There is a tendency to conceptualize Internationalization in Higher Education (IHE) as a matter of student mobility. However, research in and out of the academy forms a wide space of international collaboration. Research collaboration between academics as a growing phenomenon has attracted the attention of higher education researchers and policymakers around the world (Ponds, 2009; Menash & Enu-Kwesi, 2018). The literature documents various rationales for International Research Collaboration (IRC) that are operating at the micro (individual researchers), meso (institutional/university), and macro (country/national) levels. From a micro perspective, international collaboration in research is inevitable for academics because of various reasons such as accomplishing a wider impact on their research output, improving the quality of research outputs, widening the scope of their research, soliciting funds for research, benefiting from wider research infrastructures, and joining research networks (Finkelstein, Walker, and Chen (2013; Hoekman et al., 2010; Kyvik and Larsen 1994; Ponds, 2009; Shehatta & Mahmood, 2016). From the meso (institutional/university) perspective international collaboration in research has become a strategic orientation for prominent universities around the world (Hovart, Weber & Wicki, 2000). Universities build a reputation and make themselves more visible on the international scene with the help of IRC. Finally, from the macro level (country/national) perspective non-science policy objectives such as improving national competitiveness, supporting less developed countries, tackling global challenges, and serving public diplomacy can also be aimed by IRC (Technolopolis Group, 2009). Kwiek (2018) stated that international collaboration in research is accepted as an indicator of a competitive economy. For many countries, IRC forms a critical input to building a knowledge-based economy (Horvath et al., 2000) as well as transforming higher education systems and national research policies (Calikoglu, Kondakci, & Seggie, 2023).

Although IRC has strong rationales at different levels, academics face several different challenges and barriers in their IRC. These challenges and barriers are more evident in peripheral countries, resulting in lower IRC levels in these countries. The question of why IRC is not realized at a desired level, and more importantly why peripheral countries realized it at even lower levels is an important concern. Kwiek (2018) distinguished IRC from international research orientation. International research orientation is an attitude and it is a precursor of IRC, while the IRC refers to the actual behavior of performing research collaboration (Kwiek, 2018). Evidently, the international nature of higher education and even the presence of orientation for international research does not guarantee IRC. Understanding economic, political, social, cultural, and academic barriers operating differently at micro, meso, and macro levels is important in developing policies for realizing IRC. In addition, comparative studies help to capture practices and perspectives in different country contexts. As a result, insights from policies, practices, and perspectives in a peripheral context may potentially inform policy and practices to widen IRC. Research outputs around the globe are skewed toward Western countries (Jung & Horta, 2013; Tight, 2012). Therefore, the current study aims to reveal the (1) factors leading to IRC, (2) barriers to IRC, and (3) solutions for more effective IRC at the individual, institutional and national levels.

Higher Education in Iran and Turkey
Two countries' higher education system are based on the bureaucratic system and centralization (Ghoraishi Khorasgani & Nazarzadeh Zare, 2021; Kondakci & Şenay, 2022). Both higher education systems have been under the influence of globalization and internationalization trends. As a result, academics in the two countries faced the repercussions of internationalization in their teaching and research (Hayati & Didegah, 2010; Calikoglu, Kondakci, & Seggie, 2023). Thus, the two countries form a good case of comparison to identify the facilitators and barriers and develop recommendations for effective ITC policies.

Given the fact that the qualitative method involves an interpretive and naturalistic approach to the world, which to allow the researchers to perceive the phenomenon based on the meanings that individuals create, and also will enable researchers to consider the differences among participants in beliefs, values, meanings, and social contexts (Mertens, 2015). Due to the fact that in the present study, the researchers sought to understand the experience of faculty members regarding the phenomenon of IRC, hence, they tried to suspend their theories, interpretations, and hypotheses regarding the phenomenon to better understand the phenomenon. Therefore, in the present study, a descriptive phenomenological method was used. The participants in the study included the faculty members of the public and private universities of Iran and Turkey in the fields of behavioral sciences and humanities, who by using the purposeful sampling method of extreme and deviant type, 23 faculty members from Iran and 25 faculty members from Turkey were selected until theoretical saturation was reached. In the study, a semi-structured interview was used to collect data. To analyze the data each transcribed interview was coded and common codes were merged in order to find out the common themes and categories. To increase the validity of research data, member checks and peer checks were used. The member checks method was done during the data collection process in this way, the participants were asked to comment on the codes and categories obtained and also discuss whether the obtained items accurately reflect their understanding and mentality or not. The peer checks method also was done after the analysis of the interviews, and two colleagues who were knowledgeable about qualitative analysis methods were asked to express their expert opinions regarding the analysis of the interviews, and they confirmed the analysis of the interviews.

The findings suggest that factors driving academics for IRC operate at individual, institutional, national, and transnational levels. Individual factors are related to motivations, personal attributes to IRC, membership in research groups and networks, the disciplinary field, and financial incentives. On the other hand, organizational or institutional factors were identified as added value for a university, the approach, and orientation of a university, organizational strategy, organizational culture, management and leadership of a university, and reward structure in a university. At the national level, funding schemes and reward mechanisms for the outputs of international collaboration were indicated as driving factors for IRC among academics. Finally, transnational level, transnational organizations (e.g., the EU) science and technology development policies and funding programs were stated as the driving factors for involving in IRC. It is worth noting that individual-level factors were more dominant and strongly stated as drivers of IRC. Also, barriers for IRC were categorized under organizational, institutional, and individual barriers, and finally, the solutions related to IRC were also categorized into three institutional, organizational, and individual levels. Solutions to the barriers concentrate on organizational solutions. In other words, academics expect their institutions to be supportive and facilitative of the challenges and barriers that they encounter in their IRC. The results suggest that both national-level policies and institutional-level strategies are insufficient to mobilize the potential of the academics for IRC. Considering the distinction between international research orientation and IRC, which was made by Kwiek (2018), both institutions and governments need more effective policy tools to mobilize the international research orientation of the academics into IRC.

Çalıkoglu, A., Kondakci, Y. & Seggie, F. N. (2023). International research collaboration in Turkish higher education: the role of individual, professional, and institutional factors. Higher Education Journal, 12, 62-76: doi:10.2399/yod.22.202206 Finkelstein, M. J., Walker, E., & Chen, R. (2013). The American faculty in an age of globalization: Predictors of internationalization of research content and professional networks. Higher Education, 66, 325-340. Ghoraishi khorasgani, M. S., Nazarzadeh zare, M. (2021). A Look at the Challenges of Boundary-Spanner Academic Leaders. Ihej, 13 (2), 72-95. (Persian). Hayati, Z., & Didegah, F. (2010). International scientific collaboration among Iranian researchers during 1998-2007, Library Hi Tech, 28 (3), 433-446. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673. Horvath, F., Weber, K., & Wicki, M. (2000). International research orientation of Swiss universities: Self-regulated or politically imposed? Higher Education, 40, 389-408. Jung, J., & Horta, H. (2013). Higher education research in Asia: A publication and co-publication analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(4), 398–419. Kondakci, Y. & Senay, H.H. (2022). Administration of Foundation Universities. In H. Simsek, Foundation Universities in Turkey: An Anatomy of a Young Sector. Seckin, Ankara (pp. 54-80).( Turkish). Kwiek, M. (2018). International Research Collaboration and International Research Orientation: Comparative Findings About European Academics, Journal of Studies in International Education, 22 (2), 136–160. Kyvik, S., & Larsen, I. M. (1994). International contact and research performance. Scientometrics, 29, 161-172. Mensah, M. S. B., & Enu-Kwesi, F. (2018). Research collaboration for a knowledge-based economy: towards a conceptual framework. Triple Helix, 5(1), 1-17. Mertens, D.M. (2015). Research and Evaluation in Educational and Psychology. Ed (4) United State of America: Sage Publication. Ponds, R. (2009). The limits to the internationalization of scientific research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 76-94. Shehatta, I., & Mahmood, K. (2016). Research collaboration in Saudi Arabia 1980–2014: Bibliometric patterns and national policy to foster research quantity and quality. Libri, 66(1), 13-29. Technopolis Group (2009). Drivers of international collaboration in research: Final report. The University of Manchester. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kieron-Flanagan-2/publication/265205579_Drivers_of_International_collaboration_in_research/links/5515894c0cf2d70ee27078af/Drivers-of-International-collaboration-in-research.pdf Tight, M. (2012). Higher education research 2000–2010: Changing journal publication patterns. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(5), 723–740.