female

Staff member International Center

Female

Staff member/Faculty

member

College of Business Female

Staff member College of Public Health and

Health Professions

Female

Staff member College of Design,

Construction & Planning

Female

Faculty member College of Engineering

Female

Administrator College of Journalism and

Communications

Male

Faculty member College of Liberal Arts and

Sciences

Female

Administrator Career Connections Center

Female

Staff member English Language Institute

Female

Staff member Counseling and Wellness

Center

Female

Faculty member College of Education Female

RQ1a: Communication Strategies and the Engagement of International Students

Interview and focus group discussions opened with a contextualizing question to identify

communication strategies that effectively engage international students. Findings revealed that

56

supportive communication, clear and targeted information dissemination, and listening are

essential to successful student engagement. Supportive communication occurs when the

university considers and anticipates the needs and concerns of international students and

provides necessary resources to overcome obstacles. Clear and targeted information

dissemination is characterized as providing students with relevant information in a simple and

concise manner. Proactive and attentive listening facilitates conversation between the university

and international students and encourages students to provide feedback to further improve

engagement efforts.

Supportive Communication

MacGeorge, Feng, and Burleson (2011) define supportive communication as “Verbal and

nonverbal behavior produced with the intention of providing assistance to others perceived as

needing that aid” (p. 317). To fully grasp the importance of supportive communication,

interviewees shared common perceived acculturation difficulties experienced among

international students including linguistic barriers; difficulty connecting with domestic students;

insufficient understanding of U.S. culture; unfamiliarity with the U.S. higher education system

and teaching styles; lack of financial support and transportation; and overwhelming feelings of

anxiety, confusion, and isolation. According to both interviewees and international student

participants, supportive communication from the university is most necessary during their initial

period of transition. Interviewees emphasized the responsibility of the university to create and

implement a plan of support for incoming students who often feel disoriented and confused upon

arrival. Interviewees explained that all campus partners must recognize that everyone has a role

in creating and sustaining a supportive, caring environment for international students. A staff

member in the College of Business explained further saying,

57

The primary goal of the university and department should be to make

international students feel comfortable especially upon their arrival. Many

international students come to campus directly from the airport and do not even

have a place to live so they are not in a very good frame of mind during their first

week in the U.S. It helps when they can interact with someone from the university

who has lived abroad and understands how it feels to live in an unfamiliar place

and not understand the nuances of the culture. When I was an international

student myself, departments would host international students for 2 days, pick

them up at the airport, take them to their home and help them find a place to live.

It eases the transition and helps them to feel more welcome.

Interviewees agreed that international students feel more supported when campus partners seek

to build rapport through respectful, culturally sensitive, and inclusive communication on a

consistent basis. One administrator in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences clarified that

the overarching goal of a university should be to create a unified campus where university

personnel support international students by holistically thinking and inquiring about their

physical health, mental-wellbeing, and academic performance. To successfully support this

population, it is vital for the university to understand student needs and concerns and offer

sufficient academic, social, and psychological resources to improve their overall experience.

International students who participated in focus groups shared that the university has

failed to provide international students with adequate emotional and social support. Many

explained that Americans’ lack empathy and compassion for international students have

heightened their feelings of anxiety and loneliness. The majority of participants explained that

the lack of support they received upon their arrival caused them to feel like unwelcomed

outsiders who are largely dependent on international peers for support. One graduate student in

the College of Education described her experience as “expecting international students to survive

by themselves.” Another graduate student in the College of Journalism and Communications

shared that she does not get much support within her program, because faculty and domestic

students do not attempt or even care to understand the cultural barriers she encounters on a daily

58

basis. Several participants stated that local churches and religious organizations, not the

university, make the most effort in supporting international students’ acclimation to the

university and culture. International students express a strong desire for their needs and concerns

to be considered and addressed by the university to promote positive change within the

university culture.

Clear and Targeted Information Dissemination

Additionally, all interviewees viewed clear and targeted information dissemination with

international students as integral to meeting their needs. Many international students require a

higher level of guidance since they are not as familiar with the U.S. education system as

domestic students. For example, an administrator in the College of Agricultural and Life

Sciences explained how the university can engage students by clearly communicating academic

expectations. For example, many international students may not be aware of the severity of

plagiarism, so the entire university shares the responsibility of student learning outcomes. A staff

member within the department of Multicultural and Diversity Affairs mentioned the importance

of tailoring messages to meet the communication needs of international students by

implementing more graphics to enhance presentations and providing informational brochures in

multiple languages. One immigration specialist further explained how clear and concise

communication can support international students,

We have to really take into consideration and be careful about the words we use

and balance the amount of information we are giving them to keep it simple and

precise and not overwhelm them with too much text. Sending an email with

paragraphs of text is difficult for anyone to follow so it may be extra confusing

for those whose first language is not English.

Many international students who participated in focus groups agreed that they just want

to be in an environment where their needs are being considered and the university is providing

relevant information to meet these needs. One graduate student in the College of Public Health

59

and Human Performance stated, “What should we do if we have an issue with our advisor or if

we are accused of plagiarism? Domestic students know how to handle these situations, but

international students may break the rules without even knowing it.” Participants explained that

the university is often more reactive than proactive in their communications with international

students and would appreciate more proactive guidance and clear information on cultural

nuances, academic expectations, and available university resources.

Listening

The majority of interviewees reported listening as a fundamental element of effective

communication with international students. An administrator in the International Center recalled

multiple times when international students would say that she’s the first person at the university

who has taken the time to listen and really hear what they were saying. An academic advisor in

the College of Design, Construction and Planning described her role as “acting as a sounding

board for students to share their struggles.” Similarly, a staff member in Multicultural and

Diversity Affairs explained how listening to and incorporating students’ feedback can give

students an active role in their education stating, “I listen more than I give. I ask them about their

interests and suggest resources based on what they need. It’s important to tailor to what the

student needs to be successful and to feel grounded while on campus.” Interviewees explained

how listening to and incorporating students’ feedback enables them to better understand their

specific needs and how they prefer to be supported.

Focus group participants agreed that more intentional listening would allow the

university to better anticipate and meet the needs of international students. Active listening

allows university officials to build a level of trust with students so they feel comfortable to fully

express themselves. The comment of a graduate student in the College of Engineering summed

up the overall sentiment of other participants stating, “Americans do not show much interest in

60

the lives of international students and are not open to interacting with those who may be different

from them.” An immigration specialist in the International Center described international

communities on campus as “insulated” and “dependent” on one another since they can

personally relate to one another’s’ difficulties and challenges. She stated that while she has

encountered many who really value international students and their perspectives, it is clear that a

significant divide exists between international and domestic students, and the university can

attempt to bridge this gap through intentional listening.

RQ1b: Dialogic Communication and the Engagement of International Students

In relation to dialogic communication principles, Kent and Taylor (2002) argue that

dialogic communication occurs during open and honest conversational exchanges founded on

trust, genuine empathy, and consideration of feedback. Defining aspects of dialogic

communication principles that emerged throughout interview and focus group discussions

included openness and inclusion, genuineness, empathy, and responsiveness. When universities

establish a culture of openness and inclusion, students feel more comfortable to voice opinions

and concerns, which enables the university to better understand how to engage these publics.

Genuineness is described as having a sincere interest in the lives and wellbeing of students and is

characterized by a willingness to get to know students beyond a surface level. Empathy is

illustrated by the university’s understanding and compassion for the struggles and difficulties

international students often face. Finally, the university is responsive when it provides prompt

service to assist students and proactively seeks their feedback to ensure mutually beneficial

outcomes.

Openness and Inclusion

The majority of interviewees described approachability and trust as foundational to

creating a culture of openness and inclusion. Interviewees explained that creating an inclusive,

61

culturally sensitive environment where students feel comfortable to share and voice opinions

contributes to a feeling of openness. Being open to learning about different cultures and listening

to student needs can break down existing barriers allowing students to feel more included and at

ease. Many interviewees described a culture of openness as an inviting atmosphere where

students can safely share concerns when issues or problems arise. For example, an academic

advisor in the College of Design, Construction and Planning explained how openness and

approachability act as the foundation of serving students, “You want them to be able to come to

you when they have successes they want to share, but especially if they are encountering

difficulties. You want them to feel comfortable enough to broach those subjects with you.” One

staff member within the English Language Institute explained that she encourages an “open-door

policy” within her office so students know they can easily approach her and other staff members

when issues arise. Faculty members also noted that international students who struggle with the

English language are often more hesitant to voice opinions in class discussions. These

participants believed that faculty members have a distinct responsibility to create an open and

inclusive classroom environment where all students are encouraged to vocalize their thoughts

without fear of retribution.

Genuineness

Interviewees viewed congruency with words and actions as a key indicator of

genuineness. For example, several interviewees viewed the term internationalization as empty

tokenism that universities employ to build their international reputation and attract more

international students and scholars. Showing sincere interest in the lives of international students

was stated as an essential component of genuineness. An administrator in the Career Connections

Center described international students as the “forgotten population” within the university

community. She stated that the university can show genuine interest in this student group by

62

recognizing their unique contributions to the university and the incredible sacrifices made to

pursue an international education. An administrator in the International Center described how

she builds rapport with international students through daily walks together on campus saying,

This is not written into my job description. The need is there for these students,

but you know, the best part is how much I benefit from it. I’ve learned so much

about culture, and I’ve grown as a person myself.

International students who participated in the focus groups have a strong desire to form

relationships with domestic students, faculty, and staff. A graduate student in the department of

Museum studies described domestic students’ disinterest in connecting with international

students saying, “They smile just to be kind to you, but you can see in their eyes that it’s not a

real feeling. It’s not genuine.” A mechanical engineering student describes a similar experience

saying, “You see people in class and interact and after it’s nothing. Everyone keeps to

themselves, and basically it’s really difficult to strike a conversation and sustain it for a while so

that you can get to know the other person and build a friendship.”

Empathy

Throughout the interview and focus group discussions, the theme of empathy emerged.

Interviewees agreed that the entire campus community should be cognizant of and empathetic to

the unique challenges that international students face. Empathy was characterized as not just

understanding the perspectives of international students, but by really trying to feel what they are

feeling. This viewpoint coincides with those of an immigration specialist who shared that many

of her colleagues value international, yet many are still not aware of their unique needs and

concerns. The majority of international student participants explained that most Americans do

not take the time to get to know them on a deeper level and cannot personally relate to their

experiences. Several interviewees mentioned that American students may feel complacent in

their already established social circles and therefore, feel less compelled to initiate conversations

63

and form friendships with international students. According to one graduate student in the

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the overwhelming feeling of disinterest in the lives of

international students comes across as “lacking empathy, kindness, compassion and a willingness

to understand people who are different.” Similarly, another graduate student in the College of

Education described her experience stating, “I do not know which professor I can turn to for help

or to say something more private because I feel like they do not really care about how we feel.”

The same student later described the positive impact of empathetic communication stating,

I have one very, very nice and sweet native friend and she gives me a lot of

emotional support. I think the most important thing I get from her is that she

really tries to understand my difficulty and she validates and confirms my

problems or my difficulties (Graduate Student, Mental Health Counseling).

Responsiveness

Responsiveness is a key dialogic theme that surfaced when international student

participants described a lack of two-way communication between the university and international

students. Participants shared that they would appreciate more proactive assistance from the

university to overcome the social, academic, and psychological challenges. Participants

explained that it would be advantageous for the university to anticipate international student

needs and promptly offer relevant information to help alleviate stress from acculturative

challenges. Due to the high enrollment of international students, many focus group participants

mentioned that it can take several weeks to receive a response from their international advisor on

urgent issues that arise such as immigration or health insurance requirements. The university can

appear responsive by being readily available and willing to assist students through timely

responses to inquiries, complaints, or concerns.

The majority of international students who participated in focus groups viewed the

university as authoritative and felt unable to contribute to university or college-wide decision-

64

making that affects them. This top-down approach minimizes students’ willingness to upwardly

voice their needs to the university. Several interviewees mentioned the importance of offering

responsive support by proactively reaching out and inquiring on those in need of extra support. A

faculty member in the College of Education explains how she implements responsive

communication to students in her department saying,

I’ve found that some students given their background need a little bit more

support and reaching out, and sometimes need for me to be a little bit more

proactive…I make it a priority to put on my calendar to check in with these

students once a week and ask, ‘How are you doing with qualifying exams? Do

you need any help this week?’ Afterwards, they may come back and say they

didn’t need any help, but really appreciate the fact that I asked…Even if they

don’t engage back at the professional or personal level, at least they know I’m

there.

RQ2: Preferred Communication Channels

The second research question focuses on effective communication channels to engage

international students. Universities communicate with and engage students through a wide

variety of communication channels, ranging from traditional face-to-face communication, to

electronic media, and social platforms. Both interview and focus group participants reported

face-to-face and electronic communication as the most common and preferred channels to give

and receive information. While social networking sites were used less frequently by interviewees

and students, both found communication on social platforms as an effective channel to reinforce

messages and provide information on upcoming events and activities. When discussing the

quality and value of each channel, the overwhelming majority of participants valued immediacy

of feedback and media channel richness. Focus group participants within the non-STEM group

particularly valued the ability to use natural language through interpersonal channels, while those

in the STEM group valued reviewability and convenience of electronic channels.

65

Face-to-Face Communication

Immediacy of feedback

Face-to-face communication allows receivers in the conversation to immediately respond

to or request more information. The timeliness of face-to-face interaction allows participants to

quickly achieve understanding through the ability to ask follow-up questions to gain

clarification. Interviewees agreed that immediacy of feedback enables them to quickly assess a

student’s level of engagement in the conversation and provide additional clarification, if

necessary. One academic advisor in the College of Business best summarized the importance of

timeliness saying, “Email is too much back and forth, and face-to-face communication allows

students to ask questions and get clarification in real time if they do not understand. The lag time

to receive a response (with e-mail) is too significant.”

Many focus group participants agreed that the immediacy of face-to-face communication

is preferred. This type of communication is especially important when delivering complex or

unfamiliar information to students such as information related to immigration regulations or

insurance requirements. As stated by an advisor in the International Center, her office established

walk-in advising hours every week, because students were struggling to understand written

communication and preferred to come in-person to ask follow-up questions and receive further

explanation. A graduate student in the College of Education shared that she can easily wait up to

3 weeks to get a response from some campus partners who are inundated with e-mails, so it is

much more convenient to meet in-person to get an immediate response.

Verbal and non-verbal cues

The emotion and feelings expressed in face-to-face interactions enriches the

communication. Visual and verbal cues, such facial expressions, body language, vocal tone, eye

contact, and hand gestures complement or reinforce the message being communicated.

66

Interviewees agreed that interpersonal channels like face-to-face communication allow for

deeper interpretation and understanding of the information. One advisor in the College of

Design, Construction and Planning explained that face-to-face meetings with students allow her

to better assess their level of understanding especially when discussing complicated topics.

Natural language

Natural language was a common theme that emerged in the discussion with non-STEM

focus group participants. Natural language is characterized as a more informal, personal, and

conversational style of communication. One graduate student in the College of Journalism and

Communications summed up students’ preferences for in-person meetings stating, “Face-to-face

communication is like talking with a friend, and you can feel more free to express your true

feelings. If you communicate through e-mail, you have to think more about organizing your

language in a more formal sense.” Interestingly, participants in both focus groups preferred to

meet in-person with International Center advisors to discuss confusing university or federal

policies pertaining to insurance requirements, course load requirements, and immigration

compliance regulations. Focus group participants agreed that it is easier to meet in-person to

discuss these sorts of topics to minimize confusion by speaking in a more conversational way.

Also, due to participants’ close relationship with faculty members and academic advisors, they

preferred to meet in-person since it’s just like “chatting with a close friend” where you do not

have to overthink about what to say.

Electronic Communication

One immigration specialist within the International Center noted that email is the most

convenient form of communication, but mentioned that if students are not understanding and the

conversation is generating more questions, it is best for them to come and talk in person to clear

up any confusion. While those in favor of face-to-face communication viewed electronic

67

communication as too ambiguous and lacking rich connection, participants in the STEM focus

group valued the reviewability and convenience of electronic communication.

Reviewability

Many interviewees and focus group participants preferred electronic communication via

e-mail since this form of communication allows ample time to review and accurately respond to

messages. Interviewees reported that international students are generally highly responsive to e-

mails and seem to prefer the benefits of reviewing e-mails at their own pace and convenience.

Focus group participants appreciated being able to revise and formulate a response prior to

sending as well as the ability to refer back to the conversation in the future. An advisor in the

College of Design, Construction and Planning explained further saying,

Students prefer e-mail because if you are talking in person or over the phone,

sometimes things can get lost in translation. Whereas if it is in writing and there is

still some confusion, I can refer them back to what I actually wrote and explain in

greater depth.

Interestingly, the STEM focus group participants preferred written communication more

than the non-STEM focus group. STEM participants really valued the ability to review, process,

and understand information on their own time. For example, a student in the College of Public

Health and Human Performance stated, “I prefer email because most times, I think for

international students, even though you talk with them, sometimes just reading makes it more

clear to us.”

Convenience

Many interviewees mentioned sending out critical information and formal

announcements to students through e-mail. The majority of the interview participants mentioned

that their department distributes an e-newsletter to their e-mail listserv on a bi-weekly or monthly

basis to keep students informed of upcoming campus, departmental, or college-wide happenings.

68

E-mail is considered more convenient since it is not restricted by time barriers and allows

senders to quickly reach a widespread audience. Several advisors in the International Center

shared that while students may prefer to meet face-to-face, there simply are not enough advisors

to meet individually with all international students. Interviewees shared that international

students are much more responsive to e-mail communication than domestic students so targeted

e-mail campaigns are usually well-received. While focus group participants preferred to meet

with faculty and staff members face-to-face, e-mail is preferred when receiving information from

upper-level university administrators covering broad-scale topics like university or college-wide

decisions. A graduate student within the College of Journalism and Communications clarified,

“From the university administration or college deans, I prefer to receive information through

email, simply because I do not assume that they have the time and professional capacity to meet

with students face-to-face.”

Social Networking Sites

While face-to-face and electronic communication were the preferred channels of

communication, social networking sites (SNS) were viewed as a supplemental channel to keep

students informed of upcoming social events and activities. As illustrated by an immigration

specialist in the International Center, “We use our Facebook account to promote guest lecture

series, festivals, concerts, picnic lunches, trips to the farmer’s market, sports games, and game

nights.” The majority of interviewees stated that they would be hesitant to send out important

information or formal announcements through SNS due to relatively low engagement rates.

Although most interviewees do not communicate through social channels as their primary form

of contact with students, many recognized social platforms as an effective channel to reinforce

messages previously sent via face-to-face and electronic communication channels. A staff

member in the International Center explained that when the message is reinforced across

69

multiple channels, students are able to quickly receive and process information and reach out for

further clarification, if needed. Likewise, an international student participant studying Public

Health echoed this point saying, “I like my communications exclusively by email. Social media,

I don’t check that often, but I can see the value of having social media for information on social

events, but only complementary to other channels.”

RQ3: Effective Communication Tactics and Practices

The third research question focuses on the best communication practices to engage

international students. Participants discussed social programming and academic and professional

development opportunities as effective practices and tactics for engagement.

Social Programming

Overall, interviewees believed that students who get involved at the beginning of their

degree program tend to quickly establish a routine and social circle. Commonly mentioned social

programming included peer mentorship programs, English conversation partner groups, holiday

and cultural celebrations, student associations and organizations, and university and college

sponsored events. Peer mentoring and conversation partner programs were discussed by

interview and focus group participants as the most effective way for international students to

connect and build lasting friendships with other international and domestic students. Some

colleges provided programs to improve the social interaction, adaption, and experiences of

international students through peer mentorship programs that match new international students

with current students to help ease their transition. Additionally, conversation partner programs

allow international students to regularly meet with domestic students to practice and improve

their English-speaking skills. Focus group participants, in particular, spoke highly about these

programs as a structured way to meet peers and form friendships. As described by a graduate

student in the department of Journalism,

70

My program matches new students with a mentor and when I go to her for help,

she always gives me some good answers to help me think in a different way. I

think this is a good way for international students to help us adapt to a new

environment.

Many interviewees mentioned campus or college-wide events that occur on special

occasions as an effective way to build a strong sense of comradery across campus. For example,

many colleges invite incoming students to a new student welcome reception at the start of the

academic year to learn more about involvement opportunities. Additionally, because most

international students have never entered a traditional American home, the International Center

and College of Agricultural and Life Sciences host a Thanksgiving dinner for international

students to learn more about American history and culture over a shared meal. The International

Center also organizes an international education week each year, which features a variety of

workshops, educational events, and cultural celebrations. The majority of interviewees felt like

these types of events create a welcoming environment for students to meet new people and learn

about other cultures.

International students who participated in focus groups appreciated the efforts made by

some colleges to hold events throughout the year that encouraged social interactions between

international and domestic students. While focus group participants were familiar with these

types of events, many were not aware of activities specifically targeted to international students

on a regular basis. When asked about their level of involvement, several participants stated that

local churches and religious organizations make the most effort in supporting their transition. As

described by a graduate student in the department of Public Health, “I was really frustrated at the

beginning of my program. The first community that helps international students adapt to the

local life is normally the church…I think this is odd because the university should stand up to be

71

this role.” Focus group participants described this lack of consistent support from the university

and their individual colleges as “frustrating” and “isolating.”

While focus group participants did mention student organizations and associations as a

way for international students to get involved on campus, the majority shared that organized

student groups are mainly geared toward attracting undergraduate students. This is especially

concerning given the high number of international students enrolled in graduate programs. A

graduate student studying Construction Management stated,

I went to a Haitian group, and they were all basically undergraduate students. I

just knew this was not for me, because I’m looking for something more mature

than this. I feel like they could do a better job in providing information and

equipping groups to be able to meet the needs of everyone.

Academic and Professional Development

Academic and professional development opportunities available across campus also

lacked consistency. Interviewees shared that the Dean of Students office hosts a mandatory

orientation that covers university academics and campus culture and the International Center

hosts a separate orientation covering immigration compliance requirements. According to an

administrator in the College of Journalism and Communication, his college offers a preparatory

summer course for international students called “Communicating for Success.” The College of

Business assigns international and domestic students to work together on group projects to

expose students to a myriad of cultural backgrounds. The College of Education requires a cross-

cultural communication course during students’ first semester and hosts weekly gatherings for

students to share their research and get to know those in their department. Interviewees also

mentioned the Career Connections Center as a valuable resource that offers targeted

programming to demystify the logistics and cultural expectations of interviewing, job searching,

and networking in Westernized cultures.

72

According to focus group participants, colleges that offer a preliminary summer course

specifically for international students is especially beneficial. This type of course allows

international students to make friends within their cohort, learn to conduct research, and better

understand U.S. culture. This course also enables international students to gain a thorough

understanding of American teaching styles and expectations before starting their degree program.

All focus group participants agreed that aside from language barriers, the biggest obstacles they

face are making friends and understanding the culture. One focus group participant described

how this course helped her to quickly adapt to the university environment stating,

I’m so sorry to hear the stories of other students. I feel so lucky because I didn’t

experience loneliness or feelings of depression when I first arrived. We had the

summer course and had three months to get used to everything. It made it pretty

easy to get used to a new atmosphere and learn how to do research, study, read,

complete assignments, and work with other students. Every professor and all the

staff is really, really nice. I feel supported (Graduate student, Public Relations).

RQ4: Influential Stakeholders and Their Communication Roles

When discussing influential stakeholders involved in the process of engaging

international students, the following 3 stakeholder groups emerged: student peers, college faculty

and staff, and university campus partners.

International and Domestic Students (Student Peers)

International students who participated in focus groups identified international student

peers as the most influential stakeholder group, because they can personally understand and

relate to shared struggles and are proactive in offering support. As stated by a graduate student in

the Journalism department,

Other international students are the most helpful, even those who are not from the

same cultural background. I have learned more about English from my Indian

friends than American peers. I think that other international students tend to show

more empathy.

73

Participants revealed word-of-mouth communication from other international students as their

primary source of information for involvement opportunities. This is further distinguished in the

comment of a graduate student in the Urban and Regional Planning department,

I didn’t feel a lot of support from my department when I first got here. At the

time, we didn’t have anything to help us get used to life here. Instead we actually

have a group of international students in our department who voluntarily formed a

group to share their experience with us.

Therefore, domestic students have great potential to influence the engagement of

international students. Focus group participants shared that while they would enjoy and benefit

from friendships with domestic students, many native students are uninterested in learning about

different cultures and getting to know them on a personal level. Participants described domestic

students as “keeping to themselves,” being “more introverted,” and “not open to having different

people in their lives.” Many voiced a strong desire to make friends with domestic students to

improve their linguistic skills and develop a greater understanding of American culture.

Faculty and Staff in Colleges and Departments

While interviewees agreed that top/down support ensures the enforcement of

internationalization efforts across the university, bottom/up support is equally as important to

effective student engagement. One advisor in the College of Business summed up the importance

of aggregated efforts stating,

Everybody is involved. Staff are in touch with students prior to their arrival and

before they make a commitment to come here. They have to be nice and

welcoming so students will make a decision in our favor. Also, the professors and

teaching environment as a whole as well as administrators who are heavily

involved in decision making. It’s a group effort.

An administrator in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences shared that engagement begins

with the dean of the college and his/her perspective and attitude on internationalization efforts,

which ultimately trickles down to faculty and support staff on the front lines interacting with

74

students. For example, “If a student is experiencing a problem, they typically go directly to the

advisor and not the president of the university. There is a hierarchy and they’re all interconnected

so those are all important stakeholders in the process” (Administrator, College of Agriculture and

Life Sciences). The majority of discussion revolved around faculty and academic advisors who

are viewed as integral “frontline” stakeholders due to their frequent and continuous interaction

with students. Faculty members have a responsibility to clearly explain academic expectations

and create an inclusive classroom environment that fosters engagement. Similarly, academic

advisors meet regularly with students to clearly convey information on academic policies and

university processes, and direct students to university resources. Faculty members and academic

advisors are often thought of as the “face of the university” due to their high level of contact with

students throughout their entire academic career.

University Level Higher Administration

Interviewees cited the university president and provost office as influential stakeholders

given their role in university strategic and budgetary planning and decision-making. Their

support in advancing internationalization efforts is critical to creating a positive and welcoming

campus climate for international students. The majority of interviewees agreed that when the

president is supportive of international students and committed to enhancing a supportive

university culture, everyone feels welcomed and valued for their contributions. At the beginning

of each academic year, the university president and dean of the International Center host a

convocation event to personally meet and welcome all newly admitted international students.

One focus group participant from the Construction Management department shared how

impactful of an experience this was for him and his peers,

I was amazed when the President saw me, he actually remembered me and was

like, ‘Oh, I’ve seen you before.’ It still gives me joy and makes me amazed that

he remembered me. Also, the dean of the International Center knew more about

75

my country than I did. So that was a good way to let us know that we are

appreciated.

International Center

The International Center is described by interviewees as a “one-stop shop” for

international students to get the latest information on international updates, and acts as an

informative resource for the rest of the university. The International Center communicates

directly with international students about visa and immigration compliance regulations and

informs students of available university resources to enhance their education experience. A

faculty member in the College of Engineering explained that the International Center is

responsible for helping international students feel connected to the university by listening to their

needs and concerns and creating a welcoming atmosphere. One focus group participant, a

graduate student in the Construction Management department, explained the impact of showing

care and concern for someone saying,

The director of the International Center has been very, very helpful. I had this

situation where I had a friend who was admitted into the hospital and she had

surgery. The moment she (the director of the International Center) was informed,

she kept on coming to the hospital to see the person and to visit… She kept on

coming to make sure that we’re good, doing well, and to make sure that insurance

was providing the adequate treatments.

Other Campus Partners: Counseling and Wellness Center and Dean of Students Office

Both interview and focus group participants mentioned the Counseling and Wellness

Center and the Dean of Students Office as influential stakeholders who offer psychological

support services for students. Students can contact the university care team housed in the Dean of

Students office to receive immediate support in times of personal crisis. Similarly, the

Counseling and Wellness Center offers ongoing individual and group counseling sessions with

licensed counselors where students are encouraged to openly share concerns, learn to manage

stress, and find solutions to issues that arise. All interviewees were knowledgeable about mental

76

health services available to international students. A staff member in the English Language

Institute described the importance of intentionally and proactively communicating available

mental health resources to international students during their first semester,

With mental health resources, students may not feel like they have access to these

resources and may feel uncomfortable inquiring about them, especially for some

cultures that promote stigma around mental health. It is important for university

staff and faculty to make students feel comfortable and establish trust so they will

be more likely to approach them when issues arise (Staff member, English

Language Institute).

About half of the focus group participants shared that they have utilized counseling

services at the university at some point in their academic careers and agreed that the Counseling

and Wellness Center played a major role in overcoming issues that arise. One student in the

Public Health department shared her positive experience saying,

I went to the student counseling center the second year of my Master’s and I was

struggling at that time and my therapist helped me through the whole thing. He

reassured me what is wrong and what is right. And I think having that connection

is really important, and also, he helped me to recognize what problems are

bothering me, and I think that’s helpful. That would be the most beneficial thing

I’ve ever done.

While these focus group participants viewed the Counseling and Wellness Center as helpful in

addressing concerns and managing stress and anxiety, all voiced frustrations over the lack of

multilingual counselors available to those who have difficulty expressing their feelings in

English.

77

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this thesis was to increase the current knowledge and help to fill the

research gap on international engagement from a communicative perspective. The study explored

how communication strategies, preferred channels of communication, best communication

tactics and practices, and key campus stakeholders can enhance engagement. This qualitative

study included semi-structured interviews with 16 higher education professionals and 2 focus

groups with 19 international students separated by those majoring in STEM or non-STEM fields

of study. This chapter will provide a comprehensive overview of major findings followed by a

discussion of the study’s theoretical and practical implications. The chapter concludes with a

discussion on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.

Communication Strategies and International Student Engagement (RQ1)

Thematic responses revealed the following effective communication strategies to engage

international students: supportive communication, clear and targeted information dissemination,

and listening. International students who participated in focus groups felt most supported by the

university when proactive measures were taken to provide relevant information on available

resources to overcome acculturative stress upon their arrival. As Taylor and Kent (2014) assert,

“engagement is often viewed as a verb or action that is somehow beyond the routine

communication behaviors of organizations” (p. 387). Participants explained that supportive

communication during this initial transitional period engendered feelings of concern and care for

their psychological and emotional wellbeing. This finding provides support for Knapp and

Daly’s (2011) assertion that supportive communication directly influences the psychological and

physical welfare of recipients. Knapp and Daly (2011) further explained that supportive

communication often displays high levels of attentiveness to publics, which not only positively

78

impacts relational outcomes, but also enhances the self-esteem, self-worth, and self-care of

publics. Extending Knapp and Daly’s research, the current study views supportive

communication as an effective way to engage international students to enhance their sense of

connection to the campus community. Previous research has demonstrated the impact of

supportive communication on relational satisfaction, positive organizational reputation,

employee’s strong identification with the company (Hang & Yang, 2011) and employee

supportive behaviors (e.g. advocacy and citizenship behavior) (Men & Yue, 2019). The current

study provided additional evidence for the effectiveness of supportive communication in the

university context in particular related to international student engagement.

According to interviewees, clear and targeted information dissemination is another

effective communication strategy to successfully engage international students. Taylor and Kent

(2014) highlight the importance of keeping publics informed as critical to the process of

engagement. All international student participants cited linguistic issues as one of the biggest

barriers they face studying in the U.S. Therefore, it is especially important for the university to

provide clear and concise information to reduce issues of ambiguity and confusion among non-

native speakers. This finding is in line with previous literature that recommends targeted

information dissemination to keep international students informed of upcoming social events,

research and academic opportunities, and federal immigration requirements (Ammigan & Laws,

2018). Focus group participants mentioned being inundated with e-mails and place high

importance on receiving relevant information to avoid information overload. This finding

extends those of Ha et al. (2018), revealing that international students often ignore important e-

mails from faculty and academic advisors due to the high volume e-mails received from the

university.

79

This study revealed listening as critical to understanding the unique needs and concerns

of international students. Taylor and Kent (2014) describe engagement as a necessary element of

dialogue as it represents the “two-way, relational, give-and-take between organizations and

stakeholders/publics” (p. 391). Intentional listening is essential to facilitating these meaningful

dialogic interactions. As stated in the “Melbourne Mandate” by the Global Alliance for Public

Relations and Communication Management (Global Alliance, 2014), effective ethical listening

occurs when organizations acknowledge and consider others’ views, perceptions, and feelings.

Along this line, Baxter (2011) claims that effective listening can only occur when organizations

acknowledge the publics’ right to have a voice and emphasize listening and reciprocity as vital to

effective two-way dialogue. Interviewees explained that students tend to feel more comfortable

discussing their personal experiences or issues when the university actively requests, listens, and

considers their feedback. When university officials showed respect and appreciation for diverse

international perspectives through active listening, students felt more empowered to express their

honest feelings and thoughts to the university. International student participants want to feel as

though the university is receptive to hearing their concerns and willing to resolving issues that

arise. As asserted in previous studies, organizations must seek to build lasting relationships with

publics by establishing trust and listening to differing perspectives, which will ultimately reveal

opportunities for sustained organizational growth (Cissna & Anderson, 2002).

Dialogic Communication and International Student Engagement

In relation to dialogic communication principles, participants identified openness and

inclusion, genuineness, empathy, and responsiveness as most effective in engaging international

students. Interviewees explained that a culture of openness promotes student voice by

encouraging students to approach university personnel with issues or concerns. Participants

explained that an open and inclusive atmosphere encourages feedback, which empowers students

80

to disclose personal experiences or challenges without fear of judgment. This claim is affirmed

in previous literature revealing relational expressions of openness as essential to promoting

organizational dialogue and engagement of publics. For example, an organizational climate of

openness contributes to mutual equality between the organization and publics by providing

publics with the opportunity to discuss “any topic free of ridicule or contempt” (Kent & Taylor,

2002, p. 25). Research shows that when organizations promote a climate of openness that

encourages employees to more freely express feelings, ideas, and honest information, employees

feel more satisfied with their jobs which translates to a higher organizational performance

(Jablin, 1978). Men and Bowen (2017) describe an organization that values openness and

inclusion as a space where “employees feel free to voice their opinions, ideas, concerns, or even

criticisms of the organization (p. 124).” Yang, Kang, and Cha (2015) argue, “Without an open

and honest climate for communication, dialogue is not much different from discussion” (p. 179).

Those engaged in dialogue should seek to understand others, yet should feel comfortable to

openly express their own point of view without pressure to waiver held beliefs (Kent & Taylor,

2002). To facilitate effective dialogue between organizations and stakeholders, organizations

must create a climate of openness that embraces the ideologies of accessibility, genuineness, and

transparency (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015). The current study extends these findings by explaining

how the university’s valuing of an open climate will facilitate reciprocal and honest

conversations by empowering students to vocalize their ideas and suggestions to the university.

When actions and words align, study participants viewed the university as being genuine,

which is a key principle of dialogic communication (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Interviewees viewed

the university as genuine when international student perspectives and needs are considered and

their contributions to the academic community are valued and appreciated. According to Taylor

81

and Kent (2014), “Dialogic engagement should…prepare the interactants for genuine civic

engagement, informed by dialogue, and designed to better the lives of all parties involved” (p.

394). Interviewees explained that when international students receive sincere and genuine

consideration from the university, they are more inclined to express their true feelings about their

experiences at the university. The university’s sincere interest in the wellbeing of international

students can have a meaningful impact on their level of engagement. This study concurs with

previous work that links genuineness to morally good will. Bowen (2010) expands,

“Genuineness speaks to the heart of moral intention in that an organization is genuinely pursuing

an ethical course of action, rather than using ethics as “window dressing” to keep itself out of

trouble by appearing ethical. The organization wants to be ethical, and demonstrates that through

its actions, rather than simply wanting to appear or seem good” (p. 72). Furthermore, Montague

(2012) described genuine dialogue as a “memorable, fulfilling, or emotionally rewarding

conversation…This meaningful interaction is driven by respect, genuineness, openness,

appreciation, or playfulness.” (p. 402). Therefore, genuine dialogue flourishes when the

university attentively listens to, considers, and cares for/about the needs and concerns of

international students. The current study’s findings suggest honest and truthful dialogue (Kent &

Taylor, 2002) that displays an authentic interest (Yang, Kang, & Cha, 2015) and genuine concern

(Botan, 1997) for others will lead to mutually beneficial outcomes.

Focus group participants stipulated that receiving empathy from domestic students and

faculty members significantly impacted their level of engagement and connection to the

university. In this study, international students expressed feeling a lack of empathy and

compassion from most domestic students and university personnel. The current study suggests

that when the university shows empathy to students, trust is established within the university-

82

student relationship and students tend to be more vulnerable when expressing their concerns. As

found in previous research (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987), empathetic listening creates “an

atmosphere of mutual respect and willingness to entertain new ideas; to share feelings and

sentiments when individuals so desire; and to establish as much as possible in a context of

unequal power a climate of trust and mutual concern” (p. 423). Empathy is viewed as a sincere

concern for others that produces a deeper understanding of others’ experiences. When the

university attempts to understand the differing experiences and perspectives of international

students, positive intercultural interactions can take place.

In line with previous literature, the current study argues that responsiveness is a function

of dialogue (Bowen, 2010). Focus group participants viewed the university as authoritative and

as lacking a willingness to consider international perspectives. This study found responsiveness

to be an effectual strategy that elevates students’ position in the university-student relationship.

These findings affirm the findings of previous work which describes responsiveness as being

“other-oriented” and focuses on the relational component of relationships by being sensitive to

others’ feelings and empathetic to their needs (Richmond & Martin, 1998, p. 136-137).

According to Johnson (2014), “engagement is a key aspect of organizational behavior in an

operating environment that is increasingly sensitive to power relations, requiring organizations to

be open to the meaning and value that evolves from interaction with diverse stakeholder

perspectives” (p. 382). Richmond and McCroskey (1990) describe responsive communicators as

“helpful, responsive to others, sympathetic, compassionate, sensitive to the needs of others,

sincere, gentle, warm, tender, and friendly” (p. 449). Accepting this outlook, the responsive

person recognizes and considers the needs and rights of others, but does this without sacrificing

his or her own legitimate rights (Richmond & Martin, 1990, p. 137). Responsive communication

83

will encourage international students to voice their needs, desires, frustrations, and concerns to

the university.

Overall, dialogic communication emphasizes the relational aspect of organization-public

relationships where both parties “attempt to understand and appreciate the values and interests of

the other” to achieve mutually satisfying outcomes (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 30). Taylor and

Kent (2014) argue that “every dialogic interaction involves conversational engagement,” which

respects opposing views and fosters mutual understanding and commitment to finding shared

views (p. 389). Kent and Taylor (2002) and Taylor and Kent (2014) posit that dialogic

communication allows organizations to better understand publics through open, genuine, and

honest conversations that appeal to the interest and emotions of stakeholders. According to Kent

and Taylor (2002), “Dialogue is considered “more ethical” because it is based on principles of

honesty, trust, and positive regard for the other rather than simply a conception of the public as a

means to an end” (p. 33). In relation to this study, when the university takes pragmatic steps to

implement these principles, students feel a stronger sense of support, care, trust, respect,

inclusion, empowerment, and understanding from the university. In turn, students are more

willing to broach uncomfortable subjects; voice frustrations, needs, and concerns; and share their

true feelings and emotions with the university. This study affirms that creating an engaging

university culture that embraces openness and inclusion, genuineness, empathy, and

responsiveness will allow international students to feel a stronger sense of connection and

belonging to the university.

Communication Channels and International Student Engagement (RQ2)

Discussion on preferred communication channels focused on face-to-face and electronic

communication. Participants who favored face-to-face communication valued its immediacy of

84

feedback, verbal and non-verbal cues, and natural language while those in favor of electronic

communication valued convenience and reviewability.

Face-to-Face Communication

Due to the ability to assess recipients’ level of understanding in real time, interviewees

and focus group participants agreed that face-to-face communication is preferred when

discussing important or complex information. This study extends the findings of Men and Bowen

(2017) explaining that the timeliness of face-to-face communication encourages deeper

understanding since participants can gain instant feedback, clarify misunderstandings, and ask

follow-up questions. Westmyer and DiCioccio (1998) found oral channels to be most effective in

fulfilling interpersonal needs and giving/receiving information in a timely manner. Additionally,

face-to-face communication is considered an information rich channel that allows participants to

more fully express themselves through the use of verbal and non-verbal cues (Nardi &

Whittaker, 2002), such as vocal tone, body language, eye contact, facial expressions, and hand

gestures. Non-STEM international students, in particular, appreciated the level of interactivity

and personal touch associated with face-to-face communication. Student participants viewed this

form of communication as more conversational and informal than written communication.

Students explained that personalized face-to-face communication is easier to follow and instills a

stronger sense of connection to others in the conversation. Due to the language barriers that

many international students encounter, verbal and non-verbal cues allow for a richer

interpretation of information and the ability to more accurately convey ideas. Focus group

participants explained that it is easier to fully express themselves, voice opinions, and seek

feedback during face-to-face interactions.

These findings also reflect the media richness theory proposed by Daft and Lengel

(1984), which argues that face-to-face communication is the richest and most effective

85

communication channel to convey visual and auditory cues and assess whether the message was

accurately received by the recipient. Previous research regarding employee communication

reveal that face-to-face communication creates a better communicative environment, which

actively involves employees and achieves a greater shared sense of belonging and understanding

of the organization as whole (Cameron & McCollum, 1993). Previous studies reveal employee

satisfaction (Byrne & LeMay, 2006) as positively associated with face-to-face communication as

it enables feedback and internal dialogues (Men, 2014). White, Vanc, and Stafford (2010) found

that employees prefer face-to-face, interpersonal, dialogic interactions as they foster a greater

sense of community among employees. In the case of the current study, the higher level of care,

ease of conversation, and personalized interactivity of face-to-face communication allows

international students to feel a stronger sense of belonging to the university.

Electronic Communication

Interviewees agreed that electronic communication via e-mail is the most convenient

channel since communication is not restricted by time and geographical constraints. E-mail also

allows users to review content for clarity and maintain a written record of the conversation for

future reference, which is especially important for international students who receive detailed

information from the university’s International Center. Non-native speakers appreciated having

the ability to review and revise an e-mail prior to responding. Written communication was found

to be the most convenient option when timeliness and interpersonal connections were not the

priority (Westmyer & DiCioccio, 1998). Similarly, Men and Bowen (2017) found e-mail to be an

effective and non-intrusive way to keep people informed and up-to-date on company happenings.

Focus group participants viewed electronic communication from university administration as the

most sensible and convenient way to receive information on major university policies and

announcements. Participants recognized that university administrators do not have the

86

professional capacity to offer personalized face-to-face communication when messages are

intended to reach a widespread audience. Due to the high enrollment of international students,

many interviewees preferred the user-friendliness and convenience of e-mail. Due to staffing and

time constraints, many campus partners do not have the ability to individually meet with students

so e-mail is preferred when communicating with a large group of students.

Communication Practices/Tactics and International Student Engagement (RQ3)

International students stated social barriers as one of the biggest challenges they

encounter in the U.S. Students who struggle with linguistic issues often find it especially difficult

to form connections with domestic peers. Many interview and focus group participants

mentioned organized peer mentorship and conversation partnership programs as the most

effective way for international students to form friendships with domestic students and increase

their understanding of American culture. Westwood and Barker’s (1990) research found that

achievement rates are higher and dropout rates decrease when international students are paired

with a domestic student through a peer matching program during their first year. While many

interviewees emphasized the importance of offering intercultural social events and activities

throughout the year, international student participants expressed frustration over the

inconsistency of these events. Continuous and frequent interaction was emphasized as critical to

developing and maintaining lasting relationships. This finding aligns with McFaul’s (2016) study

which found continuous and regular facilitation of meaningful interactions between domestic and

international students as an effective practice to promote intercultural understanding within the

university.

While previous literature highlights orientation programs as an effective method to

engage students at the start their academic program (Omar et al, 2016; Ammigan, 2019),

international student participants shared that the amount of information covered at orientation

87

programs can be overwhelming and lead to increased feelings of stress and anxiety. Focus group

participants mentioned taking academic preparation courses the semester before their degree

program begins as a helpful way to meet others in their cohort, improve English language skills,

learn about academic research expectations, and understand local culture. These findings

coincide with Taylor and Kent (2014)’s assertion that engagement requires interaction with

stakeholders/publics for relational purposes outside of an immediate problem/issue” (p. 391).

Influential Stakeholders and International Student Engagement (RQ4)

The current study supports previous literature suggesting that international students

primarily interact with those from similar backgrounds due to similar and shared experiences,

perspectives, and struggles (McFaul, 2016; Arthur, 2017). While focus group participants

viewed other international students as their primary support network, participants emphasized a

strong desire to form connections with domestic students to improve their English and better

understand U.S. culture. In keeping with prior research, encouraging cross-cultural opportunities

promotes an engaged and culturally adept campus climate that fosters mutual understanding,

enhances intercultural learning, and minimizes cultural biases and stereotypes (Luo & Jamieson-

Drake, 2013, Arthur, 2017). Kahn (1990) explains that meaningful interactions with others

contributes to an engaged community where people to feel valuable and valued through “mutual

appreciation, respect, and positive feedback” (p. 708).

Interviewees and focus group participants also mentioned faculty members and academic

advisors as influential stakeholders due to their significant amount of interaction with

international students. According to Men and Bowen (2017), frontline workers have the most

direct contact with customers, a profound influence on developing and maintaining relationships,

and a great impact on the organization’s success. Consistent with Omar et al. (2016) findings,

international students are more likely to reach their academic and professional objectives when

88

they feel a sense of connection to their faculty instructors and academic advisors. Interviewees

emphasized the importance of creating a supportive and inclusive classroom environment that

encourages international students to feel comfortable to contribute in class discussions.

According to Arthur (2017), faculty members play a key role in helping students understand

course and research expectations and navigate career opportunities after graduation. Academic

advisors are influential stakeholders in the experience of international students as many rely on

their guidance to successfully complete degree requirements.

Previous literature shows that international students are likely to encounter acculturative

stress and experience feelings of anxiety, frustration, and social isolation (Chen, 1999; Mori,

2000; Koseva, 2018). To successfully engage international students, the university must provide

advice and counsel on issues of concern (Taylor and Kent, 2014). These findings are consistent

with Ammigan and Laws’ (2018) assertion that the university counseling center plays a critical

role in the support and success of this student population. This study revealed that international

students often seek support from licensed counseling professionals to overcome stresses

associated with acclimating to a new culture and university setting. Licensed counselors can help

international students to navigate cultural differences, cope with feelings of anxiety and stress,

and implement proven strategies to overcome barriers (Arthur, 2017). Additionally, the

counseling center should inform campus partners of the needs and challenges of international

students by hosting regular trainings and workshops (Arthur, 2017).

Finally, the International Center was identified by interview and focus group participants

as an influential stakeholder charged with advancing intercultural engagement across campus.

The International Center has a responsibility to keep campus partners informed of key

international information, services, and efforts. Ammigan and Laws (2018) point out that

89

international centers should also host educational trainings and workshops to inform campus

partners of the needs of international students, and advise international students on involvement

opportunities, immigration and health insurance requirements, and university resources.

A Co-Orientation Approach to Understanding the Perspectives of University Professionals

and International Students

This study evaluated the perspectives of the university and international students on how

communication strategies, channels, and practices can improve the engagement of international

students. Based on Chaffee and McLeod’s (1968) co-orientation measurement model, a co-

oriented analysis allows scholars to better evaluate and understand perceived and actual

agreements and disagreements in the communication perspectives of organizations and their

publics. Broom (1997) asserts, a co-orientational approach can identify organization-public

relationship problems of mutual concern, provide useful information to plan communication

messaging and programming to counteract these problems and concerns, and assess the overall

impact of public relations efforts. The purpose of co-orientation is to view the data from both an

organizational and public perspective to “facilitate two-way communication and mutual

adjustment” (Broom, 1977, p. 118).

University interview participants and international student focus group participants

largely shared similar perspectives on effective communication strategies for engagement. All

agreed that supportive communication at the start of students’ academic program will improve

their acclimation to a new culture and university environment. Interviewees saw clear and

targeted information as an effective strategy to avoid misunderstanding by not overwhelming

students with too much text. On the other hand, international student participants viewed clear

and targeted messaging as a proactive measure to provide relevant information to meet student

needs. While both groups identified listening and empathy as critical elements of successful

90

engagement, international students felt the university often failed to adequately listen to and

emphasize with their concerns and needs.

In terms of communication channels, face-to-face communication was unanimously seen

as the most effective channel to communicate complex and important information, while SNS

were viewed as having the lowest level of engagement. The most significant difference among

participant perspectives existed between the STEM and non-STEM focus groups. The STEM

student group preferred e-mail communication due to the reviewability and convenience of e-

mail, whereas non-STEM students preferred the informal and conversational style of face-to-face

communication. In regards to best communication practices and tactics, university professionals

and international students were in agreement that additional social programming specifically

geared toward international students is needed. Interviewees mentioned standalone cultural and

educational events as an effective means of connecting people of varying cultural backgrounds,

while focus group participants desired more consistent and frequent programming to form and

maintain relationships on an ongoing basis. Student participants also mentioned the lack of

graduate student organizations and associations on campus and would appreciate more

involvement opportunities to connect with other graduate students at the university.

Concerning the academic aspect of the student experience, international student

participants shared that additional resources to improve their English linguistic skills and

understanding of American teaching styles and academic expectations would enhance their

academic performance. University personnel concurred that the university does not offer enough

specialized academic support resources to ensure positive learning outcomes of international

students. Participants overall viewed international and domestic peers, faculty and academic

support staff, the International Center, and Counseling and Wellness Center as the most

91

influential stakeholder groups involved in the engagement of international students. Interviewees

specifically mentioned university level higher administration as instrumental in enforcing

internationalization efforts. Whereas international students felt most engaged when they formed

relationships with other international and domestic peers. These findings suggest there may be

opportunity for the university to encourage greater understanding for all through collaborative

efforts to better understand differing perspectives.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study offer important theoretical implications that contribute to the

growing body of knowledge of dialogic communication, engagement, and internationalization.

First, while public relations literature advocates for two-way communication between

organizations and their publics, scant literature exists on engagement in relation to dialogic

communication. Findings of this research provide further evidence that confirms the crucial role

of dialogic communication particularly in the engagement of international students. The current

study fills a research gap by evaluating the effectiveness of internal communication strategies,

channels, and practices/tactics on international students’ level of engagement. The study also

contributes to the theorization of dialogic communication in the higher education context by

incorporating a co-oriented approach. When assessing the agreement, accuracy, and congruency

between universities and international students, this study highlighted distinct differences in

perceptions of effective communication practices/tactics and influential stakeholder groups and

found similarities related to effective communication strategies and channels. Furthermore,

dialogue emphasizes mutuality, which stipulates that organizations and publics are inextricably

connected and must be willing to collaborate and accommodate one another to achieve mutually

desirable outcomes (Kent & Taylor, 2002). This study attempts to bridge the gap between

university and international students’ perceptions of effective engagement to find commonalities

92

and areas for continued growth. This study provides a holistic understanding of effective

engagement actions that can be implemented to further enhance two-way dialogic

communication between the university and international students.

Second, this study broadens the theoretical influence and application of engagement in

clarifying the critical role of communication in effective student engagement. Despite increased

attention on the topic of public engagement, limited literature on engagement in the higher

education institutional context exists. This study asserts that the implementation of effective

communicative strategies, preferred channels of communication, and successful communication

tactics and practices will enhance the engagement of international students. This study confirms

that supportive communication, clear and targeted information dissemination, and listening are

fundamental to engaging international students which lead to their increased levels of trust,

loyalty, and sense of belonging to the university. Respectful, culturally sensitive, and inclusive

dialogic interactions that meet the specific communication needs of international students will

allow the university to better engage and support this student group. As previously discussed,

engagement can only truly occur when organizations value diverse stakeholder perspectives

(Johnson, 2014); Maintaining mutual interests keeps organizations and stakeholders connected

(Dhanesh, 2017). When the social, academic, and psychological needs and concerns of

international students are considered and addressed by the university, students will feel a

stronger level of commitment, passion, and connection to the university and their role within the

university. Engagement is possible when the entire organization is committed to engaging in

dialogue, which is a “product of ongoing communication and relationships” (Taylor & Kent,

2014, p. 24). In a higher education context, university administrators, faculty members, and staff

personnel are key influential stakeholders in the engagement of international students. These

93

stakeholders must be committed to giving their whole selves to encounters by making a

commitment to consider and consult international students on decisions that directly impact them

(Taylor & Kent, 2014).

Finally, this research extends the understanding of internationalization within the field of

higher education from a communicative perspective. When higher education administrators

prioritize and inform campus partners of internationalization initiatives, the entire university

community can collaboratively work to create an inclusive and welcoming campus climate.

Knight (1993) describes internationalization within higher education as “the process of

integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service

functions of the institution” (p. 21). Qiang’s (2003) review of literature on internationalization

examines how increasing the international competencies of students and university personnel

through the development of skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values will create a more

internationally knowledgeable and interculturally skilled university community. Qiang (2003)

emphasizes the importance of acknowledging international/intercultural perspectives and

implementing initiatives to create a competent intercultural university culture. This study

expands the scope of internationalization literature by uncovering how a climate of openness and

inclusion that facilitates genuine understanding and honest conversation between the university

and international students can further enhance internalization across the university.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study provide several important practical implications for university

administrators, faculty, and staff members. First, the university should enhance strategic

communication to engage international students. The university can show international students

that they are valued members of a diverse campus community through dialogic interactions that

promote feelings of openness and inclusion, genuineness, empathy, and responsiveness.

94

University personnel must be trained to proactively listen, consider, and respond to the inquiries,

needs, complaints, and concerns of international students. The university can show its strong

commitment to ensuring mutually beneficial and satisfying outcomes for all by facilitating

opportunities to gain student feedback to further enhance their level of engagement. When

international students feel like their needs are being met, they are significantly more likely to

offer positive word-of-mouth recommendations and advocate on behalf of the university.

Universities should proactively provide relevant information in a clear and concise

manner through preferred channels of face-to-face and electronic communication. When

universities disseminate information that is relevant to the needs and interests of international

students in a clear and concise format, issues of information overload are minimized. Ultimately,

when information needs are met, publics feel a stronger sense of connection and tend to establish

quality relationships with organizations (Men, O’Neil, Ewing, 2020).

Second, the university should offer and continually assess the effectiveness of social

programming to enrich the international student experience. Because international students are

more likely than domestic students to struggle with feelings of isolation and loneliness,

universities should pay special attention to the social aspect of their experience by frequently

providing information on campus and community involvement opportunities. By offering social

programming that encourages interaction between domestic and international students on a

continuous and frequent basis, international students will feel a greater sense of fulfillment with

their education experience and understanding of the local culture. The university should also to

consider the role of the local community in the engagement process by forming partnerships with

local churches and religious organizations, which have historically shown a vested interest in

international student outreach. Additionally, international student participants mentioned that the

95

majority of student associations are geared toward undergraduate students. Given the typically

high number of international graduate students, the university should seek to strengthen ties

between incoming international graduate students and student associations to help ease their

transition to the university.

Third, the university must provide resources and services to enhance the academic

performance, professional competencies, and psychological and mental wellbeing of

international students. Considering the acculturative difficulties many international students

encounter when studying in the U.S., students must be adequately informed of university

psychological support services and resources. Many international student participants expressed

frustration over the lack of multi-linguistic counselors within the university’s Counseling and

Wellness Center. If universities are serious about improving the quality of student experiences,

hiring bilingual counselors from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds will enable many

international students the opportunity to express themselves in their native language.

The university should tailor academic and professional resources to assist international

students both in and outside of the classroom. Colleges should offer a preliminary preparation

course that covers topics related to American culture, academic and research expectations,

university services and resources, and involvement opportunities to help ease students’ transition

to the university. The university can offer more academic support services for international

students to sharpen their English speaking and writing abilities to enhance their overall academic

performance. Additionally, universities should prepare international students to confidently

navigate the professional world after graduation through hands-on professional development

workshops and trainings.

96

Fourth, the university must involve influential stakeholders across campus to create and

foster an extensive support system that collaboratively works to improve engagement efforts,

especially at the beginning of a student’s academic career. University administrators must lead

by example by providing campus constituents with strategic guidance and resources to carry out

internationalization initiatives within their colleges and departments. University personnel who

interact with international students on a consistent basis should be required to complete trainings

to better understand the challenges and needs of international students and how to best support

them. Faculty members have a responsibility to create an inclusive classroom environment that

encourages all students to share insights during class discussions. Academic advisors should

implement an open-door policy during specified hours so students can comfortably approach

them with questions or concerns. The university should facilitate opportunities for international

students to make connections with other domestic and international students. Peer mentorship

and conversation partner programs were identified as an effectual and structured way for

international students to meet and form relationships with other students.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers a nuanced understanding of the engagement of international

students from a communicative perspective (see Appendix G), it is not without limitations.

Limitations exist due to the qualitative nature and smaller sample size of this study. Findings are

based on interviews and focus groups conducted within one public research university and are

not considered generalizable to all international students at varying types of collegiate

institutions. The interview and focus group sample size of this study was predominately female,

and focus groups only included graduate, degree-seeking students. To overcome these

limitations, future studies could take a quantitative or mixed methods research approach and

include a larger, more varied sample size at varying institution types. Future studies can further

97

explore how other communication factors and styles may impact engagement and should

consider the experiences and perspectives of undergraduate or non-degree seeking students.

Additionally, future research can investigate the role that international students have in

improving their level of engagement and consider how to best engage other minority groups at

the university. In sum, the findings of this thesis contribute to the growing body of knowledge on

dialogic communication theory and the concept of engagement and provide valuable insights and

pragmatic suggestions. Based on these findings, this thesis urges higher education professionals

and academic scholars to carry out the responsibility of the university to enrich the quality of

education and experience for all students by continuing the conversation on international student

engagement.

98

APPENDIX A

RECRUITMENT LETTERS

Dear ___________:

My name is Rachel Dean, and I am a Master’s student of public relations at the University of

Florida.

I am currently working on my thesis, which is focused on international student engagement. My

research will explore effective communication strategies and preferred channels of

communication.

Given your professional experience, I would like to invite you to participate in this study. If you

agree to participate, we would set up a time to meet in-person for a one-on-one interview

discussing your thoughts on this research topic. Please note that you may choose to not answer

questions asked at any point.

If you have any questions about this research study or my identity as a graduate student at the

University of Florida before you make a decision about your participation in the study, you may

reach out to my thesis advisor Dr. Rita Linjuan Men at rlmen@jou.ufl.edu or contact me directly

at r.dean@ufl.edu.

Your willingness to participate in this study would make a great contribution to this research area

and to our understanding of international student engagement. I would gladly send you an

executive summary of the research findings at the conclusion of the study. Thank you so much

for your time and consideration. I look forward to speaking with you further.

Kind Regards,

Rachel Dean

Master’s Student

College of Journalism and Communications

University of Florida

99

Focus Group Recruitment Letter

Dear ___________:

My name is Rachel Dean, and I am a Master’s student of public relations at the University of

Florida.

I am currently working on my thesis, which is focused on international student engagement. My

research will explore effective communication strategies and preferred channels of

communication.

I would like to invite international college students over the age of 18 to participate in this study.

If you agree to participate, we would set up a time to meet in-person for a focus group discussing

your thoughts on this research topic. Please note that you may choose to not answer questions

asked at any point.

If you have any questions about this research study or my identity as a graduate student at the

University of Florida before you make a decision about your participation in the study, you may

reach out to my thesis advisor Dr. Rita Linjuan Men at rlmen@jou.ufl.edu or contact me directly

at r.dean@ufl.edu.

Your willingness to participate in this study would make a great contribution to this research area

and to our understanding of international student engagement. I would gladly send you an

executive summary of the research findings at the conclusion of the study. Thank you so much

for your time and consideration. I look forward to speaking with you further.

Kind Regards,

Rachel Dean

Master’s Student

College of Journalism and Communications

University of Florida

100

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of this study: Examining the Impact of Dialogic Communication on Effective International

Student Engagement

Researchers: Rachel Dean, Dr. Rita Men

You are being asked to participate in a research study.

Before you agree to take part in this study, Rachel Dean will tell you:

Why the study is being done and what will happen to you if you take part in the study: The

study is being done to better understand which communication strategies and channels are

most effective in engaging international students. If you choose to take part in the study,

you will agree to participate in an interview that lasts for 1 hour. The interview will be a

semi-structured one-on-one conversation about your professional experience

communicating and engaging with international students. The study will uncover:

The importance of international student engagement and its impacts on the campus

culture

Knowledge of current strategies implemented to engage international students

Perceptions of the university’s successes or failures related to this research topic

Visions and future plans to increase international student engagement

Communication channels typically used to communicate with students

How long you will be in the study: 1 hour

How many people will be in the study: 39

The possible foreseeable risks, discomforts, and benefits of this research: no risks or

discomforts are expected. Benefits include: you will contribute to building the body of

knowledge of effective communication strategies and channels to engage international

students.

Alternatives to being in the study: You may want to consider getting involved in a

similar study in the future after additional research on what is involved or refer another

participant to the study.

How your study records will be maintained and who will have access: The researcher

will keep interview and focus group transcripts on a password safeguarded computer.

101

If it will cost you anything to take part in this study: No

Compensation: Participants will receive compensation after he or she has completed

participation in the study. The payment will be remitted immediately at the conclusion of

the interview.

When or if you may be told about new findings which may affect your willingness to keep

taking part in this study: Findings will be included in thesis paper which you would have

access to on the UF library reserves.

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be given a signed copy of this document.

Please review the attached Consent to be Audio Recorded and let me know if you have any

questions or concerns that should be addressed. Your name or personal information will not

be identified on the photograph(s), video or audio recordings, and confidentiality will be

strictly maintained. However, when these photograph(s), video and/ or audio recordings are

shown or heard, others may be able to identify you. The Principal Investigator (PI) of this

study, Rachel Dean, or her successor, will keep the audio recordings in a locked cabinet, in a

folder on a password protected computer server drive, or as an encrypted electronic file.

These audio recordings will be shown under her direction to students, researchers, doctors,

or other professionals and persons.

You may contact Rachel Dean at r.dean@ufl.edu at any time if you have questions about the

research or if you think that you have been hurt by the research.

You may contact the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida Health Science

Center at (352) 273-9600 if you have questions about your rights as a research subject or what to

do if you are injured.

You may choose not to be in this study or you may quit being in the study at any time and there

will be no penalty and no loss of any benefits you are entitled to.

Information collected about you will be stored in locked filing cabinets or in computers with

security passwords. Only certain people have the legal right to review these research records, and

they will protect the secrecy (confidentiality) of these records as much as the law allows. These

people include the researchers for this study, certain University of Florida officials, the hospital or

clinic (if any) involved in this research, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB; an IRB is a

group of people who are responsible for looking after the rights and welfare of people taking part

in research). Otherwise your research records will not be released without your permission unless

required by law or a court order.

Once this research study is completed, any information that could identify you might be removed

from any identifiable private information collected and that, after such removal, the information

could be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research

studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.

102

Researchers will take appropriate steps to protect any information they collect about you.

However there is a slight risk that information about you could be revealed inappropriately or

accidentally. Depending on the nature of the information such a release could upset or embarrass

you, or possibly even affect your insurability or employability.

If the results of this research are published or presented at scientific meetings, your identity will not

be disclosed.

Signing this document means that the research study, including the above information, has been

described to you orally and/or that you have read this document, and you voluntarily agree to

take part.

________________________________ ______________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

________________________________ ______________

Consent of Participant Date

103

Consent to be Photographed, Video and/or Audio Recorded

With your permission, you will have the following done during this research (check all that

apply):

photographed video recorded audio recorded

Your name or personal information will not be identified on the photograph(s), video or audio

recordings, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained. However, when these photograph(s),

video and/ or audio recordings are shown or heard, others may be able to identify you.

The Principal Investigator (PI) of this study, Rachel Dean, or her successor, will keep the audio

recordings in a locked cabinet, in a folder on a password protected computer server drive, or as

an encrypted electronic file. These audio recordings will be shown under her direction to

students, researchers, doctors, or other professionals and persons.

Please indicate under what conditions Rachel Dean has your permission to use the photograph(s),

video and/or audio recordings, and sign and date below.

The following will be destroyed once the study is closed (initial next to all that apply):

____ photograph(s) _____ video recording(s) _____ audio recording(s)

As described in the Informed Consent Form, and for the purposes of education at the

University of Florida Health Science Center. The PI may keep the following for an

indefinite period of time in a locked file, in a password protected computer server drive,

or as an encrypted electronic file (initial next to all that apply):

____ photograph(s) _____ video recording(s) _____ audio recording(s)

As described in the Informed Consent Form; for the purposes of education at the

University of Florida Health Science Center; and for presentations at scientific

meetings outside the University. The PI may keep the following for an indefinite

period of time in a locked file, in a password protected computer server drive, or as an

encrypted electronic file (initial next to all that apply):

____ photograph(s) _____ video recording(s) _____ audio recording(s)

Signature Date

104

APPENDIX C

FOCUS GROUP INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Title of this study: Examining the Impact of Dialogic Communication on Effective International

Student Engagement

Researchers: Rachel Dean, Dr. Rita Men

You are being asked to participate in a research study.

Before you agree to take part in this study, Rachel Dean will tell you:

Why the study is being done and what will happen to you if you take part in the study: The

study is being done to better understand which communication strategies and channels are

most effective in engaging international students. If you choose to take part in the study,

you will agree to participate in a focus group that lasts for 1 hour. The focus group will be a

guided discussion about your personal experiences as an international student in the United

States and preferred forms of communication from university officials.

The results will be used to better understand how to engage international students and to

determine the most effective communication strategies and channels for engagement.

Your perspective as an international student and can offer a unique perspective about

your personal and academic experience within a new university setting, country, and

culture.

How long you will be in the study: 1 hour

How many people will be in the study: 39

The possible foreseeable risks, discomforts, and benefits of this research: No risks or

discomforts are expected. Benefits include: you will contribute to building the body of

knowledge of effective communication strategies, tactics, and channels to engage

international students.

Alternatives to being in the study: You may want to consider getting involved in a

similar study in the future after additional research on what is involved or refer another

participant to the study.

How your study records will be maintained and who will have access: The researcher

will keep interview and focus group transcripts on a password safeguarded computer.

If it will cost you anything to take part in this study: no

105

Compensation: Participants will receive compensation after he or she has completed

participation in the study. The payment will be remitted immediately at the conclusion of

the focus group.

When or if you may be told about new findings which may affect your willingness to

keep taking part in this study: Findings will be included in thesis paper which you would

have access to on the UF library reserves.

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be given a signed copy of this document.

Please review the attached Consent to be Audio and Video Recorded and let me know if

you have any questions or concerns that should be addressed. Your name or personal

information will not be identified on the photograph(s), video or audio recordings, and

confidentiality will be strictly maintained. However, when these photograph(s), video

and/ or audio recordings are shown or heard, others may be able to identify you. The

Principal Investigator (PI) of this study, Rachel Dean, or her successor, will keep the

audio recordings in a locked cabinet, in a folder on a password protected computer server

drive, or as an encrypted electronic file. These audio recordings will be shown under her

direction to students, researchers, doctors, or other professionals and persons.

You may contact Rachel Dean at r.dean@ufl.edu at any time if you have questions about the

research or if you think that you have been hurt by the research.

You may contact the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida Health Science

Center at (352) 273-9600 if you have questions about your rights as a research subject or what to

do if you are injured.

You may choose not to be in this study or you may quit being in the study at any time and there

will be no penalty and no loss of any benefits you are entitled to.

Information collected about you will be stored in locked filing cabinets or in computers with

security passwords. Only certain people have the legal right to review these research records, and

they will protect the secrecy (confidentiality) of these records as much as the law allows. These

people include the researchers for this study, certain University of Florida officials, the hospital or

clinic (if any) involved in this research, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB; an IRB is a

group of people who are responsible for looking after the rights and welfare of people taking part

in research). Otherwise your research records will not be released without your permission unless

required by law or a court order.

Once this research study is completed, any information that could identify you might be removed

from any identifiable private information collected and that, after such removal, the information

could be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research

studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.

Researchers will take appropriate steps to protect any information they collect about you.

However there is a slight risk that information about you could be revealed inappropriately or

106

accidentally. Depending on the nature of the information such a release could upset or embarrass

you, or possibly even affect your insurability or employability.

If the results of this research are published or presented at scientific meetings, your identity will not

be disclosed.

Signing this document means that the research study, including the above information, has been

described to you orally and/or that you have read this document, and you voluntarily agree to

take part.

________________________________ ______________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

________________________________ ______________

Consent of Participant Date

107

Consent to be Photographed, Video and/or Audio Recorded

With your permission, you will have the following done during this research (check all that

apply):

photographed video recorded audio recorded

Your name or personal information will not be identified on the photograph(s), video or audio

recordings, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained. However, when these photograph(s),

video and/ or audio recordings are shown or heard, others may be able to identify you.

The Principal Investigator (PI) of this study, Rachel Dean, or her successor, will keep the audio

recordings in a locked cabinet, in a folder on a password protected computer server drive, or as

an encrypted electronic file. These audio recordings will be shown under her direction to

students, researchers, doctors, or other professionals and persons.

Please indicate under what conditions Rachel Dean has your permission to use the photograph(s),

video and/or audio recordings, and sign and date below.

The following will be destroyed once the study is closed (initial next to all that apply):

____ photograph(s) _____ video recording(s) _____ audio recording(s)

As described in the Informed Consent Form, and for the purposes of education at the

University of Florida Health Science Center. The PI may keep the following for an

indefinite period of time in a locked file, in a password protected computer server drive,

or as an encrypted electronic file (initial next to all that apply):

____ photograph(s) _____ video recording(s) _____ audio recording(s)

As described in the Informed Consent Form; for the purposes of education at the

University of Florida Health Science Center; and for presentations at scientific

meetings outside the University. The PI may keep the following for an indefinite

period of time in a locked file, in a password protected computer server drive, or as an

encrypted electronic file (initial next to all that apply):

____ photograph(s) _____ video recording(s) _____ audio recording(s)

Signature Date

108

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Name of Participant:

Title:

Date of Interview:

Time Started:

Time Stopped:

Greeting and Introduction:

Hello! Thank you for meeting with me to discuss your thoughts on international student

engagement.

Before we begin, please take a moment to review the confidentiality agreement that I sent via

email, which outlines the purpose of my study and states that our interview will be remain

confidential. Please let me know if you have any questions and if you agree to participate.

I will be asking you a series of questions, and I want you to feel as comfortable as possible. This

is an open and informal conversation so I am here to discuss your experiences regarding

international student engagement. Please note that in order to transcribe and analyze our

conversation, I will audiotape our entire interview.

Turn on audio recorder and begin questioning:

Opener Questions

Questions intended to gain context about the participant.

1. Please state your age, education, occupation, and how long you have worked in a higher

education setting.

2. How is international student engagement related to your role within the university?

Discussion Questions

The discussion will focus on participants’ experiences and perceptions of international student

engagement strategies implemented at the University of Florida and communication and

engagement plans for the future.

Uncover:

The importance of international student engagement and its impacts on the campus culture

Knowledge of current strategies implemented to engage international students

Perceptions of the university’s successes or failures related to this research topic

Visions and future plans to increase international student engagement

Communication channels typically used to communicate with students

109

Questions on effective communication strategies to engage international students (RQ1):

1. Tell me about your level of interaction with international students.

a. Where did you have this experience?

b. What did the student tell you or express to you about their experiences with any

of the following: American culture, UF culture, acculturation difficulties?

c. Did the student mention any struggles they were facing?

d. Did the student mention what has helped them to feel more comfortable at UF?

e. Have you heard of students getting involved on campus?

f. If interviewing a faculty member, ask whether students regularly participate in

class discussion.

2. Based on your own experiences and understandings, what does student engagement mean

to you?

3. Do you think communication is important when engaging international students? Please

explain.

a. Should communication to international students differ from communication to

domestic students?

4. What types of communication strategies do you think are the most effective in engaging

international students?

a. How do you think of the impact of the university’s open, honest, and transparent

climate on international student engagement?

b. To your knowledge, what university resources are offered to support and ease the

transition of international students to a new country and culture?

c. How can colleges and departments show international students that they are

valued and respected members of the campus community?

d. Do you think the university possesses a campus culture that is sensitive to the

needs of international students? Please explain with specific examples.

e. Do you think the university is empathetic to the unique challenges of international

students? Please explain with specific examples.

f. Please provide specific examples of how the university or your college and

department are engaging international students and the impact of these initiatives?

Questions on the preferred communication channels and tactics for engaging international

students (RQ2 & RQ3):

1. Specifically, what communication channels do you think are the most effective in

engaging students in general?

a. Do you think different channels should be used to engage domestic versus

international students?

b. What key purposes does each channel serve?

c. Please describe your experience and views on the use of social media in

engaging international students.

d. Do international students interact with their department on SNS accounts?

2. Tell me what your department or office is specifically doing to communicate with

and engage international students and how effective these initiatives are.

a. Outside of your department, to your knowledge, what is the university doing

from an organizational level to engage international students and help

110

acclimate them to the UF campus environment? How did you hear about

these efforts? Have you spoken with any international students about their

experiences with these efforts?

b. How does your department stay connected with international students?

c. Are there special events or programs targeted toward international students?

Questions on university efforts to improve engagement through communication (RQ3):

1. Are you aware of future initiatives within your department or at the university to

improve engagement of international students?

a. Do you think improvements should be made? If yes, how would you

recommend making these changes?

Questions on key campus stakeholders who engage international students (RQ4):

1. Who are the most influential university stakeholders involved in the engagement of

international students?

a. In your own words, why are these stakeholders most influential?

b. How can these stakeholders impact the experience and satisfaction of

international students?

c. What are your suggestions for these various stakeholder groups involved in the

engagement of international students?

2. Who are the most influential college and department stakeholders involved in the

engagement of international students?

a. In your own words, why are these stakeholders most influential?

b. How can these stakeholders impact the experience and satisfaction of

international students?

3. What actions can the university take to further enhance the success and engagement of

international students?

Probes

Be aware of non-verbal cues while you ask or state the following:

Could you please give me an example of what you are referring to?

Would you provide more information to further expand on your point?

Please elaborate on your thoughts and opinions.

Could you please explain what you mean?

Is there anything else you would like to add that we didn’t cover?

Closing

1. Do you have any additional information that you would like to share that we did not

cover about international student engagement?

2. May I contact you in the future with any additional follow-up questions? What would be

the best way to get in touch with you?

111

Again, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to meet with me. This conversation was

very helpful and allowed me to draw important insights from your opinions and experiences on

the topic of international student engagement.

112

APPENDIX E

FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL

Welcome and Guidelines:

Hello, my name is Rachel Dean, and I will be the moderator for today’s focus group. I

want to thank each of you for giving your time to participate in this research study. Your input is

very valuable and will allow me to gain varying or similar perspectives related to the research

topic. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers. Since we are recording this

conversation, please allow everyone to speak one person at a time so we can clearly understand

everyone’s point of view. You are here to provide your own personal insights and experiences so

please do not be influenced by varying points of view and offer your own unique perspective.

Please listen respectfully and do not interrupt anyone when sharing opinions. As the moderator, I

will guide the conversation, but ask that you each talk to each other and build off of one

another’s ideas and opinions.

Research topic:

The results will be used to better understand how to engage international students and to

determine the most effective communication strategies and channels for engagement.

You were selected because you are an international student and can offer a unique

perspective about your personal and academic experience within a new university setting,

country, and culture.

Introduction:

Let’s begin by introducing ourselves. Please go around the table and state your full name,

country of origin, academic degree in which you are currently enrolled, and how long you have

lived in the United States.

Introductory focus group questions:

1. Think about when you first arrived at the university- how did you feel? Have your

feelings shifted or changed over time?

2. What are some of the struggles or challenges that international students in particular

face? Please provide specific examples.

3. Did the university provide adequate resources to help you overcome these barriers? If

yes, please list resources that were provided to you.

4. Describe your level of belongingness at the university. For example, do you feel like you

are a part of the campus community? Do you feel like an “insider” or “outsider”?

5. How important do you think communication is for your experience at UF?

6. How do you prefer to receive communication from the following:

113

College departments: faculty, advisors, deans etc.

University administrators

International student center: insurance, visa requirements, immigration policies

What kind of information do you expect to receive from these parties? How do you think

the university, college, or department are doing in engaging you?

7. What channels of communication do you prefer when receiving information from the

university or your college department?

8. What channels of communication do you prefer when giving information to the

university or your college department?

9. Tell me about your experience with events and activities targeted at international students

at the department, college, and university levels.

10. Describe your involvement across campus. For example, involvement with student

organizations, campus programs, counseling center resources, research opportunities,

campus events, community activities, etc.

11. Describe your involvement within your specific college and department (including

faculty members and other domestic students). How does your involvement and

experiences within your department and college make you feel?

12. Who or what at the university has been the most instrumental in helping you acclimate to

a new environment? Tell me about a positive experience you’ve had.

13. How can the university improve communication to international students?

14. How can the university help you feel more engaged and connected to the university?

Ending Questions:

114

15. Suppose you were going to meet with the Chief Diversity Office of the university about

your experience as an international student. What is one positive and negative experience

that you would tell him/her?

16. Of all the things we’ve discussed, what is more important item that we should take away

from this conversation and why?

17. Is there anything we didn’t discuss that you feel like should be mentioned?

Closing:

Again, I want to thank each of you for your offering your time and sharing your unique

insights.

115

APPENDIX F

BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in this interview or focus group. Please answer the

below questions related to your background to further assist me in my research. Please note that

information provide is kept confidential.

Interview participants:

1. What is your age?

2. How many years have you worked in higher education?

3. How many years have you worked in public relations or communications, if applicable?

Focus group participants:

1. How many years have you lived in the United States?

2. What is your field of study?

3. Which country were you born in?

4. What is your gender?

5. Are you at least 18 years of age?

6. Please provide your phone number.

7. Please provide your email.

116

APPENDIX G

DRIVERS OF ENGAGEMENT

Figure G-1. Conceptual model of the impact of communication strategies, channels,

practices/tactics, and key stakeholders on international student engagement.

117

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ammigan, R. (2019). Institutional satisfaction and recommendation: What really matters to

international students? Journal of International Students, 9(1), 262-281.

doi:10.32674/jis.v9i1.260ojed.org/jis

Ammigan, R., & Laws, K. (2018). Communications preferences among international students:

Strategies for creating optimal engagement in programs and services. Journal of

International Students, 8(3), 1293-1315. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1254584

Anderson, N., & Svrluga, S. (2018). What’s the Trump effect on international enrollment?

Report finds new foreign students are dwindling. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-new-foreign-students-are-

dwindling-renewing-questions-about-possible-trump-effect-on-

enrollment/2018/11/12/7b1bac92-e68b-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html

Appleton, J., Christenson, S., Dongjin, K., & Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and

psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of

School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Arthur, N. (2017). Supporting international students through strengthening their social resources.

Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 887-894. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1293876

Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into

public relations theory. Public relations review, 39(5), 440-450.

Bansal, P., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative research.

Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189-1195. doi:10.5465/amj.2018.4004

Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and

relations. Social issues and policy review, 3(1), 141-177.

Baxter, L. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Sage Publications Inc.

Behl, M., Laux, J. M., Roseman, C. P., Tiamiyu, M., & Spann, S. (2017). Needs and

acculturative stress of international students in CACREP programs. Counselor Education &

Supervision, 56(4), 305-318. doi:10.1002/ceas.12087

Broom, G. M. (1997). Coorientational measurement of public issues. Public Relations Review.

3(4), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(77)80010-6

Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to

public relations. Journal of Business Communication. 34(2), 188-202.

118

Bowen, S. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: What should be its normative ethic?

13th International Public Relations Research Conference: Ethical Issues for Public

Relations Practice in a Multicultural World, Coral Gables, Florida (p. 62-79).

Buber, M., & Smith, R. G. (2002). Between man and man. Routledge.

Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (2002). Moments of meeting: Buber, Rogers, and the potential for

public dialogue. State University of New York Press.

Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J.M. (1968). Sensitization in panel design: A coorientational

experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 45(4), 661-669.

https://doi.org/10.1177/107769906804500406

Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and

counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2(1), 49-65. doi:10.1002/j.2161-

1882.1999.tb00142.x

Chen, C. C., Jones, K. T., & Xu, S. (2012). The communication methods of today's students.

CPA Journal, 82(11), 66-71.

Chang, C., & Pearman, C. (2018). Instant reminder: The impact of e-communication on first year

college students. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 42-

54.

Clark, C (1997). Misery and company: Sympathy in everyday Life. University of Chicago Press.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Inc.

Cowan, D. (2017). Strategic Internal Communication: How to Build Employee Engagement and

Performance. Kogan Page Publishers.

Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34-47.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial

behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.

Devin, B. L., & Lane, A. B. (2014). Communicating engagement in corporate social

responsibility: A meta-level construal of engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research,

26(5), 436-454. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.956104

Dhanesh, G. S. (2017). Putting engagement in its PRoper place: State of the field, definition and

model of engagement in public relations. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 925-933.

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001

DuBose, C. O. (2017). But I don't understand you: One faculty's observations of the challenges

facing international healthcare students. Journal of International Students, 7(1), 154-159.

119

Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational

communication. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 41-426.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306557

Ewing, M., Men, L. R., & O’Neil, J. (2019). Using social media to engage employees: Insights

from internal communication managers. International Journal of Strategic Communication,

13(2), 110-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1575830

Feng, Z. (2020, August 4). Being a Chinese student in the US: ‘Neither the US nor China wants

us’. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53573289

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder

Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press.

Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Sage Publications Inc.

Fritz, W., Mollenberg, A., & Chen, G. M. (2002). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different

cultural context. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11, 165-176.

Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2017). International students' engagement in their

university's social media: An exploratory study. International Journal of Educational

Management, 31(7), 1119-1134.

Geary, D. (2016). How do we get people to interact? International students and the American

experience. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 527-541.

Gregory, A. (2015). Practitioner-leaders’ representation of roles: The Melbourne

Mandate. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 598–606. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.030

Gillie, R. B., & Chen, G. (2019). The impact of social network sites on international student

adjustment on a US college campus. China Media Research, 15(1), 41-51.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of

Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter.

Glass, C. R., Kociolek, E., Wongtrirat, R., Lynch, R. J., & Cong, S. (2015). Uneven experiences:

The impact of student-faculty interactions on international students' sense of belonging.

Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353-367.

Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2000). Students’ use of power in the classroom : An investigation

of student power, teacher power, and teacher immediacy. Communication Quarterly,

48(3), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385598

120

Grapin, S. L., & Pereiras, M. I. (2019). Supporting diverse students and faculty in higher

education through multicultural organizational development. Training & Education in

Professional Psychology, 13(4), 307-315. https://doi-

org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/10.1037/tep0000226

Gordon, S. R., & Mwavita, M. (2018). Evaluating the international dimension in an

undergraduate curriculum by assessing students’ intercultural sensitivity. Studies in

Educational Evaluation, 59, 76-83.

https://doiorg.lphscl.ufl.edu/10.1016/j.studuc.2018.03.005

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. Jossey-Bass.

Ha, L., Joa, C., Gabay, I., & Kim, K. (2018). Does college students’ social media use affect

school e-mail avoidance and campus involvement? Internet Research, 28(1), 213-231.

doi:10.1108/IntR-11-2016-0346

Hagedorn, L. S., & Mi-Chung, L. (2005). International community college students: The

neglected minority? Online Submission.

Handcock, M. S., & Gile, K. J. (2011). Comment: On the concept of snowball

sampling. Sociological Methodology,41(1), 367-371.

Hong, S., & Yang, S. U. (2011). Public engagement in supportive communication behaviors

toward an organization: Effects of relational satisfaction and organizational reputation in

public relations management, Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(2), 191-217.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2011.555646

Hossler, D., & Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. The strategic

management of college enrollments, 147-169. Jossey-Bass.

Institute of International Education. (2018) International Student Enrollment Trends, 1948/49-

2017/18. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-

Doors/Data/International-Students/Enrollment

Jablin, F. (1978). Message-Response and “openness” in superior-subordinate communication.

Annals of the International Communication Association, 2(1), 293-309.

doi: 10.1080/23808985.1978.11923731

Jelen-Sanchez, A. (2017). Engagement in public relations discipline: Themes, theoretical

perspectives and methodological approaches. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 934-944.

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.002

Jin, L., & Schneider, J. (2019). Faculty views on international students: A survey study. Journal

of International Students, 9(1), 84-96. doi:10.32674/jis.v9i1.268ojed.org/jis

121

Johnson, K. A. (2014). Public relations and engagement: Theoretical imperatives of a

multidimensional concept. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 381-383.

doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.959863

Johnson, K. A., & Taylor, M. (2018). The Handbook of Communication Engagement. John

Wiley & Sons Inc.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi-

org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/10.2307/256287

Kahu, E. R. (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher

Education, 38 (5), 758-773. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505

Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its

influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5),

399-416. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.956107

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational

strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 11(2),

395-414.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations

Review, 28(1), 21-37. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X

Khanal, J., & Gaulee, U. (2019). Challenges of international students from pre-departure to post-

study: A literature review. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 560-581.

doi:10.32674/jis.v9i2.673

Kim, Y., Wang, Y., & Oh, J. (2016). Digital media use and social engagement: How social

media and smartphone use influence social activities of college students. CyberPsychology,

Behavior & Social Networking, 19(4), 264-269. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0408

Knapp, M. L., & Daly, J. A. (2011). The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication. Sage

Publications Inc.

Knight, J. (1993) Internationalization: management strategies and issues, International education

magazine, 9(6). 21-22.

Koseva, P. (2018). Internationalizing campus partners. Journal of International Students, 7(3),

876-892.

Li, L., & Peng, W. (2019). Transitioning through social media: International students' SNS use,

perceived social support, and acculturative stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 69-

79. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.011

122

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications Inc.

Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2013). Examining the educational benefits of interacting with

international students. Journal of International Students, 3(2), 85-101.

MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Burleson, B.R. (2011). Supportive Communication. Handbook of

interpersonal communication. 317-354.

Macnamara, J. (2016) Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory

and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3), 146-169.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2016.1228064

Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical leadership, and relations‐

oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader‐member exchange quality. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 561-577.

McFaul, S. (2016). International students' social network: Network mapping to gage friendship

formation and student engagement on campus. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 1-13.

Men, L. R., & Bowen, S. (2017). Excellence in Internal Communication Management. Business

Expert Press.

Men, L. R., Li, P., & Yue, C. A. (2019). An exploratory study of stewardship for Chinese

nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Marketing. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1655

Men, L. R., O’Neil, J., & Ewing, M. (2020). From the employee perspective: Organizations’

administration of internal social media and the relationship between social media

engagement and relationship cultivation. International Journal of Business

Communication. DOI: 10.1177/2329488420949968

Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal

communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 26(4), 301-324.

Men, L. R., Sung, Y., & Yue, C. (2019). Relational antecedents of employee engagement: A test

of the investment model predictions. Public Relations Journal, 12(3). Retrieved

from https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Relational-Antecedents-of-

Employee-Engagement-Manuscript-Final.pdf

Men, L. R., & Yue, C. A. (2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of internal

communication and impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public relations

review, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

123

Metro-Roland, M. (2018). Community, identity, and international student engagement. Journal

of International Students, 8(3), 1408-1421.

Montague, R. R. (2012). Genuine dialogue: Relational accounts of moments of meeting. Western

Journal of Communication, 76(4), 397-416.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2012.656214

Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 78(2), 137-144. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02571.x

Nardi, B. A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed

work, 83-112. The MIT Press.

Omar, F., Mahone, J. P., Ngobia, J., & FitzSimons, J. (2016). Building rapport between

international graduate students and their faculty advisors: Cross-cultural mentoring

relationships at the University of Guelph. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching

& Learning, 7(2), 2-17.

Open doors Fast Facts (2018). Top places of origin of international students, 2016/17. Retrieved

from https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/International-

Students/Places-of-Origin

Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual

framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-270.

https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5

Quaye, S. J., Harper, S. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2015). Student engagement in higher education:

Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.

Redden, E. (2020, May 26). A bleak picture for international enrollment. Inside Higher Ed.

Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/26/colleges-expect-few-

new-international-students-will-make-it-their-campuses-fall

Richmond, V. P., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Sociocommunicative style and sociocommunicative

orientation. Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Hampton Press.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the

assertiveness-responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports, 67(2), 449–450.

https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.67.6.449-450.

Rose-Redwood, C., & Rose-Redwood, R. (2018). Fostering successful integration and

engagement between domestic and international students on college and university

campuses. Journal of International Students, 8(3), 1267-1273. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1254578

124

Sadler, G. R., Lee, H. C., Lim, R. S. H., & Fullerton, J. (2010). Recruitment of hard‐to‐reach

population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nursing &

health sciences, 12(3), 369-374.

Sheldon, P. (2013). Voices that cannot be heard: Can shyness explain how we communicate on

Facebook versus face-to-face? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1402-1407.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.016

Shen, H., & Jiang, H. (2019). Engaged at work? An employee engagement model in public

relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 31(1-2), 32-49.

Stacks, D. W. (2011). Primer of public relations research. The Guilford Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Sage Publications Inc.

Sutherland, K., Davis, C., Terton, U., & Visser, I. (2018). University student social media use

and its influence on offline engagement in higher educational communities. Student

Success, 9(2), 13-24. doi:10.5204/ssj.v9i2.400

Swanson, J. A., Renes, S. L., & Strange, A. T. (2018). The communication preferences of

collegiate students. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Cognition &

Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, 86-93.

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384-398. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106

Thelen, P., & Men, L. R. (2018). Strategic use of Facebook for public engagement in higher

education institutions. Public Relations Journal. 12(2). 1-27.

Thomas, V. F., Ssendikaddiwa, J. M., Mroz, M., Lockyer, K., Kosarzova, K., & Hanna, C.

(2018). Leveraging common ground: Improving international and domestic students'

interaction through mutual engagement. Journal of International Students, 8(3), 1386-1397.

doi:10.5281/zenodo.1254599

Wekullo, C. (2019). International undergraduate student engagement: Implications for higher

education administrators. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 320-337.

doi:10.32674/jis.v9i1.257ojed.org/jis

Westmyer, S. A., & DiCioccio, R. L. (1998). Appropriateness and effectiveness of

communication channels in competent interpersonal communication. Journal of

Communication, 48(3). 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02758.x

Yan, Z., & Sendall, P. (2016). First year experience: How we can better assist first-year

international students in higher education. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 35-51.

125

Yang, S., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust:

Testing a scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC).

Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175-192.

doi:10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998

Yeomans, L. (2016). Imagining the lives of others: Empathy in public relations. Public Relations

Inquiry, 5(1), 71-92.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press.

Yoke, L. B. (2018). Interrelationship between perceived instructor power, student dissatisfaction,

and complaint behaviors in the context of higher education. International Education

Studies, 11(7), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n7p12

Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and

American student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of Higher

Education, 76(2), 209-231.

126

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Rachel Dean received her Master of Arts in Mass Communication with a specialization in

public relations and a Bachelor of Science in Telecommunication from the University of Florida.

Her research interest in student engagement within a higher education context stems from her

professional background working as an Academic Advisor, and her volunteer experience as an

English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. Prior to transitioning to higher education, Rachel

worked in television production and cable network advertising.