From Barriers to Engagement: Faculty Participation in Internationalization and the Role of Digital Competences and Institutional Support in a Mexican University

From Barriers to Engagement: Faculty Participation in Internationalization and the Role of Digital Competences and Institutional Support in a Mexican University | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article From Barriers to Engagement: Faculty Participation in Internationalization and the Role of Digital Competences and Institutional Support in a Mexican University Zoraima Barajas Zuñiga, Karla Aviña Marín, Alberto Ramirez Martinell, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7723268/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study analyzes the factors that foster faculty participation in internationalization processes at a private university in Mexico, highlighting the role of digital competences and institutional support. Using a mixed-methods design, 303 faculty members responded to a questionnaire combining Likert-scale and open-ended questions. Quantitative analysis included ANOVA, regression, and decision tree modeling, while qualitative data were thematically coded. Findings reveal that access to academic networks, professional motivation, and perceived benefits are key drivers of international engagement. While digital competences are present, their impact is amplified when combined with institutional strategies for training, guidance, and recognition. The study underscores the value of creating environments that strengthen international academic collaboration through inclusive approaches. It recommends expanding opportunities for faculty across all contract types, incorporating flexible training and recognition mechanisms that contribute to building a global-minded institutional culture. digital competences faculty engagement internationalization higher education educational innovation Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction In the face of profound structural transformations that characterize the contemporary landscape, marked by economic interdependence and the transnational circulation of knowledge, higher education institutions have been compelled to rethink professional education beyond strictly local frameworks (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The empirical and theoretical challenges confronting contemporary societies do not remain confined within national borders; rather, they emerge within complex networks of production, exchange, and inequality. Consequently, the internationalization of higher education has evolved from a secondary strategy to a central and transversal dimension of university curricula, essential for the development of ethical global citizenship (de Wit, 2020). Historically, internationalization policies have relied on highly visible and quantifiable mechanisms, with the physical mobility of students and faculty serving as the hegemonic indicator of institutional success. However, accumulated evidence over recent decades suggests that this approach presents significant limitations (de Wit, 2020; Knight, 2011; Leask, 2015). Contemporary educational research indicates that the mere experience of geographical immersion in another country does not automatically guarantee deep transforma tions in individuals’ intercultural perspectives. Meaningful global learning requires intentional pedagogical mediation and structured spaces for reflection (Deardorff, 2006; Vande Berg et al., 2012). In response to the limitations of equity and scope associated with physical mobility, the paradigm of “internationalization at home” has gained increasing relevance (Beelen & Jones, 2015). This approach is not conceived as a deficient substitute for international travel, but rather as a proactive strategy designed to democratize global learning by integrating international and intercultural dimensions into the everyday educational experiences of all students within their own campus (Leask, 2015). Through virtual exchange experiences, such as Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), students analyze shared challenges and confront diverse perspectives without leaving their classroom (O'Dowd, 2018). Nevertheless, the operationalization of this paradigm requires a profound reconceptualization of teaching practice, demanding techno-pedagogical competences that go beyond the instrumental use of digital platforms (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Despite the broad discursive consensus regarding the importance of internationalizing the curriculum, its empirical integration into classrooms does not occur naturally or uniformly. This divergence is particularly acute in the Latin American context. Unlike other regions characterized by structured and funded supranational integration processes, international initiatives in Latin America operate within a highly fragmented ecosystem (Gacel-Ávila, 2011). In Mexico, institutional participation reflects significant structural gaps conditioned by asymmetries in technological infrastructure, faculty employment models, and operational budgets (Bustos-Aguirre & Vega, 2021). These inequalities suggest that the capacity to sustain internationalization strategies directly within the micro-space of the classroom faces particular systemic barriers. This problem highlights a fundamental premise: the macro-policy of university internationalization materializes, or dissolves, in the everyday pedagogical decisions made by faculty members. Faculty serve as the key agents responsible for introducing comparative frameworks and guiding students toward understanding global interconnections (Friesen, 2013). To understand this agency, the present study adopts Activity Theory as its primary analytical lens (Engeström, 1987, 2001). From this perspective, teaching practice constitutes a situated activity embedded within a structurally organized system. The subject (the teacher) directs their action toward student learning, mediated by symbolic and material tools (such as proficiency in a second language). At the same time, this activity is conditioned by an institutional community that establishes formal rules and organizes a specific division of labor (Cole, 1996). When normative expectations of internationalization do not correspond with material conditions, such as the prevalence of part-time teaching contracts, systemic contradictions emerge. These tensions inevitably affect the affective dimension of teaching practice. Innovating in the curriculum entails a degree of uncertainty that requires high perceived self-efficacy; without the belief in one’s capacity to organize and execute courses of action (Bandura, 1997), institutional expectations may translate into passive resistance or anxiety. To broaden the explanatory scope of the system, it is also necessary to incorporate the concept of Social Capital. In the academic sphere, this capital consists of networks of stable relationships and resources mobilized through professional ties (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 2001). The availability of relational resources allows internationalization to emerge as a natural expansion of teaching practice. By drawing on transnational networks, faculty gain access to diverse pedagogical approaches, with such networks functioning as a critical vehicle for the continuous development of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006). Given this theoretical framework, it becomes methodologically risky to assume that institutional mandates affect all faculty members in the same way. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to examine the systemic, relational, and individual factors that influence faculty participation in internationalization processes within a private Mexican university. Specifically, the study seeks to disentangle how perceptions of institutional support, social capital, mediating tools, and self-efficacy interact to predict two distinct dimensions of engagement: general institutional participation and the effective integration of international content in the classroom. By focusing on these interactive dynamics, the study aims to provide empirical evidence that can guide the design of more equitable, sustainable internationalization strategies grounded in the realities of academic work in Latin America. 2. Activity Theory and Social Capital: A Conceptual Articulation Understanding faculty participation in internationalization processes requires moving beyond individualistic approaches that reduce academic engagement to a matter of personal willingness, disposition, or administrative mandate. Curricular innovation, understood as the integration of global perspectives into classroom practice, is a deeply situated phenomenon mediated by institutional structures, relational networks, and cultural artifacts. In order to capture this complexity and avoid simplistic determinisms, the present research articulates Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987, 2015) as its primary analytical framework, complemented synergistically by the sociological perspective of Social Capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 2001). Activity Theory, rooted in the cultural-historical psychology of Vygotsky (1978) and systematically expanded by Engeström (1987), posits that human action cannot be understood in isolation but rather as part of a collective, historically situated, and structurally organized system. From this perspective, teaching practice oriented toward internationalization is not merely a set of individual actions but constitutes a comprehensive activity system. Within the architecture of this model, faculty members function as the subject, whose work is directed toward a central object: the teaching-learning process and, ultimately, student development. However, a fundamental premise of this theory is that the relationship between subject and object is never direct; it is inherently mediated by tools, understood as symbolic and material artifacts. In the specific context of curriculum internationalization, these mediating tools primarily include techno-pedagogical competences namely, the ability to orchestrate transnational virtual learning environments, and proficiency in a second language (Cole, 1996; Leask, 2015). Without the appropriation of these mediating tools, meaningful intercultural interaction in the classroom becomes operationally unattainable, reducing internationalization to a purely discursive aspiration. At the same time, activity acquires its social dimension by unfolding within a community, typically represented by the academic department or the university as a whole. This community shapes and conditions the subject’s actions through two critical structural nodes: rules and the division of labor (Engeström, 2001). Rules encompass both explicit internationalization policies, such as administrative procedures, institutional agreements, and centralized support mechanisms, and the implicit norms embedded within academic culture. The division of labor, in turn, determines how responsibilities, authority, status, and time allocation are distributed within the institution. In the Latin American university context, this division often materializes in significant structural disparities, particularly between full-time faculty and those hired on a part-time or adjunct basis, who frequently face limitations in planning time and institutional resources (Bustos-Aguirre, 2021). A central methodological axiom of Activity Theory is that activity systems are neither static nor inherently harmonious; rather, they are dynamic entities that evolve through the emergence and resolution of internal contradictions (Engeström, 2015). These systemic tensions arise when the demands of one node conflict with the limitations of another. For example, a common contradiction emerges when institutional rules, such as the normative expectation to internationalize course content, come into tension with a restrictive division of labor, where instructors face heavy teaching loads and lack compensated time for international instructional design. Another frequent contradiction occurs when institutions encourage participation but the subject lacks the necessary mediating tools, such as sufficient proficiency in English, creating a functional blockage within the system (Friesen, 2013). From this theoretical perspective, faculty inactivity or limited participation should not be interpreted as individual apathy, but rather as the manifestation of unresolved systemic contradictions between macro-level policy expectations and the practical conditions of academic work. While Activity Theory provides a robust framework for analyzing the internal structure and tensions of the institutional system, internationalization by definition requires the local system to establish connections beyond its boundaries. To explain how faculty members overcome internal barriers and establish global collaborations, the present analytical framework incorporates the concept of Social Capital. From Bourdieu’s (1986) sociological perspective, social capital refers to the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to the possession of durable networks of relationships characterized by mutual recognition. Lin (2001) later operationalized this concept by proposing that individuals intentionally invest in social relationships in order to access resources embedded within their networks, which can then be mobilized to facilitate specific actions. In the context of higher education, a faculty member’s social capital consists of the network of transnational academic relationships accumulated throughout their professional trajectory—through conference participation, research collaborations, and disciplinary communities. The distribution of this capital is highly uneven. Faculty members possessing robust social capital have access to a repertoire of actions that extend beyond the institutional boundaries of their campus. The literature suggests that these individuals may bypass formal bureaucratic channels within their institutions (the rules node) and establish direct collaborative arrangements for their classrooms based on pre-existing trust and reciprocity with international colleagues (Coleman, 1988). In this way, social capital functions not merely as a logistical complement but as a critical compensatory resource that allows the subject to overcome inefficiencies, rigidity, or the absence of institutional support mechanisms within their activity system. The synergistic interaction between the resolution of structural contradictions and the mobilization of social capital ultimately leads to what Engeström (2001) conceptualizes as expansive learning. In this process, actors reorganize the components of their activity system in order to elevate their practice to a qualitatively more complex level. Within the empirical scope of this study, expansive learning materializes through the internationalization of the curriculum (Leask, 2015). When faculty members successfully integrate global perspectives into their teaching practice, pedagogy moves beyond the transmission of locally bounded content. By leveraging academic networks (social capital) and employing effective techno-pedagogical tools, faculty act as structural mediators who enable students to cross cognitive and cultural boundaries. The activity system thus expands, and internationalization ceases to function merely as an administrative indicator, becoming instead a vehicle for intellectual transformation within the classroom. 3. Methodology The study was developed under a Convergent Mixed Methods Design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This methodological approach is characterized by the simultaneous collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, to which equal weight is given throughout the study (QUAN + QUAL). The choice of this design responds to the need to obtain a comprehensive and multi-factorial understanding of the phenomenon of faculty internationalization. While the quantitative aspect allowed for the identification of the magnitude, direction, and significance of the predictor factors affecting teaching practice, the qualitative aspect provided the necessary contextual depth to understand the motivations, barriers, and subjective experiences of the faculty. In this concurrent design, both databases were collected independently but complementarily in a single temporal phase, converging methodologically until the result interpretation stage. The study population consisted of the active faculty staff of a private university located in Mexico City. Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was employed, inviting the entire academic community to participate through institutional communication channels. The final analyzed sample consisted of 303 faculty members ( n = 303). It is methodologically important to specify that, prior to the official data collection, a pilot test was conducted with 25 professors; data corresponding to these 25 subjects were excluded from the final database to avoid any risk of contamination or habituation bias. The final collection reported a non-response rate of 85%, which constitutes an inherent limitation of the study that must be declared. In terms of statistical inference, a self-selection bias is recognized: the final sample is predominantly representative of that sector of the faculty that already possesses a baseline level of interest, agency, or peripheral involvement in internationalization policies. Consequently, the identified population parameters and analytical trajectories should be interpreted as the behavior of "active" faculty within the university ecosystem, limiting their absolute generalization toward the faculty sector in a state of total apathy or disconnection. For data collection, a hybrid ad hoc questionnaire was designed, consisting of 45 items that integrated five-point Likert scales, dichotomous items, and open-ended questions. The instrument's design was structured deductively, mapping its sections according to the theoretical dimensions of Activity Theory and Social Capital. The study variables were operationalized as follows: Dependent Variables (Outcome variables) Two distinct levels of engagement were assessed: General Institutional Participation, which measured involvement in normative activities such as attendance at institutional forums and awareness of international agreements. Integration of International Content in the Classroom, which evaluated, through self-report, the frequency with which faculty modify their curriculum to incorporate global perspectives (e.g., virtual collaborative projects, international case studies). Independent Variables (Predictors) Mediating Tools: Techno-pedagogical competences were measured through a Likert-scale instrument (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) assessing self-perceived efficacy in the use of digital technologies for international teaching. Second language proficiency was measured through categorical items regarding fluency and certification. Rules and Division of Labor: Perceived Institutional Support was measured through a Likert scale evaluating the clarity of procedures, communication effectiveness, and the administrative support provided by the Internationalization Office. Workload was captured as an ordinal variable associated with employment status (full-time vs. adjunct faculty). Social Capital: Membership in pre-existing academic networks was assessed through dichotomous items and open-ended questions exploring the consolidation of transnational professional relationships. Individual Dimension: Self-efficacy and affective disposition were measured through Likert-scale items focused on personal confidence when engaging in pedagogical innovation and perceived levels of anxiety in response to internationalization demands. The dependent variable, Integration of International Content in the Classroom, was constructed as a composite index averaging three self-reported indicators: (a) the frequency of using global teaching methodologies, (b) the incorporation of updated international literature, and (c) participation in virtual collaborative projects with foreign peers. All items were standardized prior to aggregation to ensure internal consistency. To ensure psychometric rigor, the instrument underwent a content validation process through expert review. A panel composed of specialists in educational innovation, research methodology, and internationalization management evaluated the clarity, relevance, and sufficiency of the items, leading to revisions of ambiguous questions identified during the pilot phase. Subsequently, to assess the internal consistency of the quantitative scales, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were calculated. The main dimensions of the instrument exceeded the commonly accepted reliability threshold (α > 0.70), confirming the internal consistency of the scales and supporting their use in inferential analysis. The final questionnaire was digitized and distributed through an institutional survey platform. The first section of the instrument presented an informed consent form, detailing the research objectives, the voluntary nature of participation, and strict guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity. Data collection took place over a four-week period, after which the dataset underwent cleaning procedures, including the removal of incomplete responses and atypical response patterns. Data processing was conducted through two parallel analytical strands. Quantitative Analysis: Numerical data were processed using specialized statistical software. After conducting descriptive analyses of frequencies and central tendency measures, the statistical assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and absence of multicollinearity were verified. To address the research questions, a Multiple Linear Regression model was implemented in order to identify the specific weight, explained variance, and statistical significance (p < 0.05) of the predictors operating independently on the dependent variable. Additionally, in order to capture the interactive and non-linear nature of socio-demographic and institutional variables, a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model was developed. It is important to note that the algorithm produced a Cohen’s Kappa index of 0.23, indicating a minimal to acceptable level of predictive agreement. Consequently, the branches of this model were not interpreted as causal determinants but were used strictly as heuristic patterns to visually map faculty profiles, trajectories, and systemic bottlenecks. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to open-ended questions formed a textual corpus that was analyzed through a Hybrid Thematic Analysis based on a codebook approach (MacQueen et al., 1998; Roberts et al., 2019). This methodological approach was selected for its structured rigor. The process began with a deductive phase, applying a predefined codebook aligned with the constructs of institutional support, mediating tools, and social capital. During this phase, independent double coding was conducted on a subsample of the corpus, producing a Cohen’s Kappa index of 0.81 for inter-coder agreement. This statistic functioned strictly as a technical control of consistency and structural reliability. Once the stability of the deductive coding framework was confirmed, the analysis proceeded to an inductive phase, allowing the organic emergence of themes and subthemes not initially anticipated in the codebook (for example, specific affective tensions related to internationalization practices). Consistent with the convergent design adopted in this study, the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings did not occur during data collection or through the transformation of variables, but rather during the interpretative phase. A methodological triangulation strategy was implemented, in which statistical patterns, such as significant correlations or the unexpected lack of significance of institutional support, were contrasted with themes extracted from the textual analysis. This interpretive convergence allowed the statistical data to establish “what” and “how much” of the phenomenon, while the qualitative narratives helped explain “how” and “why” these dynamics occur within the everyday practice of faculty internationalization. 4. Results In accordance with the Convergent Mixed Methods Design adopted in this study, statistical findings and themes derived from the qualitative analysis are presented in an integrated manner. The triangulation of these sources allows this section to be structured into four analytical axes: the descriptive report of the institutional conditions of the sample, the identification of individual predictors through Multiple Linear Regression, the exploration of complex interactions using a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model, and finally the examination of faculty perceptions regarding the impact of internationalization practices in the classroom. The CART model was employed as an exploratory tool to visualize interaction patterns between predictors. Given the modest predictive performance (Cohen’s κ = 0.23), the resulting branches were interpreted as heuristic participation profiles rather than deterministic classifications The descriptive statistical analysis of the sample (n = 303) reveals important asymmetries in the division of labor within the institution, which constitute the baseline context for internationalization processes. Data indicate that 67.3% of surveyed faculty members are employed under an adjunct or part-time contract, compared with 31.7% full-time faculty members. Mean comparison tests confirm that full-time faculty report statistically higher frequencies of participation in all forms of internationalization activities compared to adjunct faculty, suggesting that the availability of compensated planning time constitutes a primary restrictive factor. Regarding the dimension of institutional rules and communication, 56% of surveyed faculty members reported being unaware of the existence of the Internationalization Office or the specific processes associated with its services, including calls for participation, funding opportunities, and pedagogical advisory support. This quantitative finding converges consistently with codes derived from the qualitative analysis, where multiple narratives pointed toward fragmented institutional communication. One part-time participant explained: “I learned about international programs and collaborative methodologies through a colleague in the hallway, not through the communication channels of my department or coordination”. The descriptive characteristics of the sample and the main variables analyzed are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the main study variables Variable Mean SD Min Max Integration of International Content (DV) 2.84 0.92 1.00 5.00 Academic networks 2.61 1.14 1.00 5.00 Language proficiency 3.15 1.08 1.00 5.00 Self-efficacy 3.42 0.85 1.25 5.00 With respect to individual resources categorized as mediating tools, a measurable discrepancy was observed between perceived competence and formal validation. While 69% of faculty members perceive themselves as sufficiently fluent to function effectively in academic contexts using a second language (predominantly English), only 40% hold a formal certification validating this proficiency. Furthermore, although levels of self-efficacy regarding the instrumental use of technology are relatively high, qualitative narratives suggest that a gap persists when technology must be applied pedagogically to mediate transnational learning environments, particularly in the instructional design of COIL projects. To evaluate which variables, exert the strongest predictive weight on the effective modification of teaching practice, a Multiple Linear Regression model was conducted. For this model, the dependent variable, “Integration of international content in the classroom”, was constructed as a continuous composite index averaging self-reported frequency of the use of global teaching methodologies, the inclusion of updated international literature, and participation in virtual collaborative projects with foreign peers. The assumptions of linear regression were tested prior to model estimation. Residual plots confirmed homoscedasticity, the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated approximate normality of residuals, and variance inflation factors (VIF < 2.5) confirmed the absence of multicollinearity among predictors. The results of the multiple linear regression model, which identifies the predictors for the integration of international content in the classroom, are presented in Table 2. To illustrate the relationship between relational resources and pedagogical internationalization, Figure 1 presents the bivariate association between academic networks and the integration of international content in the classroom. The positive slope suggests that faculty members with stronger academic networks tend to report higher levels of curricular internationalization, reinforcing the importance of social capital as a facilitating mechanism. Before interpretation, statistical assumptions of the model were verified, confirming the normality of residuals and the absence of severe multicollinearity (VIF < 2.5 for all predictors included in the model). Table 2. Multiple Linear Regression Results for the Variable “Integration of International Content in the Classroom” (n = 303) Predictor Standardized Beta Standard Error t value p value Prior academic network 0.415 0.072 5.61 < 0.001* Language proficiency 0.342 0.068 4.82 < 0.001* Affective disposition / Self-efficacy 0.210 0.055 2.88 0.004* Techno-pedagogical competences 0.185 0.049 2.45 0.015* Perceived institutional support 0.021 0.063 0.33 0.740 Note. Adjusted R² = 0.46, F(5, 297) = 32.4, p < .001. *p < .05. The adjusted model explained 46% of the total variance (R² = 0.46) in the level of integration of international content. The analysis of coefficients reveals a central statistical pattern for this study: Perceived Institutional Support was not a statistically significant predictor for this specific dependent variable (p = 0.740). In contrast, the predictors with the greatest explanatory power correspond to the individual and relational resources developed by faculty members, particularly prior transnational academic networks (β = 0.415) and self-reported language proficiency (β = 0.342). These patterns empirically suggest that the concrete integration of international perspectives within the autonomous space of the classroom depends more strongly on faculty social capital and mediating competences than on formal institutional structures. This statistical tendency is strongly reinforced by the qualitative thematic analysis. Faculty members who scored highly on the integration index frequently reported that their innovations emerged from interpersonal interactions. As one representative informant explained: “The collaborative projects I implement with my students originated from foreign colleagues I met at a conference years ago. Because we both speak English fluently and maintain that network, the activity can take place without depending on lengthy administrative procedures.” Recognizing that variables in educational contexts rarely operate in isolation or in strictly linear ways, the regression analysis was complemented with a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model. The resulting tree produced a Cohen’s Kappa index of 0.23, which according to conventional criteria (Landis & Koch, 1977) indicates a minimal to acceptable level of agreement. Consequently, the branches of this model are not interpreted as deterministic causal predictors but rather as heuristic interaction patterns. Based on the hierarchical structure of the CART model and its triangulation with themes derived from the qualitative corpus, four faculty participation profiles were identified: Profile A: Network-driven agency This profile includes faculty members who demonstrate high levels of sustained internationalization practices. Statistically, they are characterized by strong prior academic networks and high language proficiency despite reporting low levels of perceived institutional support. Qualitative data suggest that, for this group, social capital functions as a compensatory resource that enables them to bypass bureaucratic obstacles. Profile B: Peripheral participation This segment includes faculty members who possess some degree of social capital but face constraining interactions such as heavy teaching workloads and limited institutional awareness. Their level of classroom integration is occasional or sporadic. Narratives indicate that the lack of compensated time prevents them from formalizing their initiatives: “Sometimes I invite colleagues from abroad to give a talk via Zoom, but I cannot structure it as a semester-long project because my teaching load simply leaves me no room to breathe.” Profile C: Structural conditioning Located in the intermediate branches of the tree, this profile describes faculty members who report high levels of perceived institutional support and awareness of internationalization policies but lack strong personal networks and show low self-efficacy in language or technological use. In these cases, participation is guided and highly dependent on official institutional calls. Qualitative narratives reveal feelings of insecurity: “I know the office is there and they are supportive, but without my own contacts and without confidence in my English, applying it in my courses generates a lot of anxiety.” Profile D: Restricted participation This profile corresponds to the lowest node of the tree and is composed primarily of adjunct faculty. It is characterized by the interaction of limited academic networks, lack of awareness of institutional support, and a perception of high operational workload. For this group, international curricular integration is statistically absent. One testimony illustrates this structural barrier: “As an adjunct professor, my time is measured by the hours I teach. I simply do not have the time or logistical support to create transnational projects; my priority is covering the basic syllabus.” Although the design of the present study did not include the direct measurement of student academic performance, competence acquisition, or learning outcomes, the qualitative instrument allowed exploration of faculty perceptions regarding the secondary impact of internationalization practices in the classroom. Among faculty belonging to Profiles A and B, where measurable levels of classroom integration exist, narratives consistently suggest the perception of positive effects on learning dynamics. Participants reported noticeable increases in student motivation and qualitative changes in the depth of comparative analysis. One full-time research professor described: “My students demonstrate higher levels of retention and critical analysis when they debate practical cases directly with students from other countries. They seem to realize empirically that the theories we study in class have different applications and cultural limitations depending on the context.” These testimonies suggest that intentional curricular modifications implemented by faculty through the mobilization of their academic networks (social capital) produce direct qualitative effects on the classroom environment. However, these observations also point to the need for future research incorporating direct empirical measurements of student intercultural competence development. While the regression model identifies the independent contribution of each predictor, the CART model complements this analysis by revealing interaction patterns. For example, although institutional support was not a significant predictor in the regression (p = 0.740), the CART analysis suggests it may play a conditional role for faculty members with limited academic networks. 5. Discussion The most revealing finding of this study, and the one that calls for a reconsideration of current university policies, lies in the need to analytically differentiate between two levels of engagement: peripheral institutional participation and curricular integration within the micro-space of the classroom. The findings demonstrate that, although institutional support, expressed through centralized management, clarity of procedures, and the dissemination of institutional calls, plays a relevant role in enabling general faculty participation, it does not predict the integration of international perspectives into pedagogical practice ( p = 0.740). This empirical divergence is significant, as it suggests that bureaucratic structures facilitate the normative framework but have only a marginal influence on the deeper didactic decisions that occur within the classroom. These results clarify that while institutional support facilitates general participation in internationalization activities, it does not predict the actual integration of international content within the classroom. Instead, the findings demonstrate that the strongest predictors are relational and individual resources, particularly academic networks and language proficiency. For internationalization to materialize within the curriculum, what truly matters are the individual and relational resources available to faculty members. Consistent with Activity Theory, social capital, manifested in prior academic networks, and mediating tools, such as language proficiency and techno-pedagogical self-efficacy, function as the primary drivers of pedagogical innovation. Interpersonal academic networks allow faculty members to access global collaborations based on trust and reciprocity, thereby compensating for institutional rigidities and reducing the uncertainty often associated with educational innovation. In this sense, internationalization at home does not occur through administrative decree, but rather through faculty agency supported by mediating competences and relational resources. Furthermore, this model of participation reveals profound systemic contradictions in the division of labor within the Latin American higher education context. The high proportion of adjunct faculty reporting no participation (Profile D) suggests that, under current institutional arrangements, internationalization frequently represents an uncompensated workload expansion. Material conditions, employment status, and the lack of time allocated for pedagogical planning constitute a severe structural boundary that delineates who is able to exercise agency in global education and who remains excluded by the design of the system itself. 6. Conclusion The internationalization of higher education requires aligning macro-level strategic objectives with the micro-political realities of faculty work. This study concludes that faculty engagement does not emerge spontaneously; rather, it results from a dynamic interaction between institutional conditions, mediating competences, and the professional agency of individual instructors. The findings indicate that there is no single pathway for fostering internationalization. While institutional support sustains the general structures of participation, the effective integration of international perspectives in the classroom depends critically on faculty members’ social capital, self-efficacy, and their digital and linguistic competences. At the same time, structural conditions, particularly workload and employment status, as is the case with adjunct faculty, constitute significant barriers that may stratify innovation and render it potentially exclusionary. Based on these findings, three institutional recommendations emerge for strengthening a more equitable culture of internationalization: Integration into faculty evaluation systems. Institutions should formally recognize and compensate the time that faculty members, including adjunct instructors, invest in the instructional design of globally oriented pedagogical practices. Situated training in digital competences. Institutions should move beyond the instrumental use of digital platforms toward the development of techno-pedagogical competences that enhance faculty self-efficacy and support intercultural mediation in teaching and learning processes. Promotion of collaborative academic communities. Internationalization offices should evolve into spaces for academic articulation or innovation laboratories that actively foster the development of faculty social capital by connecting instructors with international peers. As a future research direction, it would be valuable to qualitatively explore how institutional identity and values, such as the commitment to ethics and social justice present in the universities, shape faculty motivations to sustain internationalization practices. Ultimately, this study underscores that the internationalization of higher education should not be reduced to a policy compliance objective or an administrative quality indicator. Rather, it represents a relational, pedagogical, and profoundly human process. Recognizing faculty as the central architects of this process, while mitigating structural labor inequalities and strengthening their academic networks, constitutes a necessary condition for consolidating a genuinely inclusive, equitable, and sustainable model of global education. 7. Limitations This study provides a snapshot of the systemic tensions shaping faculty internationalization; however, its findings must be interpreted in light of several methodological and contextual limitations. First, from a sampling perspective, a self-selection bias must be acknowledged, resulting from a non-response rate of 85%. From the standpoint of Activity Theory, this implies that the analyzed sample (n = 303) overrepresents subjects who are already “active” or at least peripherally interested in the institutional internationalization system. Consequently, the trajectories identified in this study primarily explain the behavior of faculty members who already demonstrate some level of agency or affective disposition toward internationalization, thereby limiting the absolute generalization of the results to faculty who remain entirely disconnected or disengaged from these processes. Second, the cross-sectional convergent mixed-methods design provides a static snapshot of the activity system at a specific moment in time. This cross-sectional nature prevents the establishment of strictly bidirectional causal relationships. For example, although the regression model identifies self-efficacy as a predictor of participation, it is highly plausible that sustained engagement in internationalization practices retrospectively strengthens faculty self-efficacy. Such a cycle of expansive learning could only be verified through a longitudinal research design. Third, regarding the measurement of mediating tools, the variables related to techno-pedagogical competence and second-language proficiency relied on faculty self-report and self-perception. Although the qualitative phase helped triangulate and contextualize these perceptions, future research should incorporate objective assessment measures or direct observations of teaching practice in international environments (for instance, recordings of COIL sessions) in order to contrast perceived competence with actual performance. Additionally, at the analytical level, it must be reiterated that the CART model produced a Cohen’s Kappa index of 0.23. As previously justified, this value limits the model’s capacity to function as a reliable predictive algorithm, reinforcing its role strictly as a heuristic map of systemic interactions rather than as a deterministic classification model. Finally, the institutional context constitutes an additional boundary to the scope of the findings. As the study is limited to a private university in Mexico, the contradictions identified in the division of labor, such as the prevalence of adjunct contracts, and the availability of techno-pedagogical tools reflect specific structural conditions. Future research should replicate this analytical model in public universities across Latin America, where budgetary constraints and union dynamics may significantly reshape the nodes of rules and community within the faculty activity system. Declarations Data Availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study contain human participant data and are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. De-identified data and the accompanying codebook are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to institutional ethical approval. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author contributions Conceptualization: Z.B.Z.; Methodology: Z.B.Z., K.A.M.; Formal analysis: Z.B.Z.; Investigation and Data curation: Z.B.Z., K.A.M.; Writing—original draft: Z.B.Z.; Writing—review & editing: Z.B.Z., K.A.M.; Project administration: Z.B.Z. All authors approved the final manuscript. Funding No specific funding was received for this study. Acknowledgements The authors thank the higher education institution that authorized the study and the faculty members who participated in the research. Ethical Approval This research was reviewed and approved by the International Committee of the Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, which oversees all research involving human participants at the institution. All procedures were carried out in accordance with institutional ethical standards and relevant national regulations, as well as with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Name of approval body: Ethics Committee of the Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México Approval ID: N/A (approval granted through the institutional internal review process for educational research) Date of approval: March 2024 Scope of approval: All procedures related to the design, distribution, and analysis of the questionnaire administered to university faculty members for the purpose of examining their participation in internationalization activities and digital competences. Additional information: The study was conducted in compliance with institutional guidelines for social science research. No intervention, experimental manipulation, or collection of sensitive personal data was involved. The approval confirmed that participants’ anonymity and voluntary participation were safeguarded throughout the study. Informed Consent All participants were adult faculty members who provided electronic informed consent before completing the online questionnaire. How consent was obtained: Electronic confirmation via the institutional online survey system (participants had to read and accept the consent statement before accessing the questionnaire). When consent was obtained: Between March and April 2024. By whom: The research team under the supervision of the Dirección de Innovación Educativa, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México. From whom: Full-time and adjunct faculty members voluntarily participating in the study. Scope of consent: Participation in the research study, use of anonymized data for analysis, and publication of aggregated findings in academic journals. Anonymity and data protection: Participants were fully informed that their anonymity was guaranteed, that no personally identifiable information would be collected, and that the data would be used solely for academic and research purposes. Voluntariness: Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without providing a reason. Risk disclosure: The research involved no physical, psychological, or reputational risks to participants, as it consisted exclusively of a non-interventional survey focused on professional practices and perceptions. References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 290-305. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1028315307303542) Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. En A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area (pp. 59-72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. En J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood. Bustos-Aguirre, M., & Vega Cano, R. (2021). Los cambios en las estrategias de internacionalización en las instituciones mexicanas de educación superior a partir de la pandemia por COVID-19. Revista Educación Superior y Sociedad (ESS), 33(2), 269-297. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. de Wit, H. (2020). Internationalization of higher education: The need for a more ethical and qualitative approach. Journal of International Students, 10(1), i–iv. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1893 Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Friesen, R. (2013). Faculty member engagement in Canadian university internationalization: A consideration of understanding, motivations and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312451132 Gacel-Ávila , J. (2011). Impacto del proceso de Bolonia en la educación superior de América Latina. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 8(2),123-134. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=78018793010 Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, (62), 14-15. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/8532 Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310?seq=1 Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAMAC, 10(2), 31-36. O'Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17(1), 1-23. Roberts, K., Dowell, A. & Nie, JB. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Med Res Methodol 19 , 66 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., y Lou, K. H. (Eds.). (2012). Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they're not, and what we can do about it . Stylus Publishing. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AnnexA.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 18 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 23 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 12 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7723268","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":619866018,"identity":"98c89433-d5ab-491a-b55d-cc240ed049e9","order_by":0,"name":"Zoraima Barajas Zuñiga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ibero American University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zoraima","middleName":"Barajas","lastName":"Zuñiga","suffix":""},{"id":619866019,"identity":"6719fd3a-8456-4c0a-9645-6c8a0626d8f0","order_by":1,"name":"Karla Aviña Marín","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ibero American University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karla","middleName":"Aviña","lastName":"Marín","suffix":""},{"id":619866020,"identity":"fe5c2674-1198-4856-b9ee-15e815472094","order_by":2,"name":"Alberto Ramirez Martinell","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Veracruzana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alberto","middleName":"Ramirez","lastName":"Martinell","suffix":""},{"id":619866021,"identity":"14c947c1-a51b-43c2-b606-85cea3600b5c","order_by":3,"name":"Marco Contreras Ruiz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ibero American University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marco","middleName":"Contreras","lastName":"Ruiz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-26 15:38:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7723268/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7723268/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107169189,"identity":"c539b2fe-efd5-4261-9153-8fd7f80c9456","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-17 14:33:31","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between prior academic networks and the integration of international content in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7723268/v1/36a13593d39d2220ef49bd62.png"},{"id":107705213,"identity":"b8fbcdea-f10e-4a4e-845b-9109fd2da156","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-24 09:09:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":289225,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7723268/v1/5becc891-3d32-406f-a25e-1e7b9d6d6429.pdf"},{"id":107481561,"identity":"0901f350-2331-420c-9695-5514a4e4fe50","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:19:05","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18125,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AnnexA.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7723268/v1/17879e3b4ba312c611337045.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Barriers to Engagement: Faculty Participation in Internationalization and the Role of Digital Competences and Institutional Support in a Mexican University","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the face of profound structural transformations that characterize the contemporary landscape, marked by economic interdependence and the transnational circulation of knowledge, higher education institutions have been compelled to rethink professional education beyond strictly local frameworks (Altbach \u0026amp; Knight, 2007). The empirical and theoretical challenges confronting contemporary societies do not remain confined within national borders; rather, they emerge within complex networks of production, exchange, and inequality. Consequently, the internationalization of higher education has evolved from a secondary strategy to a central and transversal dimension of university curricula, essential for the development of ethical global citizenship (de Wit, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHistorically, internationalization policies have relied on highly visible and quantifiable mechanisms, with the physical mobility of students and faculty serving as the hegemonic indicator of institutional success. However, accumulated evidence over recent decades suggests that this approach presents significant limitations (de Wit, 2020; Knight, 2011; Leask, 2015). Contemporary educational research indicates that the mere experience of geographical immersion in another country does not automatically guarantee deep transforma \u0026nbsp; tions in individuals\u0026rsquo; intercultural perspectives. Meaningful global learning requires intentional pedagogical mediation and structured spaces for reflection (Deardorff, 2006; Vande Berg et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn response to the limitations of equity and scope associated with physical mobility, the paradigm of \u0026ldquo;internationalization at home\u0026rdquo; has gained increasing relevance (Beelen \u0026amp; Jones, 2015). This approach is not conceived as a deficient substitute for international travel, but rather as a proactive strategy designed to democratize global learning by integrating international and intercultural dimensions into the everyday educational experiences of all students within their own campus (Leask, 2015). Through virtual exchange experiences, such as Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), students analyze shared challenges and confront diverse perspectives without leaving their classroom (O\u0026apos;Dowd, 2018). Nevertheless, the operationalization of this paradigm requires a profound reconceptualization of teaching practice, demanding techno-pedagogical competences that go beyond the instrumental use of digital platforms (Koehler \u0026amp; Mishra, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the broad discursive consensus regarding the importance of internationalizing the curriculum, its empirical integration into classrooms does not occur naturally or uniformly. This divergence is particularly acute in the Latin American context. Unlike other regions characterized by structured and funded supranational integration processes, international initiatives in Latin America operate within a highly fragmented ecosystem (Gacel-\u0026Aacute;vila, 2011). In Mexico, institutional participation reflects significant structural gaps conditioned by asymmetries in technological infrastructure, faculty employment models, and operational budgets (Bustos-Aguirre \u0026amp; Vega, 2021). These inequalities suggest that the capacity to sustain internationalization strategies directly within the micro-space of the classroom faces particular systemic barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis problem highlights a fundamental premise: the macro-policy of university internationalization materializes, or dissolves, in the everyday pedagogical decisions made by faculty members. Faculty serve as the key agents responsible for introducing comparative frameworks and guiding students toward understanding global interconnections (Friesen, 2013). To understand this agency, the present study adopts Activity Theory as its primary analytical lens (Engestr\u0026ouml;m, 1987, 2001). From this perspective, teaching practice constitutes a situated activity embedded within a structurally organized system. The subject (the teacher) directs their action toward student learning, mediated by symbolic and material tools (such as proficiency in a second language). At the same time, this activity is conditioned by an institutional community that establishes formal rules and organizes a specific division of labor (Cole, 1996).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen normative expectations of internationalization do not correspond with material conditions, such as the prevalence of part-time teaching contracts, systemic contradictions emerge. These tensions inevitably affect the affective dimension of teaching practice. Innovating in the curriculum entails a degree of uncertainty that requires high perceived self-efficacy; without the belief in one\u0026rsquo;s capacity to organize and execute courses of action (Bandura, 1997), institutional expectations may translate into passive resistance or anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo broaden the explanatory scope of the system, it is also necessary to incorporate the concept of Social Capital. In the academic sphere, this capital consists of networks of stable relationships and resources mobilized through professional ties (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 2001). The availability of relational resources allows internationalization to emerge as a natural expansion of teaching practice. By drawing on transnational networks, faculty gain access to diverse pedagogical approaches, with such networks functioning as a critical vehicle for the continuous development of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven this theoretical framework, it becomes methodologically risky to assume that institutional mandates affect all faculty members in the same way. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to examine the systemic, relational, and individual factors that influence faculty participation in internationalization processes within a private Mexican university. Specifically, the study seeks to disentangle how perceptions of institutional support, social capital, mediating tools, and self-efficacy interact to predict two distinct dimensions of engagement: general institutional participation and the effective integration of international content in the classroom. By focusing on these interactive dynamics, the study aims to provide empirical evidence that can guide the design of more equitable, sustainable internationalization strategies grounded in the realities of academic work in Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Activity Theory and Social Capital: A Conceptual Articulation ","content":"\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding faculty participation in internationalization processes requires moving beyond individualistic approaches that reduce academic engagement to a matter of personal willingness, disposition, or administrative mandate. Curricular innovation, understood as the integration of global perspectives into classroom practice, is a deeply situated phenomenon mediated by institutional structures, relational networks, and cultural artifacts. In order to capture this complexity and avoid simplistic determinisms, the present research articulates Activity Theory (Engestr\u0026ouml;m, 1987, 2015) as its primary analytical framework, complemented synergistically by the sociological perspective of Social Capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 2001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eActivity Theory, rooted in the cultural-historical psychology of Vygotsky (1978) and systematically expanded by Engestr\u0026ouml;m (1987), posits that human action cannot be understood in isolation but rather as part of a collective, historically situated, and structurally organized system. From this perspective, teaching practice oriented toward internationalization is not merely a set of individual actions but constitutes a comprehensive activity system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the architecture of this model, faculty members function as the subject, whose work is directed toward a central object: the teaching-learning process and, ultimately, student development. However, a fundamental premise of this theory is that the relationship between subject and object is never direct; it is inherently mediated by tools, understood as symbolic and material artifacts. In the specific context of curriculum internationalization, these mediating tools primarily include techno-pedagogical competences namely, the ability to orchestrate transnational virtual learning environments, and proficiency in a second language (Cole, 1996; Leask, 2015). Without the appropriation of these mediating tools, meaningful intercultural interaction in the classroom becomes operationally unattainable, reducing internationalization to a purely discursive aspiration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, activity acquires its social dimension by unfolding within a community, typically represented by the academic department or the university as a whole. This community shapes and conditions the subject\u0026rsquo;s actions through two critical structural nodes: rules and the division of labor (Engestr\u0026ouml;m, 2001). Rules encompass both explicit internationalization policies, such as administrative procedures, institutional agreements, and centralized support mechanisms, and the implicit norms embedded within academic culture. The division of labor, in turn, determines how responsibilities, authority, status, and time allocation are distributed within the institution. In the Latin American university context, this division often materializes in significant structural disparities, particularly between full-time faculty and those hired on a part-time or adjunct basis, who frequently face limitations in planning time and institutional resources (Bustos-Aguirre, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA central methodological axiom of Activity Theory is that activity systems are neither static nor inherently harmonious; rather, they are dynamic entities that evolve through the emergence and resolution of internal contradictions (Engestr\u0026ouml;m, 2015). These systemic tensions arise when the demands of one node conflict with the limitations of another.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, a common contradiction emerges when institutional rules, such as the normative expectation to internationalize course content, come into tension with a restrictive division of labor, where instructors face heavy teaching loads and lack compensated time for international instructional design. Another frequent contradiction occurs when institutions encourage participation but the subject lacks the necessary mediating tools, such as sufficient proficiency in English, creating a functional blockage within the system (Friesen, 2013). From this theoretical perspective, faculty inactivity or limited participation should not be interpreted as individual apathy, but rather as the manifestation of unresolved systemic contradictions between macro-level policy expectations and the practical conditions of academic work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Activity Theory provides a robust framework for analyzing the internal structure and tensions of the institutional system, internationalization by definition requires the local system to establish connections beyond its boundaries. To explain how faculty members overcome internal barriers and establish global collaborations, the present analytical framework incorporates the concept of Social Capital.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom Bourdieu\u0026rsquo;s (1986) sociological perspective, social capital refers to the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to the possession of durable networks of relationships characterized by mutual recognition. Lin (2001) later operationalized this concept by proposing that individuals intentionally invest in social relationships in order to access resources embedded within their networks, which can then be mobilized to facilitate specific actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of higher education, a faculty member\u0026rsquo;s social capital consists of the network of transnational academic relationships accumulated throughout their professional trajectory\u0026mdash;through conference participation, research collaborations, and disciplinary communities. The distribution of this capital is highly uneven. Faculty members possessing robust social capital have access to a repertoire of actions that extend beyond the institutional boundaries of their campus. The literature suggests that these individuals may bypass formal bureaucratic channels within their institutions (the rules node) and establish direct collaborative arrangements for their classrooms based on pre-existing trust and reciprocity with international colleagues (Coleman, 1988). In this way, social capital functions not merely as a logistical complement but as a critical compensatory resource that allows the subject to overcome inefficiencies, rigidity, or the absence of institutional support mechanisms within their activity system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe synergistic interaction between the resolution of structural contradictions and the mobilization of social capital ultimately leads to what Engestr\u0026ouml;m (2001) conceptualizes as expansive learning. In this process, actors reorganize the components of their activity system in order to elevate their practice to a qualitatively more complex level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the empirical scope of this study, expansive learning materializes through the internationalization of the curriculum (Leask, 2015). When faculty members successfully integrate global perspectives into their teaching practice, pedagogy moves beyond the transmission of locally bounded content. By leveraging academic networks (social capital) and employing effective techno-pedagogical tools, faculty act as structural mediators who enable students to cross cognitive and cultural boundaries. The activity system thus expands, and internationalization ceases to function merely as an administrative indicator, becoming instead a vehicle for intellectual transformation within the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was developed under a Convergent Mixed Methods Design (Creswell \u0026amp; Plano Clark, 2017). This methodological approach is characterized by the simultaneous collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, to which equal weight is given throughout the study (QUAN + QUAL). The choice of this design responds to the need to obtain a comprehensive and multi-factorial understanding of the phenomenon of faculty internationalization. While the quantitative aspect allowed for the identification of the magnitude, direction, and significance of the predictor factors affecting teaching practice, the qualitative aspect provided the necessary contextual depth to understand the motivations, barriers, and subjective experiences of the faculty. In this concurrent design, both databases were collected independently but complementarily in a single temporal phase, converging methodologically until the result interpretation stage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study population consisted of the active faculty staff of a private university located in Mexico City. Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was employed, inviting the entire academic community to participate through institutional communication channels. The final analyzed sample consisted of 303 faculty members (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 303). It is methodologically important to specify that, prior to the official data collection, a pilot test was conducted with 25 professors; data corresponding to these 25 subjects were excluded from the final database to avoid any risk of contamination or habituation bias. The final collection reported a non-response rate of 85%, which constitutes an inherent limitation of the study that must be declared. In terms of statistical inference, a self-selection bias is recognized: the final sample is predominantly representative of that sector of the faculty that already possesses a baseline level of interest, agency, or peripheral involvement in internationalization policies. Consequently, the identified population parameters and analytical trajectories should be interpreted as the behavior of \u0026quot;active\u0026quot; faculty within the university ecosystem, limiting their absolute generalization toward the faculty sector in a state of total apathy or disconnection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor data collection, a hybrid \u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e questionnaire was designed, consisting of 45 items that integrated five-point Likert scales, dichotomous items, and open-ended questions. The instrument\u0026apos;s design was structured deductively, mapping its sections according to the theoretical dimensions of Activity Theory and Social Capital. The study variables were operationalized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDependent Variables (Outcome variables)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo distinct levels of engagement were assessed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeneral Institutional Participation, which measured involvement in normative activities such as attendance at institutional forums and awareness of international agreements.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIntegration of International Content in the Classroom, which evaluated, through self-report, the frequency with which faculty modify their curriculum to incorporate global perspectives (e.g., virtual collaborative projects, international case studies).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent Variables (Predictors)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMediating Tools: Techno-pedagogical competences were measured through a Likert-scale instrument (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) assessing self-perceived efficacy in the use of digital technologies for international teaching. Second language proficiency was measured through categorical items regarding fluency and certification.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRules and Division of Labor: Perceived Institutional Support was measured through a Likert scale evaluating the clarity of procedures, communication effectiveness, and the administrative support provided by the Internationalization Office. Workload was captured as an ordinal variable associated with employment status (full-time vs. adjunct faculty).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSocial Capital: Membership in pre-existing academic networks was assessed through dichotomous items and open-ended questions exploring the consolidation of transnational professional relationships.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIndividual Dimension: Self-efficacy and affective disposition were measured through Likert-scale items focused on personal confidence when engaging in pedagogical innovation and perceived levels of anxiety in response to internationalization demands.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dependent variable, Integration of International Content in the Classroom, was constructed as a composite index averaging three self-reported indicators: (a) the frequency of using global teaching methodologies, (b) the incorporation of updated international literature, and (c) participation in virtual collaborative projects with foreign peers. All items were standardized prior to aggregation to ensure internal consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure psychometric rigor, the instrument underwent a content validation process through expert review. A panel composed of specialists in educational innovation, research methodology, and internationalization management evaluated the clarity, relevance, and sufficiency of the items, leading to revisions of ambiguous questions identified during the pilot phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, to assess the internal consistency of the quantitative scales, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha coefficients were calculated. The main dimensions of the instrument exceeded the commonly accepted reliability threshold (\u0026alpha; \u0026gt; 0.70), confirming the internal consistency of the scales and supporting their use in inferential analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final questionnaire was digitized and distributed through an institutional survey platform. The first section of the instrument presented an informed consent form, detailing the research objectives, the voluntary nature of participation, and strict guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity. Data collection took place over a four-week period, after which the dataset underwent cleaning procedures, including the removal of incomplete responses and atypical response patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData processing was conducted through two parallel analytical strands.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative Analysis: Numerical data were processed using specialized statistical software. After conducting descriptive analyses of frequencies and central tendency measures, the statistical assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and absence of multicollinearity were verified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the research questions, a Multiple Linear Regression model was implemented in order to identify the specific weight, explained variance, and statistical significance (p \u0026lt; 0.05) of the predictors operating independently on the dependent variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, in order to capture the interactive and non-linear nature of socio-demographic and institutional variables, a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model was developed. It is important to note that the algorithm produced a Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa index of 0.23, indicating a minimal to acceptable level of predictive agreement. Consequently, the branches of this model were not interpreted as causal determinants but were used strictly as heuristic patterns to visually map faculty profiles, trajectories, and systemic bottlenecks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQualitative Analysis: Responses to open-ended questions formed a textual corpus that was analyzed through a Hybrid Thematic Analysis based on a codebook approach (MacQueen et al., 1998; Roberts et al., 2019). This methodological approach was selected for its structured rigor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe process began with a deductive phase, applying a predefined codebook aligned with the constructs of institutional support, mediating tools, and social capital. During this phase, independent double coding was conducted on a subsample of the corpus, producing a Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa index of 0.81 for inter-coder agreement. This statistic functioned strictly as a technical control of consistency and structural reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce the stability of the deductive coding framework was confirmed, the analysis proceeded to an inductive phase, allowing the organic emergence of themes and subthemes not initially anticipated in the codebook (for example, specific affective tensions related to internationalization practices).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with the convergent design adopted in this study, the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings did not occur during data collection or through the transformation of variables, but rather during the interpretative phase. A methodological triangulation strategy was implemented, in which statistical patterns, such as significant correlations or the unexpected lack of significance of institutional support, were contrasted with themes extracted from the textual analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis interpretive convergence allowed the statistical data to establish \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;how much\u0026rdquo; of the phenomenon, while the qualitative narratives helped explain \u0026ldquo;how\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; these dynamics occur within the everyday practice of faculty internationalization.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4.\tResults","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn accordance with the Convergent Mixed Methods Design adopted in this study, statistical findings and themes derived from the qualitative analysis are presented in an integrated manner. The triangulation of these sources allows this section to be structured into four analytical axes: the descriptive report of the institutional conditions of the sample, the identification of individual predictors through Multiple Linear Regression, the exploration of complex interactions using a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model, and finally the examination of faculty perceptions regarding the impact of internationalization practices in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CART model was employed as an exploratory tool to visualize interaction patterns between predictors. Given the modest predictive performance (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u0026kappa; = 0.23), the resulting branches were interpreted as heuristic participation profiles rather than deterministic classifications\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe descriptive statistical analysis of the sample (n = 303) reveals important asymmetries in the division of labor within the institution, which constitute the baseline context for internationalization processes. Data indicate that 67.3% of surveyed faculty members are employed under an adjunct or part-time contract, compared with 31.7% full-time faculty members. Mean comparison tests confirm that full-time faculty report statistically higher frequencies of participation in all forms of internationalization activities compared to adjunct faculty, suggesting that the availability of compensated planning time constitutes a primary restrictive factor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the dimension of institutional rules and communication, 56% of surveyed faculty members reported being unaware of the existence of the Internationalization Office or the specific processes associated with its services, including calls for participation, funding opportunities, and pedagogical advisory support. This quantitative finding converges consistently with codes derived from the qualitative analysis, where multiple narratives pointed toward fragmented institutional communication. One part-time participant explained: \u0026ldquo;I learned about international programs and collaborative methodologies through a colleague in the hallway, not through the communication channels of my department or coordination\u0026rdquo;. The descriptive characteristics of the sample and the main variables analyzed are summarized in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Descriptive statistics for the main study variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegration of International Content (DV)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic networks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLanguage proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to individual resources categorized as mediating tools, a measurable discrepancy was observed between perceived competence and formal validation. While 69% of faculty members perceive themselves as sufficiently fluent to function effectively in academic contexts using a second language (predominantly English), only 40% hold a formal certification validating this proficiency. Furthermore, although levels of self-efficacy regarding the instrumental use of technology are relatively high, qualitative narratives suggest that a gap persists when technology must be applied pedagogically to mediate transnational learning environments, particularly in the instructional design of COIL projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate which variables, exert the strongest predictive weight on the effective modification of teaching practice, a Multiple Linear Regression model was conducted. For this model, the dependent variable, \u0026ldquo;Integration of international content in the classroom\u0026rdquo;, was constructed as a continuous composite index averaging self-reported frequency of the use of global teaching methodologies, the inclusion of updated international literature, and participation in virtual collaborative projects with foreign peers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe assumptions of linear regression were tested prior to model estimation. Residual plots confirmed homoscedasticity, the Shapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk test indicated approximate normality of residuals, and variance inflation factors (VIF \u0026lt; 2.5) confirmed the absence of multicollinearity among predictors. The results of the multiple linear regression model, which identifies the predictors for the integration of international content in the classroom, are presented in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo illustrate the relationship between relational resources and pedagogical internationalization, Figure 1 presents the bivariate association between academic networks and the integration of international content in the classroom. The positive slope suggests that faculty members with stronger academic networks tend to report higher levels of curricular internationalization, reinforcing the importance of social capital as a facilitating mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore interpretation, statistical assumptions of the model were verified, confirming the normality of residuals and the absence of severe multicollinearity (VIF \u0026lt; 2.5 for all predictors included in the model).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp; Multiple Linear Regression Results for the Variable \u0026ldquo;Integration of International Content in the Classroom\u0026rdquo; (n = 303)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardized Beta\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Error\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrior academic network\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.415\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLanguage proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.342\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAffective disposition / Self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechno-pedagogical competences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived institutional support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.740\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.46, F(5, 297) = 32.4, p \u0026lt; .001. *p \u0026lt; .05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe adjusted model explained 46% of the total variance (R\u0026sup2; = 0.46) in the level of integration of international content. The analysis of coefficients reveals a central statistical pattern for this study: Perceived Institutional Support was not a statistically significant predictor for this specific dependent variable (p = 0.740). In contrast, the predictors with the greatest explanatory power correspond to the individual and relational resources developed by faculty members, particularly prior transnational academic networks (\u0026beta; = 0.415) and self-reported language proficiency (\u0026beta; = 0.342).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese patterns empirically suggest that the concrete integration of international perspectives within the autonomous space of the classroom depends more strongly on faculty social capital and mediating competences than on formal institutional structures. This statistical tendency is strongly reinforced by the qualitative thematic analysis. Faculty members who scored highly on the integration index frequently reported that their innovations emerged from interpersonal interactions. As one representative informant explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The collaborative projects I implement with my students originated from foreign colleagues I met at a conference years ago. Because we both speak English fluently and maintain that network, the activity can take place without depending on lengthy administrative procedures.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecognizing that variables in educational contexts rarely operate in isolation or in strictly linear ways, the regression analysis was complemented with a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model. The resulting tree produced a Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa index of 0.23, which according to conventional criteria (Landis \u0026amp; Koch, 1977) indicates a minimal to acceptable level of agreement. Consequently, the branches of this model are not interpreted as deterministic causal predictors but rather as heuristic interaction patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the hierarchical structure of the CART model and its triangulation with themes derived from the qualitative corpus, four faculty participation profiles were identified:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProfile A: Network-driven agency\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This profile includes faculty members who demonstrate high levels of sustained internationalization practices. Statistically, they are characterized by strong prior academic networks and high language proficiency despite reporting low levels of perceived institutional support. Qualitative data suggest that, for this group, social capital functions as a compensatory resource that enables them to bypass bureaucratic obstacles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProfile B: Peripheral participation\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This segment includes faculty members who possess some degree of social capital but face constraining interactions such as heavy teaching workloads and limited institutional awareness. Their level of classroom integration is occasional or sporadic. Narratives indicate that the lack of compensated time prevents them from formalizing their initiatives:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sometimes I invite colleagues from abroad to give a talk via Zoom, but I cannot structure it as a semester-long project because my teaching load simply leaves me no room to breathe.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProfile C: Structural conditioning\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Located in the intermediate branches of the tree, this profile describes faculty members who report high levels of perceived institutional support and awareness of internationalization policies but lack strong personal networks and show low self-efficacy in language or technological use. In these cases, participation is guided and highly dependent on official institutional calls. Qualitative narratives reveal feelings of insecurity:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I know the office is there and they are supportive, but without my own contacts and without confidence in my English, applying it in my courses generates a lot of anxiety.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProfile D: Restricted participation\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This profile corresponds to the lowest node of the tree and is composed primarily of adjunct faculty. It is characterized by the interaction of limited academic networks, lack of awareness of institutional support, and a perception of high operational workload. For this group, international curricular integration is statistically absent. One testimony illustrates this structural barrier:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;As an adjunct professor, my time is measured by the hours I teach. I simply do not have the time or logistical support to create transnational projects; my priority is covering the basic syllabus.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the design of the present study did not include the direct measurement of student academic performance, competence acquisition, or learning outcomes, the qualitative instrument allowed exploration of faculty perceptions regarding the secondary impact of internationalization practices in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong faculty belonging to Profiles A and B, where measurable levels of classroom integration exist, narratives consistently suggest the perception of positive effects on learning dynamics. Participants reported noticeable increases in student motivation and qualitative changes in the depth of comparative analysis. One full-time research professor described:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;My students demonstrate higher levels of retention and critical analysis when they debate practical cases directly with students from other countries. They seem to realize empirically that the theories we study in class have different applications and cultural limitations depending on the context.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese testimonies suggest that intentional curricular modifications implemented by faculty through the mobilization of their academic networks (social capital) produce direct qualitative effects on the classroom environment. However, these observations also point to the need for future research incorporating direct empirical measurements of student intercultural competence development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the regression model identifies the independent contribution of each predictor, the CART model complements this analysis by revealing interaction patterns. For example, although institutional support was not a significant predictor in the regression (p = 0.740), the CART analysis suggests it may play a conditional role for faculty members with limited academic networks.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe most revealing finding of this study, and the one that calls for a reconsideration of current university policies, lies in the need to analytically differentiate between two levels of engagement: peripheral institutional participation and curricular integration within the micro-space of the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate that, although institutional support, expressed through centralized management, clarity of procedures, and the dissemination of institutional calls, plays a relevant role in enabling general faculty participation, it does not predict the integration of international perspectives into pedagogical practice (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.740). This empirical divergence is significant, as it suggests that bureaucratic structures facilitate the normative framework but have only a marginal influence on the deeper didactic decisions that occur within the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results clarify that while institutional support facilitates general participation in internationalization activities, it does not predict the actual integration of international content within the classroom. Instead, the findings demonstrate that the strongest predictors are relational and individual resources, particularly academic networks and language proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor internationalization to materialize within the curriculum, what truly matters are the individual and relational resources available to faculty members. Consistent with Activity Theory, social capital, manifested in prior academic networks, and mediating tools, such as language proficiency and techno-pedagogical self-efficacy, function as the primary drivers of pedagogical innovation. Interpersonal academic networks allow faculty members to access global collaborations based on trust and reciprocity, thereby compensating for institutional rigidities and reducing the uncertainty often associated with educational innovation. In this sense, internationalization at home does not occur through administrative decree, but rather through faculty agency supported by mediating competences and relational resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this model of participation reveals profound systemic contradictions in the division of labor within the Latin American higher education context. The high proportion of adjunct faculty reporting no participation (Profile D) suggests that, under current institutional arrangements, internationalization frequently represents an uncompensated workload expansion. Material conditions, employment status, and the lack of time allocated for pedagogical planning constitute a severe structural boundary that delineates who is able to exercise agency in global education and who remains excluded by the design of the system itself.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe internationalization of higher education requires aligning macro-level strategic objectives with the micro-political realities of faculty work. This study concludes that faculty engagement does not emerge spontaneously; rather, it results from a dynamic interaction between institutional conditions, mediating competences, and the professional agency of individual instructors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that there is no single pathway for fostering internationalization. While institutional support sustains the general structures of participation, the effective integration of international perspectives in the classroom depends critically on faculty members\u0026rsquo; social capital, self-efficacy, and their digital and linguistic competences. At the same time, structural conditions, particularly workload and employment status, as is the case with adjunct faculty, constitute significant barriers that may stratify innovation and render it potentially exclusionary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on these findings, three institutional recommendations emerge for strengthening a more equitable culture of internationalization:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIntegration into faculty evaluation systems. Institutions should formally recognize and compensate the time that faculty members, including adjunct instructors, invest in the instructional design of globally oriented pedagogical practices.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSituated training in digital competences. Institutions should move beyond the instrumental use of digital platforms toward the development of techno-pedagogical competences that enhance faculty self-efficacy and support intercultural mediation in teaching and learning processes.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePromotion of collaborative academic communities. Internationalization offices should evolve into spaces for academic articulation or innovation laboratories that actively foster the development of faculty social capital by connecting instructors with international peers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a future research direction, it would be valuable to qualitatively explore how institutional identity and values, such as the commitment to ethics and social justice present in the universities, shape faculty motivations to sustain internationalization practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, this study underscores that the internationalization of higher education should not be reduced to a policy compliance objective or an administrative quality indicator. Rather, it represents a relational, pedagogical, and profoundly human process. Recognizing faculty as the central architects of this process, while mitigating structural labor inequalities and strengthening their academic networks, constitutes a necessary condition for consolidating a genuinely inclusive, equitable, and sustainable model of global education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7.\tLimitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a snapshot of the systemic tensions shaping faculty internationalization; however, its findings must be interpreted in light of several methodological and contextual limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, from a sampling perspective, a self-selection bias must be acknowledged, resulting from a non-response rate of 85%. From the standpoint of Activity Theory, this implies that the analyzed sample (n = 303) overrepresents subjects who are already \u0026ldquo;active\u0026rdquo; or at least peripherally interested in the institutional internationalization system. Consequently, the trajectories identified in this study primarily explain the behavior of faculty members who already demonstrate some level of agency or affective disposition toward internationalization, thereby limiting the absolute generalization of the results to faculty who remain entirely disconnected or disengaged from these processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, the cross-sectional convergent mixed-methods design provides a static snapshot of the activity system at a specific moment in time. This cross-sectional nature prevents the establishment of strictly bidirectional causal relationships. For example, although the regression model identifies self-efficacy as a predictor of participation, it is highly plausible that sustained engagement in internationalization practices retrospectively strengthens faculty self-efficacy. Such a cycle of expansive learning could only be verified through a longitudinal research design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, regarding the measurement of mediating tools, the variables related to techno-pedagogical competence and second-language proficiency relied on faculty self-report and self-perception. Although the qualitative phase helped triangulate and contextualize these perceptions, future research should incorporate objective assessment measures or direct observations of teaching practice in international environments (for instance, recordings of COIL sessions) in order to contrast perceived competence with actual performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, at the analytical level, it must be reiterated that the CART model produced a Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa index of 0.23. As previously justified, this value limits the model\u0026rsquo;s capacity to function as a reliable predictive algorithm, reinforcing its role strictly as a heuristic map of systemic interactions rather than as a deterministic classification model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the institutional context constitutes an additional boundary to the scope of the findings. As the study is limited to a private university in Mexico, the contradictions identified in the division of labor, such as the prevalence of adjunct contracts, and the availability of techno-pedagogical tools reflect specific structural conditions. Future research should replicate this analytical model in public universities across Latin America, where budgetary constraints and union dynamics may significantly reshape the nodes of rules and community within the faculty activity system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study contain human participant data and are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. De-identified data and the accompanying codebook are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to institutional ethical approval.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: Z.B.Z.; Methodology: Z.B.Z., K.A.M.; Formal analysis: Z.B.Z.; Investigation and Data curation: Z.B.Z., K.A.M.; Writing\u0026mdash;original draft: Z.B.Z.; Writing\u0026mdash;review \u0026amp; editing: Z.B.Z., K.A.M.; Project administration: Z.B.Z. All authors approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo specific funding was received for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank the higher education institution that authorized the study and the faculty members who participated in the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was reviewed and approved by the International Committee of the Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de M\u0026eacute;xico, which oversees all research involving human participants at the institution.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;All procedures were carried out in accordance with institutional ethical standards and relevant national regulations, as well as with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eName of approval body: Ethics Committee of the Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de M\u0026eacute;xico\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eApproval ID: N/A (approval granted through the institutional internal review process for educational research)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDate of approval: March 2024\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScope of approval: All procedures related to the design, distribution, and analysis of the questionnaire administered to university faculty members for the purpose of examining their participation in internationalization activities and digital competences.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdditional information: The study was conducted in compliance with institutional guidelines for social science research. No intervention, experimental manipulation, or collection of sensitive personal data was involved. The approval confirmed that participants\u0026rsquo; anonymity and voluntary participation were safeguarded throughout the study.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were adult faculty members who provided electronic informed consent before completing the online questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow consent was obtained: Electronic confirmation via the institutional online survey system (participants had to read and accept the consent statement before accessing the questionnaire).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhen consent was obtained: Between March and April 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBy whom: The research team under the supervision of the Direcci\u0026oacute;n de Innovaci\u0026oacute;n Educativa, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de M\u0026eacute;xico.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrom whom: Full-time and adjunct faculty members voluntarily participating in the study.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScope of consent: Participation in the research study, use of anonymized data for analysis, and publication of aggregated findings in academic journals.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnonymity and data protection: Participants were fully informed that their anonymity was guaranteed, that no personally identifiable information would be collected, and that the data would be used solely for academic and research purposes.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVoluntariness: Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without providing a reason.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRisk disclosure: The research involved no physical, psychological, or reputational risks to participants, as it consisted exclusively of a non-interventional survey focused on professional practices and perceptions.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAltbach, P. G., \u0026amp; Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 290-305. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1028315307303542)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeelen, J., \u0026amp; Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. En A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, \u0026amp; P. Scott (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area (pp. 59-72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. En J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBustos-Aguirre, M., \u0026amp; Vega Cano, R. (2021). Los cambios en las estrategias de internacionalizaci\u0026oacute;n en las instituciones mexicanas de educaci\u0026oacute;n superior a partir de la pandemia por COVID-19. Revista Educaci\u0026oacute;n Superior y Sociedad (ESS), 33(2), 269-297.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColeman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Wit, H. (2020). Internationalization of higher education: The need for a more ethical and qualitative approach. Journal of International Students, 10(1), i\u0026ndash;iv. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1893\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEngestr\u0026ouml;m, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEngestr\u0026ouml;m, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEngestr\u0026ouml;m, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriesen, R. (2013). Faculty member engagement in Canadian university internationalization: A consideration of understanding, motivations and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3), 209\u0026ndash;227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312451132\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGacel-\u0026Aacute;vila , J. (2011). Impacto del proceso de Bolonia en la educaci\u0026oacute;n superior de Am\u0026eacute;rica Latina. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 8(2),123-134. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=78018793010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, (62), 14-15. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/8532\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoehler, M. J., Mishra, P., \u0026amp; Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLandis, J. R., \u0026amp; Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310?seq=1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., \u0026amp; Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAMAC, 10(2), 31-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 17(1), 1-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberts, K., Dowell, A. \u0026amp; Nie, JB. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. \u003cem\u003eBMC Med Res Methodol\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 66 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., y Lou, K. H. (Eds.). (2012). \u003cem\u003eStudent learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they\u0026apos;re not, and what we can do about it\u003c/em\u003e. Stylus Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"digital competences, faculty engagement, internationalization, higher education, educational innovation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7723268/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7723268/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"This study analyzes the factors that foster faculty participation in internationalization processes at a private university in Mexico, highlighting the role of digital competences and institutional support. Using a mixed-methods design, 303 faculty members responded to a questionnaire combining Likert-scale and open-ended questions. Quantitative analysis included ANOVA, regression, and decision tree modeling, while qualitative data were thematically coded.\nFindings reveal that access to academic networks, professional motivation, and perceived benefits are key drivers of international engagement. While digital competences are present, their impact is amplified when combined with institutional strategies for training, guidance, and recognition.\nThe study underscores the value of creating environments that strengthen international academic collaboration through inclusive approaches. It recommends expanding opportunities for faculty across all contract types, incorporating flexible training and recognition mechanisms that contribute to building a global-minded institutional culture.","manuscriptTitle":"From Barriers to Engagement: Faculty Participation in Internationalization and the Role of Digital Competences and Institutional Support in a Mexican University","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-17 14:33:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7723268/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-23T13:54:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-21T13:41:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-18T09:44:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"28400597151370446235633009554320707850","date":"2026-03-25T15:18:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"269067179346248262755384504444953371854","date":"2026-03-25T15:18:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-25T14:38:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"47323311839485768389679696113322974501","date":"2026-03-25T14:08:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"68632566033103239765878625403242309382","date":"2026-03-23T21:39:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-23T15:15:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-20T04:10:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2026-03-12T17:54:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"71f530de-e436-4ab4-949c-69bd8f6d0858","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-23T14:09:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-17 14:33:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7723268","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7723268","identity":"rs-7723268","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}