The content of higher education internationalization policy: stakeholders’ insight of internationalization of higher education

Received Nov 13, 2019 Revised Jan 29, 2020 Accepted Apr 4, 2020 The internationalization of higher education creates certain quality standards. All stakeholders must be involved and work together so that the internationalization of higher education can be successful. The purpose of this study is to analyze the implementation of higher education internationalization policy content from an internal stakeholder perspective. Policy content consists of the interests affected, the type of benefits, the target of change, the program implementer, the location of decision making, and resources. This study used a qualitative approach with case studies. The research site is Sebelas Maret University Surakarta. Data collection techniques are interviews and documentation. The data analysis technique is a thematic analysis. The validity of the data is done with credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The results show that (1) there is a conflict of interest between stakeholders in the implementation of internationalization in universities, (2) there are shortterm and long-term benefits of implementing internationalization of PT; (3) PT's internationalization change target is contained in the Business Plan; (4) The farther away the decision-maker is, the more hindering the internationalization of PT; (5) Implementers of the internationalization program are chosen based on consideration of study experience abroad; (6) PT's human resources, financial resources, and infrastructure are still limited in supporting internationalization.


INTRODUCTION
Internationalization of higher education is the process of integrating international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the function of education to improve the quality of education, research, and the contribution of both of them to the society [1]. Internationalization of higher education becomes an instrument and creates specific quality standards for all tertiary institutions which in turn creates world ranking organizations such as AUR, QS Star, WUR, Webometrics, etc [2]. At present, the main form of internationalization of higher education (both short and long term) is more on the number of international mobility activities such as exchange of students, staff, lecturers, researchers, double degrees, joint publications, etc. It is due to the shifting focus of institutions and governments that are more concerned with global ranking where the assessment is based on quantitative indicators. The global ranking is considered capable of stimulating competition and is a concrete result of internationalizatio [1,3] n.
Internationalization of higher education is an important thing to do at least for several reasons. First, the need to improve the quality, qualifications, and competencies of international human resources so that they can strengthen the pillars of the country's competitiveness [2,4]. Second, the need to create intellectual diversity as the implication of a pluralistic era in which individuals must be able to accept and adapt to face the world with different cultural backgrounds, customs, religion, and beliefs [4][5][6]. Third, internationalization can motivate individuals to compete [7].
Higher education in Indonesia is still considered unable to compete globally even with Asian countries, so the Government of Indonesia is taking steps to make universities in Indonesia a World Class University (WCU). The government targets to place Indonesian higher education ranked in the world's top 500. Based on the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education in 2015-2019 (KemenristekDikti), the government is targeting as many as 5 higher education to enter the world's top 500 ranking version of the QS World University Ranking in 2019. The problem is, although internationalization of higher education has been initiated in Indonesia since 2012 until now, universities still have difficulties to realize it. The target of Kemenristek Dikti to make universities included in the top 500 World-Class Universities is not easy to achieve, and until now there are only 3 universities in Indonesia included in the ranking, namely Universitas Indonesia (Rank 292), Bandung Institute of Technology (Rank 359) and Universities Gajah Mada (ranking 391) [8]. The target of Kemenristekdikti so that four Indonesian Universities in the world's top 500 in 2018 has not been achieved.
The government's target is followed by commitments from universities in Indonesia by internationalizing. Internationalization carried out by universities in Indonesia covers all aspects of academic activities including curriculum, international cooperation, teaching methods, student and lecturer exchanges [9]. Furthermore, higher education commitment is realized by encouraging internal stakeholders such as lecturers, students, and staff to carry out internationalization policies, namely building partnerships both domestically and abroad as well as international publications.
Castro [10]classify three different stakeholder groups which are relevant to the internationalization of higher education, namely government sector, education sector, and private sector. From the three stakeholder groups, Castro then rank stakeholders who play an important role in the internationalization of higher education. Castro divides the internationalization of higher education stakeholders into external key stakeholders, namely the government and internal key stakeholders who are actors in the institution. The ranking of internal key stakeholders is Rector/Director, International relations office/ individuals rensponsible for internationalization, faculty members, students,governing board members, and other administrative staff. Higher education stakeholders are defined as "individual or collective person with a legitimate interest in higher education that, as such, acquires the right to interact" [11]. Internationalization is a very complex process. The internationalization of higher education is driven by a combination of politics, economics, socio-culture, rational academics, and stakeholders making it complex [1]. Without stakeholders, the internationalization of higher education does not go well [12,13]. Stakeholders have a strong influence on increasing international levels and the perceived benefits of internalization policies for higher education [14]. However, not all stakeholders have the same understanding, views, and commitment to internationalization. Research on internationalization of higher education has been carried out, especially regarding strategy, challenges, and context. Each country has a different internationalization strategy depending on the local culture that it wants to maintain [15]. The challenges faced by higher education are mainly academic competencies, institutional commitment, less motivated internal staff, monistic dialogue, unwillingness to follow technological developments, and lack planning on resources [16,17]. While several studies on the context of internationalization conclude the size and population, language, culture, labor market, and political structure have an impact on the internationalization approach of a country's higher education [18,19].
In this research, the focus is on the content of the policy of internationalization of higher education which has not been done much. This article aims to look at the implementation of internationalization policy content from the perspective of internal stakeholders.The perspective of a stakeholder group can focus on interpreting and implementing the internationalization of higher education [19]. Policy content was adopted and developed from Grindle's theory.

RESEARCH METHOD
This research was descriptive qualitative. The research illustrated the policy content of internationalization of tertiary institutions from the perspective of internal stakeholder. The policy content that would be used to analyze included the interests that were affected, the types of benefits, the degree ISSN: 2089-9823  The content of higher education internationalization policy: stakeholders'… (Noni Srijati Kusumawati) 257 of change desired by the decision-maker, program implementers, and the resources involved [20]. Data collection was done by in-depth interviews based on stakeholder ranking conducted by Castro. Aside from the ranking, the selection of informants was also considered the most knowledgeable of internationalization of higher education at Universitas Sebelas Maret. Universitas Sebelas Maret Election as a case study of higher education internationalization policy because this university is included in cluster 1 in 2015 requested by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education to enter the world's top 500. This research was conducted in 2018. The informants in this study were first ranked based on Castro [10] namely Vice-Rector, second rank 2 was international office, and third rank 3 was faculty members in this case Person in Charge (PIC) internationalization at the faculty of Universitas Sebelas Maret. The selection of informants was because the PIC was the executor of the internationalization policy at the faculty level. Data would be analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is the process of identifying patterns or themes in qualitative data [21] or, according to Braun & Clarke [22], "involves the searching across a data set -be that a number of interviews or focus groups, or a range of texts-to find repeated patterns of meaning. " The six thematic steps of the analysis were adapted from Braun & Clarke, namely 1) transcribing the results of interviews, 2) making code, 3) looking for the right theme from the code that was created, 4) reviewing and linking themes, 5) setting global themes, 6) write down the results. The quality of qualitative research can be seen from trustworthiness [23,24]. According to Bryman [23], trustworthiness consists of four criteria, namely: 1) credibility, 2) transferability, 3) dependability, and 4) confirmability. The aspect analyzed from the policy content refer to Grindle's [20] opinion including: a. Affected interest. Affected interest is whether between policymakers and the target group have the same interests. Differences in interests can lead to conflict between stakeholders, especially stakeholders with a hierarchical position, namely between the rector, the dean, the PIC Internationalization, the head of the study program and the lecturer [25]. b. Type of benefit. What is meant by the type of benefit is whether the policy clearly shows its benefits to the target group. The type of benefit will be divided into short-term and long-term benefits. c. Extent of change envisioned. Policies must have a clear scale of change. d. The site of decision making. Who has the authority to make decisions? The more remote the decisionmaker is with the program implementers, the more difficult the policy will be implemented. e. Program implementers. Who is responsible for internationalizing higher education and how it is a dedication to the task. f.
The resources involved. Resources involved include human resouces, funds, and infrastructure. Institutions have adequate or limited resouces available.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grindle [20] said that the contents of the policy in addition to influencing the policy implementation process also showed the existence of certain interests. Affected interests are the result of parties who feel an interest in the policy so that they can influence policy implementation. The internationalization of higher education requires all parties to be involved. In this case, the government, Dean, Head of Study Program, PIC, and lecturers are stakeholders who have an interest in internationalization [26].
From interviews with informants, interesting information was found related to differences in interest between stakeholders. There are two interest groups. First, group with similar interest occur in the Rector-Dean-PIC. Secondly, groups with different interests occur at the Dean-Head of Study Program-PIC-Lecturer. The interest groups can be described as illustrated in Figure 1. How stakeholders view the content of internationalization of higher education can be seen in Table 1. The executors of the internationalization program at UNS are located in faculties starting from the Dean, PIC, and lecturers. Some program implementers in the faculties do not understand internationalization so they do not carry out these activities.

Human resources
The quality and quantity of actors still need to be improved, and the commitment and understanding of actors other than program implementers and policymakers have so far been considered to be inadequate because only 20% of staff understand internationalization. Funding resources Funding from universities is still limited, some programs are not covered but the faculty has the opportunity to look for other funding sources such as scholarships from collegiate universities Infrastructure Not all infrastructure is of an international standard. Supporting facilities continue to be improved to be of international standard.
According to informant, there was a conflict in the implementation of internationalization policies. The conflict originated from the lack of ability and differences in understanding from individuals who should have been frontmen in the implementation of internationalization. This then raises a number of disputes regarding the internationalization tasks carried out by the individual. In some faculties, PIC is a junior lecturer while the foremost is a senior lecturer. This then raises some disagreements.In addition, informant B also said that conflicts of interest occurred because individuals did not feel an interest in internationalization. The individual felt that internationalization was not useful. The individual prefers the situations and conditions that are normally faced and does not want to experience changes with internationalization. Individuals do not care and are less supportive of the internationalization of higher education. This is contrary to the interests of the Dean and PIC who want the internationalization to run in their faculties. Conflicts can indeed occur in the academic realm due to differences in understanding between universities and academics. In this case, not all academics agree on university policies in implementing the internationalization of tertiary institutions that affect their duties and interests. The background of the lecturer and the head of the study program can also influence how they assess the internationalization of higher education so that there are differences in interests [25].
While from the interview results, there was no conflict between the Dean and the PIC. Both the Dean and PIC are each responsible for implementing internationalization policies in the faculty so that they have the same goals. The Dean himself also has no conflict with the Rector as a policymaker. From 2015-2019, the Dean had a work contract with the Rector to meet the internationalization target at the faculty. Overall, stakeholders consider that there are still parties who have not been able to adjust to the internationalization of higher education. These parties can interfere with the course of internationalization at the university.
Another thing that is no less important is the benefits that will be felt by the target group. Internationalization can work well if the benefits contained in the policy are following the perceived target group. From the interviews, all informants said that internationalization felt benefits for all parties, there were no benefits that were only felt by certain groups. The benefits of internationalization can be felt both by universities, lecturers, students, and staff. Benefits that can be felt as examples are international reputation, opportunities to study abroad, building networks that can help both students and lecturers in the future. The benefits of internationalization policy are certainly very influential in universities.Perceived benefits can be divided into short-term and long-term benefits. Short-term benefits are usually benefits that are directly felt by stakeholders, namely remuneration, increasing the number of student exchanges, joint research. While longterm benefits are benefits that are not directly felt by stakeholders. This is why there are stakeholders who feel that internationalization has no benefit because it is not immediately felt. Long-term benefits such as having a ISSN: 2089-9823  The content of higher education internationalization policy: stakeholders'… (Noni Srijati Kusumawati) 259 network, graduates can work abroad, international reputation, citation, and an increase in university ranking.According to de Wit [1], reputation and ranking are the main drivers of university leaders and the government in carrying out internationalization programs. Both of these will encourage universities to increase resources, access, and equity to be more competitive in learning and research. Table 2 shows is an overview of the beneficiaries of internationalization of higher education, From the results of the interviews, the beneficiaries of internationalization can be divided into two, namely individuals and institutions. Individuals here are stakeholders while institutions are university. Lecturers feel the benefits of internationalization. If the benefits of internationalization are not felt by the target group in this case lecturers and students, of course the university is indirectly affected. Lecturers and students are the frontline in the academic field where if they benefit, the university will also benefit.
The third thing that needs to be considered in the success of internationalization policies is that the internationalization of higher education is expected to be able to provide meaningful changes for universities. These changes must have a clear scale in their assessment that is useful in conducting evaluations related to the internationalization of higher education in universities. The scale of the change becomes a performance indicator with targets that must be achieved by stakeholders. Especially now there are ranking organizations that have standards. In this case, universities target in 2030 to be able to enter the top 500 world rankings so performance indicators must be able to meet these long-term targets. The target is clearly stated in Rector's Regulation No. 8241 of 2015 concerning UNS Business Strategic Plan (RSB) in March 2015-2019 as a strategic goal for international reputation. The main target of universities is World Class University. In the RSB, there are key performance indicators that help academics and staff as guidelines in achieving the targets set by the university. It is also based on what are the institutional advantages so that the target can be achieved. Internationalization of higher education will succeed in institutions that have clear scales or targets and understand their advantages so they can be highlighted [27].
In addition, from the results of the interview, the informant also has a view regarding changes expected from internationalization such as creating a better climate or academic atmosphere, more networks are established with universities, and improvement in language skills. The academic atmosphere can be formed before or during the internationalization process. The weakness of higher education in Indonesia is the lack of academic and intellectual culture among lecturers, students, and staff so that with internationalization, it is expected to be able to change this [9]. The broad network will greatly benefit the future, not only for universities but also for lecturers, students, and staff. Internationalization is very helpful for developing inter-university networks.
It is hoped that the longer, the more intertwined and wider the network is established. Internationalization can also motivate lecturers and students to be more confident in languages. Internationalization inevitably forces lecturers and students to communicate with international languages both verbally and in writing so as to increase the confidence of lecturers and students so they are more willing to use international languages.
The location of the primary decision-maker is the Rector. The Rector plays a vital role in international cooperation that will be or is being built by the faculty. Faculties, as implementers, have the opportunity to be able to work with institutions abroad, but permanent decision-maker is at the Rector. The faculty has the task of seeking international cooperation which could help the university benefit. Even so, this collaboration is not just the quantity but also the quality. The Rector plays an essential role as a decision-maker because it is expected that the cooperation agreement is not only on paper but also forms of action. The problem is if the agreement is only to increase quantity, where the agreement is not continued or just passive. It must be admitted that internationalization activities cannot be separated from the Rector's decision. The Faculty does not yet have complete freedom in deciding on internationalization activities. It is consistent with information from informant E, In addition, the results of the interview also revealed that there was no clear position of the authorities in making decisions. Not all decisions can be made by the Dean himself but also must go through the International Office. This then creates confusion as to which portion of the decision can be determined only by the dean and which portion must go through the International Office to then be conveyed to the rector. Another obstacle is that the decision regarding internationalization is not only in the hands of the rector but also in the government. Based on UNS Rector Regulation number 30 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Overseas Travel Official Travel Licensing Services for Educators / Education Personnel and Students in the UNS Environment that foreign service permits are issued by the President through the Ministry of State secretariat. This means that stakeholders who have to travel to the country in the internationalization framework cannot immediately leave unless the permit has been issued. This is an obstacle because the time to apply for a permit is almost two months before departure, namely the application for a faculty permit to the university for 1 month and from the government for 3 weeks. In addition, the priority of the budget for the service must also be considered because of budget constraints.
Policies must be supported by competent and capable implementers for the success of the internationalization of higher education. The executors of the internationalization program are at the faculty level coordinated through the PIC internationalization in each faculty. Program implementers in the faculty are Dean, PIC and lecturers. The dean is the level of policymaker at the faculty but, is the implementing level at the tertiary level. The PIC is the person appointed by the university to represent each faculty providing information, coordination and is responsible for the implementation of internationalization in the faculty. Lecturers who serve as PIC are lecturers who graduated from abroad. This background selection is because it is considered to have a network with universities from abroad. Dean, PIC, and lecturers have an important role in the success of the internationalization of higher education. Even so, there are two responses from the internationalization of higher education, negative and positive. From the interviews, most of the informants stated that the program implementers, in this case, lecturers, were enthusiastic about higher education internationalization programs. This is because they realize that the internationalization of higher education is one way to further improve quality. To reach the international level, program implementers are required to have international standards which are certainly useful for the implementers themselves. However, unfortunately, the understanding of the internationalization of higher education is not yet comprehensive. Not all program implementers have the same vision and goals. The program implementer's understanding of internationalization policies has been partial. To make it easier for implementers to understand the international policy, the university breaks down the policy into small activities that are easily understood by the implementers. This causes what is understood by the implementer is limited to activities and not a process. As a result, non-innovative activities emerge. However, on the other hand, according to the university's planning and development team, this was enough to assist the implementers in achieving the targets in the form of internationalization activities.
A common problem with human resources is quality staff. From the interviews, there are still many obstacles complained about the ability of human resources in terms of language. Internationalization of higher education encourages stakeholders to be able to speak English before, not a few stakeholders increase the language limitations. This limitation can only affect certain stakeholders who are active in internationalization. While for the issue of funding, from the results of the interviews, the funds provided to the faculties for internationalization were still lacking. However, to support internationalization activities, funds from cooperation or funding are used. UNS's commitment to increasing the budget for research is not in doubt. Research as one of the outputs of internationalization policy is of concern to UNS. Since 2016, the university's research budget has increased from only 10% of the total budget to 15% specifically for research funding. The budget can be used by lecturers to conduct research. Regarding infrastructure, the informant also said that infrastructure was inadequate for internationalization. As an option for the internationalization of higher education, not only human resources must be improved, infrastructure must also be adjusted to international standards. This infrastructure does not only support academic facilities but also other supporting facilities. These supporting facilities need not be a priority often ignored.

CONCLUSION
Stakeholders, in general, do not reject the existence of internationalization policies. They accept and acknowledge that internationalization policies can benefit universities. Even so, the internationalization policy still has obstacles in its implementation in which of the six dimensions of content, not all dimensions run smoothly. Some stakeholders do not understand and do not want to cooperate in internationalization resulting in conflicts of interest, lack of dedication of program implementers in the internationalization of tertiary institutions, availability of good human resources, limited funds and infrastructure, a long time decisionmaking location. While the content dimensions that work well are the types of benefits felt by all stakeholders both short and long term as well as the scale of change that is clear. Therefore, the internationalization policy still needs to be socialized to the entire university academic community so that they can contribute voluntarily. The university must also pay attention to input or complaints from stakeholders, especially program implementing stakeholders in responding to internationalization policies. This research only involves internal stakeholders, future research can involve not only internal stakeholders but external stakeholders such as government and private sector that can influence higher education internationalization policies so that the information provided is more comprehensive.