There were two main reasons given in answer to the question: ‘why does this university recruit students globally?’ They were both given equal importance, overall, and were: diversification and revenue. Five interviewees mentioned both of these as being important and described why. One interviewee also said that ‘visa students’ helped the university meet its enrollment challenge.
When asked: ‘how is global recruitment carried out?’ most interviewees referred to the various offices and people with responsibility across the institution. The Director of International Market Development and the International Recruitment Office, within his
portfolio, were often mentioned as were the Admissions Department, the Office of Liaison and Recruitment, Domestic Liaison Officers and some Deans. There was a consistency across responses that appeared to indicate that all interviewees were clear on who did what in this regard, although it seemed fairly complex in its organisation, across several different teams. One of the two Deans interviewed mentioned that graduate recruitment was done by faculty and both Deans mentioned that recruitment was also done at
program level. Three interviewees mentioned the importance of marketing in recruitment and word of mouth was acknowledged as an important part of Brock’s marketing.
Interviewees described the university’s strategic goals for global recruitment differently, depending on their role and perspective. All interviewees, apart from the two Deans, agreed that global student recruitment was given direction by the AVP Student Services and being led in an operational sense by the Director of International Market
Development. The two Deans considered that each program led its own global student recruitment.
There were different trends reported by the interviewees with regards to their perception of global recruitment. Five mentioned students coming from China as a trend, three mentioned India and South America and two mentioned Russia and the Caribbean. Bermuda, the US, the Middle East, Japan and Vietnam were also mentioned as countries who were ‘exporting’ students to Brock. The impression given, was that Brock was being more strategic now, than previously, in its approach to global recruitment and that it was striving for diversification of global students. Increased competition to recruit global students was also mentioned as a trend.
Four interviewees mentioned the desire to have a diversified student body as one of the reasons for the trend in global recruitment. Other reasons included: the danger of being too reliant on one market; the need to meet targets, revenue, government-led initiatives; the economy in ‘exporting’ countries and the work of individuals at Brock.
There were many enablers articulated for global recruitment including: faculty champions and faculty’s accessibility on campus; Brock’s location and its marketing both individually and in partnership with the colleges locally; Brock’s reputation and stature internationally; its identified target markets, Brock’s active alumni; the conditional entry route and the clear process that supported applicants; the range of services to support international students and an office dedicated to their recruitment.
Barriers cited to global recruitment of students were mainly concerned with Brock’s lack of recognition in the global context. Unlike the larger, more prestigious Canadian
approach across Canada, or Ontario. The provincial government was also mentioned as a barrier, although it was noted that this had started to improve. Another barrier mentioned, also government related, was that international students were only issued temporary visas with a two-year duration. This was an issue in some professional programs which required 30 months of work experience before professional status was awarded. International students’ poor English language skills were mentioned by a few interviewees as a barrier as were Brock’s decentralised model, funds and physical space at the campus.
With respect to where the power lies regarding global recruitment of students, there were a variety of responses which indicated a lack of consensus of opinion. Three of the seven interviewees said that it was in the Associate VP Student Services arena. Of the
remaining four interviewees one said the question was too hard to answer as it was not straight forward, one said that Senate shared the power with the President/VP Academic, one said it was devolved to Deans and the final response indicated a wide dispersal of power. This is indicative of a complicated set up.
When asked: ‘how global is the staff population at the university?’ only two interviewees put a figure on it and both said 10-20% of staff and faculty were from places other than Canada. Two interviewees were unable to answer the question and a third said it was not very global. The other two interviewees pointed out that some Faculties were more global than others.
When asked if the global staff population was changing there was an overall sense that for faculty it was but that for staff it was not.
The barriers cited for global staff recruitment were mainly concerned with Brock’s reputation and the ‘package’ (including salary) that it was able to offer to new faculty, compared with other universities, especially those in the US. In the Faculty of Education the professional teacher program was, of course, using the ethical and professional standards within the Ontario College of Teachers. As there was not a national curriculum across Canada, the provincial nature of the curriculum here creates another barrier to globalisation.
With respect to how regional and local constituents respond to the university's global recruitment there was an over-riding view that the university was supported regionally and locally. Only one interviewee mentioned that there could be negative reactions to global students.
When asked if the university provides sufficient emphasis to the local and regional markets all interviewees were sure that it did.