CIHE Award for Significant Research on International Higher Education

The Awards for Significant Research on International Higher Education will recognize highly significant research outcomes in the field of international higher education. Unlike a lifetime achievement award, or an award that focuses on a particular form of research, the CIHE Research Awards are focused on state-of-the-art knowledge and scholarship. Two awards will be offered that recognize and celebrate significant research on international higher education: a) Books and Edited Books; and b) Journal Articles, Chapters, Research Initiatives, or Other Research that significantly changed the existing thinking on a topic in the field.

Eligibility

To be eligible to receive the award, the nominated scholarship must have been published within the two previous years (determined from the closing date of receiving nominations). Applications for the 2023 awards will be accepted from scholarship published between June 1, 2021 – May 31, 2023. Nominations must be a) Books and Edited Books; and b) Journal Articles, Chapters, Research Initiatives, or Other Research. Dissertations are not eligible for nomination for this award.

Note: Due to the increased number of nominations received, ASHE allows only one nomination per piece of scholarship. If ASHE/CIHE receives more than one nomination for a piece of scholarship, notification of all nominators will occur followed by a discussion to consolidate the nominations into one to serve as the official nomination.

Self-nominations are highly encouraged, as are contributions by early career scholars.

Nomination Evaluation Criteria | Awards Timeline | Nomination Requirements | Awards Committee | Past Recipients

Nomination Evaluation Criteria

Nominations should articulate the contribution of the nominated scholarship as well as its significance and implications to the nominator’s research. When reviewing nominations, the CIHE awards committee will make decisions based on the following preferred and demonstrated attributes:
 
The rating of each submission is on a scale of Exceptional, Strong, or Good within five (5) categories listed below. For three of the categories, the scale is 1 (Good) to 5 (Exceptional) while for two of the categories, the scale is 1 (Good) to 3 (Exceptional). The differentiated scales for the categories emphasize the priority of three categories (scaled 1-5) over the other two categories (scaled 1-3). Members of the CIHE awards committee evaluate the nominated scholarship on these categories in a two-step process (see below for details).
 
1. Relevance: The nominated scholarship builds on issues of interest in the field of comparative and/or international higher education.
  • Exceptional (5 points): An exceptional submission is on a highly timely topic and the connections are clearly visible to the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The submission ties extremely well into and clearly builds on previous literature in the field.
  • Strong-Exceptional (4 points): A strong-exceptional submission is on a highly timely topic and the connections are not quite clearly visible to the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The submission ties well into and builds on previous literature in the field.
  • Strong (3 points): A strong, but less exceptional submission, is on a timely topic in the field of comparative and/or international higher education, but might have minor issues in how clearly it comes through in the writing. The submission might have slight problems in how it ties into or builds on the literature in the field.
  • Strong-Good (2 points): A strong-good submission is on a timely topic and the connections are not quite visible to the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The submission has not clearly built on previous literature in the field.
  • Good (1 point): A good, but less strong submission has some difficulties conveying how it is on a timely topic to the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The submission may also have missing elements on how it ties into or builds on the literature in the field.
2. Significance: The nominated scholarship demonstrates evidence of impact on the research, practice, policy, and/or theory in the field of comparative and/or international higher education. Alternatively, the nominated scholarship holds great potential to serve as a model for future research, opens up new ways to conduct research, or addresses topics/contexts that have been relatively absent from the scholarly discourse.
  • Exceptional (5 points): An exceptional submission clearly demonstrates how it advances the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The nominated work moves the field forward by providing notable findings (evidence) and/or opens new lines of inquiry and thinking for the field.
  • Strong-Exceptional (4 points): A strong-exceptional submission demonstrates how it advances the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The nominated work provides new ways of addressing the field forward by providing findings (evidence) and/or opens new lines of inquiry and thinking for the field.
  • Strong (3 points): A strong, but less exceptional submission, advances the field of comparative and/or international higher education, but has some minor issues in how clearly it does. The submission might have some minor issues in demonstrating the impact of scholarship or creating new lines of inquiry for the field.
  • Strong-Good (2 points): A strong-good submission weakly demonstrates how it advances the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The nominated work does not clearly show how the work will move the field forward. The submission has weak notable findings (evidence) and/or opens new lines of inquiry and thinking for the field.
  • Good (1 point): A good, but less strong submission has some difficulties conveying how it advances the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The submission has missing details on how it demonstrates its impact or expands inquiry for the field.
3. Quality: The nominated scholarship meets the highest standards in social sciences research. The Awards Committee will pay close attention to the scientific and methodological soundness of the contribution. In the case of published contributions, the writing must be clear, well organized, and accessible to readers not familiar with the topic.
  • Exceptional (5 points): An exceptional submission clearly demonstrates its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and clarity of its research design, findings, and discussion. A very high level of rigor and execution of the proposed research is clearly visible in the scholarship. The research design includes a clear and detailed documentation of the methodology, methods, and data employed for the study.
  • Strong-Exceptional (4 points): A strong-exceptional submission demonstrates its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and clarity of its research design, findings, and discussion. It presents a good level of rigor and execution of the proposed research is clearly visible in the scholarship. The research design includes a clear and detailed documentation of the methodology, methods, and data employed for the study.
  • Strong (3 points): A strong, but less exceptional submission has some minor issues demonstrating its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and clarity of its research design, findings, and discussion. A high level of rigor and execution of the proposed research is visible in the scholarship. The research design has some minor issues in the clarity and documentation of the methodology, methods, and data employed for the study.
  • Strong-Good (2 points): A strong-good submission does not clearly demonstrate its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and clarity of its research design, findings, and discussion. The submission has a good level of rigor and execution of the proposed research is clearly visible in the scholarship. The research design includes a less clear and detailed documentation of the methodology, methods, and data employed for the study.
  • Good (1 point): A good, but less strong submission has some challenges demonstrating its comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and clarity of its research design, findings, and discussion. An average level of rigor and execution of the proposed research is visible in the scholarship. The research design has issues in the clarity and documentation of the methodology, methods, and data employed for the study.
4. Innovation: The nominated scholarship demonstrates a unique or innovative take on topics, theory, and/or methods that helps advance knowledge in the field of comparative and/or international higher education
  • Exceptional (3 points): An exceptional submission clearly demonstrates its uniqueness and originality through one or more ways, including but not limited to, featuring a unique and innovative methodological approach, addressing a previously under-investigated aspect of a topic, population, and/or region/country or addressing a topic of compelling contemporary or historical relevance.
  • Strong (2 points): A strong, but less exceptional submission has some minor issues demonstrating its uniqueness and originality through one or more ways, including by limited to, featuring a unique and innovative methodological approach, addressing a previously under-investigated aspect of a topic and/or population, and/or addressing a topic of compelling contemporary or historical relevance.
  • Good (1 point): A good, but less strong submission has some challenges demonstrating its uniqueness and originality through one or more ways, including by limited to, featuring a unique and innovative methodological approach, addressing a previously under-investigated aspect of a topic and/or population, and/or addressing a topic of compelling contemporary or historical relevance.
5. Attention to context: The nominated scholarship demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the context(s) impinging on the research contribution, such as the context in which the research itself took place, the research contribution’s place within broader discussions in the field of comparative and/or international higher education.
  • Exceptional (3 points): An exceptional submission demonstrates a clear understanding of the context of its contribution to the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The implications and findings align extremely well to the setting (environment) of the research.
  • Strong (2 points): A strong, but less exceptional submission demonstrates with minor issues a good understanding of the context of its contribution to the field of comparative and/or international higher education. The implications and findings align well to the setting (environment) of the research.
  • Good (1 point): A good, but less strong submission demonstrates a good understanding of the context of its contribution to the field of comparative and/or international higher education, but there are issues in how clearly it does this. The implications and findings align to the setting (environment) of the research, but is not as clear as it could be.

Evaluation Process

The CIHE awards committee is using a two-step process in its evaluation of the submitted scholarship. If there are three (3) or less submissions, the process will start with step two. If there are four (4) or more submissions, the process will start with step one.
1.     Step one:
  • The basis of evaluation of the nominated scholarship is on the submitted nomination form only;
  • The criteria (rubric) of evaluation is on the five (5) categories of relevance, significance, quality, innovation, and attention to context (as detailed above);
  • The maximum points awarded in a review is 21 per reviewee (CIHE awards committee member);
  • All CIHE awards committee members will supply a review of each nominated scholarship;
  • The review scores for each nominated scholarship are combined from all reviewers to provide a total review score;
  • The scholarship with the three highest total review scores will move to Step two of the award evaluation.
2.     Step two:
  • The basis of evaluation of the nominated scholarship is on the full nominated scholarship’s text (manuscript);
  • The criteria (rubric) of evaluation is on the five (5) categories of relevance, significance, quality, innovation, and attention to context (as detailed above);
  • The maximum points awarded in a review is 21 per reviewee (CIHE awards committee member);
  • All CIHE awards committee members will supply a review of each nominated scholarship;
  • The review scores for each nominated scholarship are combined from all reviewers to provide a total review score;
  • The scholarship with the highest total review score is the winner of the CIHE award for significant research on International Higher Education;
  •  If there is a tie in total review scores, the CIHE awards committee votes to choose a winner among the scholarship with the tied total review scores.

2023 Awards Timeline

  • Nominations for the 2023 award season are now closed. Nominations will open in early May 2024 and close in late June 2024. 
    Due to the number of submissions and the review process, no late submissions will be accepted; as such, nominators are encouraged to submit their nominations well in advance of this deadline.
  • Nominators and nominees will be informed of decisions in mid-September.
  • An announcement of recipients will be sent to the ASHE membership in late September.
  • The recipient(s) will be recognized during the ASHE Awards Ceremony during the Annual Conference.

Nomination Requirements

Each submission will need:

  • Name, Title, Position, Institution, Email, and Phone Number of Coordinating Nominator
  • Name, Title, Position, Institution, Email, and Phone Number of Nominee
  • Information about the Nominated Scholarship:
    • Title
    • Journal name or publisher
    • Citation/reference (APA 7 style):
    • DOI:
    • Author name(s):
    • First author position:
    • First author affiliation:
    • First author email:
    • Abstract (text box – 5000 characters ~750 words)
  • Please fill in each of the five (5) text boxes on the nomination form. These text boxes align with the five (5) evaluation criteria and are a key element in the CIHE awards committee’s evaluation of the nominated scholarship.
    • Relevance (1500 characters ~225 words)
    • Significance (1500 characters ~225 words)
    • Quality (1500 characters ~225 words)
    • Innovation (1000 characters ~150 words)
    • Attention to context (1000 characters ~150 words)

Due to the increased number of nominations received in recent years, each nominee will be limited to one nomination. In the event multiple nominations are submitted, the committee chair will notify the coordinating nominators requesting they consolidate their nominations.

Self-nominations are highly encouraged, as are contributions by early career scholars. The coordinating nominator, as well as the award nominee(s) (and subsequently recipient(s)), must be current members of ASHE.

Questions about the 2023 award process can be sent to awards@ashe.ws.

Nominations for 2024 will open in early May 2024.

Awards Committee

Each year, the Council Chair appoints an awards committee, in close consultation with the Executive Committee, to solicit and accept nominations. ASHE awards committee members are not eligible to be nominated during the year in which they serve on the committee.

2023 CIHE Awards Committee:

  • Rosalind Raby (Chair), California State University, Northridge
  • Christina Yao, University of Southern Carolina
  • Brandon Smith, Michigan State University

Past Recipients

2022: "Universities in the knowledge society: The Nexus of National Systems of Innovation and Higher Education"
by Drs. Timo Aarrevaara, Martin Finkelstein, Glen Jones, and Jisun Jung

Additional Recipients

  • 2021: "U.S. Power in International Higher Education" edited by Jenny Lee, University of Arizona (YouTube Link)
  • 2020: "Education Abroad: Bridging Scholarship and Practice" edited by Anthony C. Ogden, Bernhard Streitwieser and Christof Van Mol. (YouTube Link)
  • 2019: "Professorial Pathways: Academic Careers in a Global Perspective" edited by Martin J. Finkelstein and Glen A. Jones