New Zealand Alumni Survey: Experiences, Attitudes and Engagement

Survey Results

Demographics

Alumni Residence

The survey’s first question looked at alumni’s current country of primary residence by offering 30 countries as response options, as well as “other”. This demographic identifier was important for methodological reasons – the survey was designed to exclude alumni residing in New Zealand. As a result, 207 survey responses from alumni residing in New Zealand were disqualified owing to the international focus of this survey.

Country of residence is an important element of alumni relations programming efforts since it determines the nature of – and possibility for – localized services and events. Key drivers for the provision of services and holding of events are alumni engagement and volunteer levels, the relative level of affinity held by alumni to their alma mater and/or New Zealand, and the overall number of alumni (i.e. threshold factors). Another aspect is the linkage to other demographic variables such as alumni age or faculty affiliation, and behavioural variables such as technology usage.

Graph 2: Alumni by Country of Residence

Notes: Question 1.  New Zealand Alumni  1,620, International Alumni 1,590.
Source: New Zealand  International Alumni Survey.

The current country of residence distribution patterns of New Zealand and international alumni exhibit a divergent picture. While 78.6 percent of New Zealand expatriates are drawn to Anglo-Saxon  countries⁴ (led by Australia with 37.8%), only 27.9% of international alumni reside in Anglo-Saxon countries (led by Australia with 12.5% and followed by the US at 7.2%). This is less than Malaysia and China, which recorded a combined residency share of about 30%.

A salient question is how alumni populations in a given country are composed in  terms of citizenship. The survey allowed  for three possibilities to be considered: New Zealand expatriates, citizens of a given country having returned home, and “third-country” citizens now  making their home in the country of their current residence. 

It must be stressed  that this survey cannot make any definitive statement about overall alumni mobility and migration patterns.⁵  Rather, the following discussion needs to be considered within the framework of the survey’s respondent pool, which excluded alumni residing in New Zealand.

When adjusting response data for alumni returning to their respective home countries, 46% of all alumni emigrated to Anglo-Saxon countries (excluding New Zealand), while the choice of residence in China is almost entirely driven by nationals returning home. Two examples illustrate this dynamic: China and Australia.

Graph 3: Alumni Migration Dynamics: China

Notes: Question 1. Chinese Alumni 253, All Others 2,957.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Chinese students overwhelmingly returned to China after their studies, with only 7.1% residing in third countries at the time of the survey.  An even smaller percentage, a little bit over 1%, of non-Chinese alumni made China their home.

Graph 4: Alumni Migration Dynamics: Australia

Notes: Question 1.  Australian Alumni 165, All Others 3,045.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Similar to Chinese alumni, Australian alumni returned overwhelmingly to Australia at a rate of more than 90%. Yet Australia proved an attractive destination with a full 21.7% of third country alumni (i.e. non-Australian citizens who are alumni of New Zealand universities) taking up residence in Australia. New Zealand alumni accounted for nearly 76% of this group.

Perspectives

Understanding the country destinations of alumni, as well as the respective composition of alumni populations in a given country, is important to alumni relations programming and communication efforts in three ways.

First, with shifting regional recruiting patterns over time, the composition of New Zealand’s universities has and will continue to shift as well.  In a broad sense, it will mirror the changes in recruiting patterns with a time lag of a couple of years, resulting in the overall alumni population becoming more Asian and less Anglo-Saxon.

Second, any shift in the nationality composition of alumni in a given country does matter for programming purposes.  New Zealand expatriates do have a different relationship with New Zealand than international alumni, as will be shown later on.  This has implications for the kind of events alumni prefer and the nature of the networking groups they will form.

Third, overall alumni numbers matter.  With few exceptions, the number of New Zealand university alumni in any given locality tends to be relatively small.  In many instances, this suggests that programming efforts should be geared towards commonly shared bonds and interests, rather than be conducted by individual institutions, in order to ensure a necessary critical mass.  On the other hand, some countries and a few cities with a sufficient number of alumni allow for a differentiated programming approach.

Alumni Nationality

The second question asked alumni for their current nationality by offering 30 options as well as “other” (identical to Question 1).  This question categorized respondents into two major groups: New Zealand citizens (i.e. expatriates) and former international students. 

Alumni nationality, given its causal relationship to the cultural and language preferences of alumni and its impact on likely eventual geographic destinations (i.e. residency), marks an important consideration for alumni programming efforts.  Alumni nationality as a demographic factor relates, but of course is not identical to, alumni residence, owing to mobility and migration dynamics. 

Graph 5: Alumni by Nationality

Notes: Question 2.  All Alumni 3,210.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey

Analyzing alumni by country of nationality survey responses revealed a bifurcated distribution pattern: Essentially half of the survey respondents were nationals of New Zealand (50.5%).  The other half were led by: Malaysia (8.8%), China (7.9%), Australia (5.1%), Germany (3.7%), the USA (2.9%), Canada (2.0%), the UK (2.0%), and Thailand and Singapore (1.6% each).  

Perspectives

Given the on-going shifts in international student recruiting patterns, an example of this being the current strong growth trend in students from Saudi Arabia, and the tight linkage of country of nationality and country of residence for many (but not all) nationalities, New Zealand’s universities can utilize this data in two ways.

First, it can be mapped against the overall distribution pattern in an institution’s re-spective alumni database.  Large deviations between actual distribution and survey response distribution would hint at distinct engagement levels, once other factors are held equal.  In essence, by either responding below or above the relative level of representation in the pool of alumni residing outside New Zealand, alumni signal an either relatively lower or higher level of engagement.

Second, any shift in the nationality composition of alumni in a given country does matter for programming purposes.  For example, New Zealand expatriates have a distinct relationship with New Zealand as a country when compared to international alumni; differences in affinity levels towards New Zealand between international alumni are also relevant in the case of certain destination countries’ diverse set of alumni (most notably: Australia).

Alumni Age Categories

The third question probed for the respective age category of survey respondents by asking alumni to select from seven age categories: 29 and younger, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70 and older.  

Alumni relations programming has long known “life cycle engagement” models which allow universities to custom tailor programming efforts to broad alumni life cycles.  With the advent of the Internet and more recently online communities, age-based alumni behaviour differentiation, in general, has been sharpened.

Graph 6: Alumni by Age Category

Notes: Question 3. New Zealand alumni 1,620, International Alumni 1,590.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The respondents’ age distribution follows a different pattern between international alumni and New Zealand alumni. The former are significantly younger than their New Zealand counterparts: More than twice as many (30.3% vs. 14.1%) are under the age of 29.  Nearly two-thirds of international alumni who responded to the survey were under the age of 40. When it comes to alumni of 70 years and older, differences become negligible.  

Perspectives

Alumni programming efforts are driven by a host of factors, alumni age being one of the most important ones. Expectations, availability, and needs tend to differ notably between younger, mid-age, and retired alumni. In itself, this insight is of course only of limited use. Yet by combining the demographic factor age with expressed preferences (communication, events, community usage, etc.), powerful clues about the most appropriate programming approaches emerge.

It should be noted that one reason for the strong representation of younger international alumni age categories is the long term, compound effect of increased international student enrolment in New Zealand universities. Other alumni surveys have indicated that survey response rates from this group of alumni tends to run relatively high, which has positive implications for alumni programming efforts.

Given the survey’s reliance on two instances of technology usage, first e-mail and then a web-based survey, it should come as no surprise that younger alumni age categories were well represented. However, given that Internet usage is well on its way to becoming universal, it stands to reason that any inherent bias towards younger age groups will eventually wash out.

Alumni Gender

The survey’s fourth question asked respondents about their gender. Gender plays a role in alumni relations in a number of ways, mostly as a second-order variable. Examples of the second-order function of gender include the relationship between gender and certain subject matters (some of which see either little or very high female student enrolment), or alumni age category (reflecting a long-term trend of rising female student enrolment).

Graph 7: Alumni by Gender

Notes: Question 4. New Zealand Alumni 1,620, International Alumni 1,590.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Overall, male respondents were (over-) represented at 58%. The relatively low share of female survey respondents (42%) is bound to change with the long-term shift in alumni networks towards a stronger female share. Though distribution patterns amongst international and New Zealand respondents were nearly identical, the actual composition of these two pools differed in many relevant ways (such as age and nationality) and can therefore be expected to differ with regard to gender as well. The closeness of gender distribution between these two pools thus obscures potentially important sub-group differences.

Perspectives

For a variety of reasons, alumni offices do not tend to explicitly program for gender, with the exception of special events (e.g., female executive networking). Alumni also tend to define themselves largely along other lines such as subject studied or relationships to certain groups of classmates.

Alumni Degrees

The fifth question queried respondents regarding their degree attainment. This was a multiple choice question, which allowed for the selection of more than one degree (obtained from a New Zealand university). Due to the diversity of degrees awarded by New Zealand universities (both currently as well as historically), and the fact that not every university has offered all possible degrees, this demographic variable needs to be interpreted with caution.

Historically, first-degree attainment (typically a Bachelor Degree) has been considered to be the strongest affinity-defining educational experience. As a result, programming for alumni who obtained Masters Degrees or Doctoral Degrees has tended to be less pronounced. This belief system has been challenged for some time now based on experiences of universities with strong post-graduate programs, as well as universities which have seen international post-graduate alumni attain success based on their post-graduate rather than undergraduate studies.

Graph 8: Alumni by Degree

Notes: Question 5. New Zealand Alumni 1,620, International Alumni 1,590.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The survey asked respondents to name all degrees they obtained from New Zealand universities.  The results show broad similarities between New Zealand and international alumni with two notable exceptions. While 57.5% of New Zealand alumni obtained a Bachelor Degree from a New Zealand university, only 47.9% of international alumni did so.

This situation is reversed at the Masters Degree level where 23.4% of international alumni respondents obtained a Masters Degree in New Zealand while only 16.7% of New Zealand alumni did. This divergence is the result of international alumni having most likely acquired their undergraduate degree in their respective home country.

Differences in other degree categories were small and subject to data roll-up scenarios which impair any further analysis.

Perspectives

Degree attainment, especially when joined up with subject matter studied, constitutes a powerful programming tool. Alumni affinity is substantially influenced by specific experiences as a student; many of the most powerful experiences are attached to interactions with fellow students, lecturers and staff members, and the setting for such experiences. For example, a lecture class with 150 students creates different behavioural dynamics than a small group of students working together in a laboratory.

Therefore, the differences in contributions to formative experiences between degrees must be considered by Alumni Relations offices. At an undergraduate level, shared social experiences often take precedent. Students enrolling in professional Masters Degrees can gain the most from a relationship utility approach (i.e. the “rolodex model”). An alumni with a Ph.D. may have related to other Ph.D. students as part of a narrow learning community.

Alumni Academic Unit Affiliation

The sixth, multiple choice question asked survey respondents to identify the academic unit they were affiliated with during their enrolment as a student in New Zealand. Since naming conventions for academic units differ between universities and in addition have changed over time within some universities, the individual university surveys, offered the following response options: School, Faculty, department, or college.

Given this diversity with regard to current and past academic unit structures, and the subsequent need for statistical roll-ups to generate meaningful academic unit clusters, it must be emphasised that New Zealand-wide data should be interpreted with caution.  

An alum’s academic unit affiliation is often a strong, if not the strongest, driver of subsequent affinity patterns. This is partially a reflection of the day-to-day experiences of an alum as a student, and partially a reflection of the higher degree of difficulty in relating to a more abstract organizational entity, such as a university as a whole.

Graph 9: Alumni by Academic Unit Affiliation

Notes: Question 6. New Zealand Alumni 1,620, International Alumni 1,590.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Two main differences emerged from the survey with regard to the academic units which international and New Zealand alumni have been affiliated with. For one, while 36% of international alumni had studied business or related subjects, only 26% of New Zealand alumni had done so as well. By contrast, 48% of New Zealand alumni had studied either humanities or the sciences while only 39% of international alumni had chosen these fields of study.  Differences in other fields were not statistically relevant.

Perspectives

An alum’s academic unit affiliation is not only relevant from an experience and subsequent basic affinity level perspective, but also from relative affinity level. Research has shown that affinity levels and interest in alumni networking differs between alumni of academic units.

Broadly speaking, professional degree alumni (e.g.; MBA, law, medicine) tend to display higher networking activity levels than alumni with a social sciences or humanities background. Sometimes these differences are quite pronounced, to the point of alumni affiliating themselves with their faculty or college more than with the university itself.

Given that international alumni enrol disproportionally in business-related fields of study, which arguably produces the most network-centric alumni behaviour, New Zealand universities are able to draw on a sizeable number of alumni outside New Zealand who will take naturally to supporting relevant programming efforts.

Alumni Scholarship Funding

The seventh question asked survey participants whether they had received scholarship funding from a New Zealand source, and if so, to identify the source. This question was an open-ended question and the first optional response question (all subsequent questions were designed as optional response questions).

The reason for designing this question as an open-ended question was rooted in the difficulty to categorize a highly diverse set of funding schemes, especially since some schemes date back decades in time. Eventual responses to this question bore out this perspective.

Scholarship and related funding schemes by a host country are not only a strong driver for recruiting purposes, but also a key amplifier for subsequent alumni affinity – according to both common sense and widespread belief. However, little actual research beyond anecdotal evidence exists for this.

Graph 10: Nexus New Zealand Scholarship – Affinity to New Zealand

Notes: Questions 7 and 15. Question 7 received a total of 882 responses. Qualified responses amounted to 782. Responses which could be matched to NZAID and NZODA: 126.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Out of the total qualified respondent pool of 3,210 alumni, 882 alumni answered this question. One-hundred responses were disqualified for their non-fit to the question. Out of the remaining 782 responses, 126 responses could be attributed to NZAID and NZODA scholarships.

The analysis of the 126 NZAID and NZODA responses revealed an important finding. Former international students who received these New Zealand-based scholarships exhibited a much closer affinity to New Zealand as a country than international students who did not receive the scholarships.

In this instance, 49% of scholarship recipients indicated that they felt “very connected” to New Zealand, as opposed to 34% of former international, non-NZ scholarship recipient students. Similarly, only 13% of NZAID and NZODA scholarship recipients stated that they felt “a bit”, “very little”, or “not at all” connected to New Zealand, whereas this percentage stood at 29% for non-scholarship international alumni respondents.

Perspectives

This finding demonstrates the marked, long-term impact of scholarship schemes on alumni affinity patterns. It also appears to be the case that this finding provides, for the first time, broad survey-based empirical validation for long held, yet often only anecdotally supported, beliefs.

One implication of these survey results is that country-based funding schemes produce long-term affinity patterns, which should prove beneficial not just for institutional alumni programming, but also from a public diplomacy perspective. Another implication is that Alumni Relations offices should be made a more integral part of scholarship and funding strategy planning at universities).

Experiences

Alumni’s Educational Experiences

The eighth question asked alumni to evaluate their educational experiences from an institutional point of view, on a five step, ordinal scale. This question included considerations of both facilities (e.g. library, laboratories), as well as the quality of teaching experienced by alumni during their enrolment as a student.

Educational experiences are one of three key experience areas for students, with the two others being service and social experiences. Two groups of students tend to put emphasis on this experience area: Academically high performing (performance amplifier) and academically low performing (performance enabler) students.

It should be noted that response dynamics for this, as well as the subsequent experience questions, were especially subject to positive biases, based on survey respondents’ self-selection dynamics. Without the benefit of a control group, the magnitude of this bias is impossible to measure.

Graph 11: Alumni’s Educational Experiences as a Student

Notes: Question 8. New Zealand Alumni 1,510, International Alumni 1,522.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The survey asked alumni to rate their educational experience in New Zealand by means of an ordinal scale, ranging from “very positive” to “very negative,” while allowing respondents to opt for “don’t know/does not apply” or to outright skip the question.

More than 90% of both New Zealand and international alumni rated their educational experiences as “positive” or “very positive”, with the latter attracting more than 40% of responses (Graph 11 above). Less than 1% of either New Zealand or international alumni submitted negative feedback (“negative” and “very negative”). This constitutes a rare level of positive feedback for a such a broad survey.”  

Differences between New Zealand and international alumni were minimal and inconsequential. However, this does not mean that different perspectives do not exist amongst sub-groups. The following two graphs are based on cross tabulation (“cross tab”) analysis, i.e. a combination of answers to two different questions by survey respondents.

Theoretically, cross tab analysis is only limited by the total number of response options in a survey minus one. Given the structure of this survey, thousands of such cross tab calculations would have been possible, yet of course not feasible. The cross tabs selected in this chapter were identified based on known affinity and relationship dependencies in alumni networks, as well as a number of related dynamics which the Ministry of Education requested to be analyzed.

Graph 12: Alumni’s Educational Experiences as a Student (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 8. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 3,032.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 12 depicts a cross tab analysis of alumni’s educational experiences (Question 8) and their respective age categories (Question 3). Two insights emerged from the data analysis. First, the general level of satisfaction with educational experiences was universally high (“very positive” and “positive”) at more than 90% across all age categories.

Secondly, however, a clear trend towards less satisfying educational experiences amongst younger alumni was evident. The percentage of survey respondents who indicated that their experience was “very positive” declined from 51% (60-69 years old) to 35% (29 years old and younger)⁶. This finding should give rise to further investigation, as this trend has the potential to impair future alumni programming efforts.

Graph 13 (below) is based on a cross tab analysis of Question 8 and Question 1 (country of residence). Survey returns indicate a similar dynamic to the above graph. Overall, a high level of satisfaction with educational experiences (“very positive” and “positive”) of more than 90% was expressed, except for alumni residing in China. The overall most positive experiences were indicated by Singaporean alumni at 97%.

Responses which indicate a “very positive” experience, however, varied widely, ranging from the United States at 50% to Hong Kong at a mere 16%. Respective responses for both Hong Kong and China constituted clear outliers; one possible explanation could be a cultural bias against “exuberant” statements.

Graph 13: Alumni’s Educational Experiences as a Student (by Country of Residence)

Notes: Questions 1 and 8. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,404 (based on nine countries of residence).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Having a steady inflow of talented international students is not only of critical importance for New Zealand’s higher education landscape, but also for a number of competing countries. Hence, students’ and alumni’s satisfaction with the education offered is a key determinant for future recruiting efforts, especially in times of sheer unlimited knowledge-sharing via the Internet. 
 
While having a vast majority of alumni submit a positive evaluation is flattering, it is also imperative to evaluate these results in the context of methodological limitations as well as other behavioural questions.

Given the survey’s numerous stages of self-selection (only alumni living outside of New Zealand, only alumni whose e-mail address was found in the universities’ databases, only those who opened the e-mail, only those who made an effort to participate in the survey), the format favoured those alumni who have a positive attitude toward their student experience in New Zealand. In addition to that, results should be measured against respondents’ non-academic New Zealand experiences in order to track potentially confounding spill-over effects.

Through the process of removing noise in the data, universities not only obtain an empirically more adequate picture, but they are also able to track unsatisfied alumni who would find themselves marginalized by this question. Though their input is likely to be less flattering, their criticism may provide helpful information for future alumni programming efforts.

Alumni’s Service Experiences

Question Nine polled survey participants on their overall satisfaction with university services. This question included both alumni’s rating of accessibility of university facilities and services (e.g., library, laboratories), as well as the quality of advice they received.

Identical to Question Eight, the survey asked alumni to rate their service experiences at New Zealand universities by means of a five step ordinal scale, ranging from “very positive” to “very negative”.

As stated previously, response dynamics were especially subject to positive biases based on survey respondents’ self-selection dynamics. Without the benefit of a control group, the magnitude of this bias is impossible to measure.

Graph 14: Alumni’s Service Experiences as a Student

Notes: Question 9. New Zealand Alumni 1,506, International Alumni 1,521.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The results yielded a slightly different picture when compared to the previous question as shown in Graph 14. Overall satisfaction rates (as defined by “very positive” and “positive” responses) ranged from 71% (New Zealand alumni) to 77% (international alumni). While still overwhelmingly positive, these numbers are a step down from the highly positive response scores for Question 8.

The most important differentiation between New Zealand and international alumni occurred in the “very positive” response category, with 28% of international alumni and only 19.2% of New Zealand alumni selecting this category. Negative choices (“negative” and “very negative”) amounted to less than 5% even when combined, which constitutes a reassuring result.

One reason for the more positive feedback from former international students could be that they compared their New Zealand university experience to their experience at another university (especially those who pursued graduate studies in New Zealand). Specific feedback directions would of course be dependent on the relative quality of such a university compared to a given New Zealand university. Another reason might be the need of international students to interact more closely with a given university’s administration for a variety of procedural and informational reasons.

Graph 15: Alumni’s Service Experiences as a Student (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 9. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 3,027.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 15 is based on a cross tab analysis of alumni’s service experiences (Question 9) and their respective age categories (Question 3). Results were essentially inconclusive except for one broad trend: Younger alumni rated their student service experiences more positively than older alumni. Given that 15% of alumni older than 70 years old chose “don’t know/does not apply,” it seems possible if not likely that answers for this group of alumni were driven by the chronological distance from their student days.

Graph 16 (below) is based on a cross tab analysis of Question 9 and Question 1 (country of residence). Survey responses exhibited similar country differentiation patterns when compared to Graph 13, though with a more pronounced differentiation dynamic. Hong Kong alumni rated their service experiences lowest, not only from a “very positive” perspective (9%), but as an overall positive experience as well (63% for combined “very positive” and “positive” responses). By contrast, 40% of German alumni scored their experience as “very positive”, and another 46% as “positive”.

Graph 16: Alumni’s Educational Experiences as a Student (by Country of Residence)

Notes: Questions 3 and 9. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,413 (based on nine countries of residence).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

The most salient insight is that alumni value their educational experiences more highly than their service experiences. While the data did not reveal any dramatically diverging perspectives, the alumni’s choice to differentiate between both aspects should give pause.

Further research seems warranted on whether certain nationalities are truly feeling less positive about their experience when compared to others or whether response distributions are an artefact of cultural preferences or a combination thereof. The fact that the youngest bracket of alumni (29 years old or younger) deviated from a generally positive trend calls for a re-surveying five or more years from now to discover if this result was driven by deeply held beliefs, or was simply the outcome of a variety of statistical distortions.

Alumni’s Personal Contacts

The tenth question, posed in multiple-choice format, asked alumni to specify all of the groups of people who played an important role in their social life during their student lives in New Zealand.

Since university alumni networks are traditionally built on inter-personal relationships formed during student days, understanding underlying social relationship dynamics is invaluable to alumni programming efforts.  

This aspect is amplified by the fact that differences in preferences, experiences, and social engagement models are pronounced between students when seen from a group perspective; groups can be defined by ethnicity, subject matter studied, level and degree of study and so on.

Graph 17: Alumni’s Most Important Personal Contacts as a Student

Notes: Question 10. New Zealand Alumni 1,489, International Alumni 1,519.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 17 shows multiple student social life experiences between New Zealand and international alumni. For one, New Zealand alumni related significantly more to fellow New Zealand students than international alumni (46% versus 19%, when combining the “New Zealand students” and “Students from my Home Country” categories for New Zealand alumni).

By contrast, former international students related mostly to “Students from my Home Country” and “International Students” (38% combined share). This result indicates distinct student social interaction patterns, which are key drivers for subsequent networking dynamics.  

Another salient finding was that international alumni related substantially more to administrative staff than New Zealand alumni (8% versus 4%); a likely consequence of the aforementioned, more pronounced informational and procedural needs of international students.

While the social relationship differentiation between international and New Zealand students is not unusual, it nonetheless gives one pause to re-consider the integration dynamics of international students on New Zealand campuses.

Graph 18: Alumni’s Most Important Personal Contacts as a Student (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 10. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,424 (based on two age categories).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 18 is based on a cross tab analysis of alumni’s social experiences (Question 10) and their respective age categories (Question 3). The graph focuses on distinct age categories – the youngest alumni (29 years old and younger), and the second-oldest group of alumni (60 to 69 years old)⁷.

As a preface, it must be noted that the share of New Zealand expatriates in the 60 to 69 years old age category is notably higher than the 29 years old and younger age category, which had a direct impact on response patterns.

Not surprisingly, older alumni related more to (fellow) New Zealand alumni than younger alumni (35% versus 21%). Older alumni also related more to faculty members than younger alumni (18% versus 13%). By contrast, younger alumni related more to their (fellow) international alumni (20% versus 8%). While representing a still small share in this survey – however with strong implications for near term alumni relations programming – more than 4% of young alumni identified friends in online communities as an important part of their social life, while not a single older alum did so.

Graph 19 (below) is based on a cross tab analysis of Question 10 and Question 1 (country of residence). Response patterns betray a strong pattern of country of residence (and thus in many cases country of nationality) differentiation. For example, UK alumni indicated that New Zealand students were the most important part of their social life (43%), while only 10% of Chinese students indicated the same perspective. The latter were much more socially aligned to fellow Chinese students (25%), a dynamic similar to students from Malaysia and Hong Kong (23% each).

One relevant finding is that both Chinese and Hong Kong students expressed a far above average preference for having connected to friends in online communities at 5% and 3%, respectively versus a survey average of around 1%. This reflects younger alumni’s preferences, as demonstrated by other cross tab analyses. In itself, this finding poses a challenge to New Zealand universities, which are in a weak position with regard to most but all online communities (as evidenced by other ICG research).

Graph 19: Alumni’s Most Important Personal Contacts as a Student (by Country of Residence)

Notes: Questions 1 and 10. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 5,835 (based on nine countries of residence).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Given the importance of social experiences and connections during student days as the basis for alumni affinity patterns, the results from the cross tab analysis are especially illuminating.

Alumni of New Zealand universities show distinct preferences based on their country of origin. This differentiation applies to New Zealand versus international alumni on the one hand, and to international alumni groups relative to each other on the other hand.

The impact of this on alumni programming is quite significant. New Zealand alumni who related to fellow New Zealand students during their student days may prefer events which put them into touch with other New Zealand alumni, many of course who will have remained in New Zealand.

By contrast, some international alumni groups (especially alumni from China and Hong Kong) do relate substantially to fellow alumni which, in situations where the vast majority of these alumni return to their home country, should make for tight-knit social networking dynamics. In this sense, alumni from these countries are a better alumni programming target than New Zealand expatriate alumni.

Did Alumni Feel Welcome as Students in New Zealand?

The eleventh question asked alumni to state how welcome they felt throughout their time as students in New Zealand on a five-step ordinal scale (from “definitely” to “definitely not” welcome).

This question was asked in order to probe for an important ground condition for positive affinity development vis-à-vis New Zealand. It also serves as an interpretative control question relative to questions assessing alumni relationship and engagement patterns relative to their alma mater.

The question was subject to a small and calculated degree of methodological obscurity for New Zealand alumni. To them, not only does having felt welcome in New Zealand have a different meaning than it does for international students (since New Zealand, with very few exceptions, is their home country), it also appeared somewhat ambiguous (as evidenced by free text comments in Question 20).

This problem was purposefully incurred to avoid having to break out and/or label questions as questions for a specific (sub-) group of survey participants only. The latter would have entailed the signalling of specific survey intentions, which would have been subject to bias, resistance, or survey drop-out.

Graph 20: Welcome in New Zealand as Perceived by Alumni

Notes: Question 11. New Zealand Alumni 1,523, International Alumni 1,536.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

As already referenced, this question posed a conceptual challenge for some New Zealand alumni. Thus, a full one-third of New Zealand alumni opted to respond with “Don’t know/Does not apply”. Another 59% responded with “definitely,” which is testament to the strong overall affinity of New Zealand citizens to their country.

International alumni, the true targets of this question, responded in a very positive manner. Nearly two-thirds indicated that they felt “definitely” welcome while another 22% indicated that they felt “somewhat” welcome. Only 3% felt “not really” or “definitely not” welcome. There are very few countries which can claim such positive feedback scores.

Graph 21: Feeling Welcome in New Zealand as Perceived by Alumni (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 11. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 3,059.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 21 is based on a cross tab analysis of alumni’s perceived level of welcome in New Zealand (Question 11) and their respective age categories (Question 3). The results from this cross tab analysis are inconclusive owing to other underlying factors such as the share of New Zealand alumni by age category which drive response patterns.

The most significant finding is that the share of “Don’t know/Does not apply” responses increased with advancing age categories from 10% to 31%, reflecting the higher share of New Zealand alumni in the latter brackets. Variations in responses reflecting positive perceptions exist as well. These appear to be largely the outcome of the aforementioned distribution pattern, and of differences between certain international student groups (by nationality).

Graph 22 (below) is based on a cross tab analysis of Question 10 and Question 2 (country of nationality). Nationality as a cross tab was chosen since it provides a more accurate picture of a perceived welcome than the demographic identified from Question 1, current country of residence.

The graph uses New Zealand as a quasi-baseline and contrasts results between the five largest international alumni groups by nationality. German alumni felt most welcome in New Zealand, reporting a combined 98% share for “definitely” (89%) and “somewhat” (9%). Alumni from the United States trailed German alumni somewhat at 75% and 14% respectively, but still indicated highly positive perceptions.

Chinese alumni, however, reported a different set of perceptions, with just 35% reporting to have felt “definitely” welcome and another 41% reporting to have felt “somewhat” welcome. Chinese alumni also reported by far the highest rate of feeling “not really” and “definitely not” welcome at over 6%.

Graph 22: Feeling Welcome in New Zealand as Perceived by Alumni (by Nationality)

Notes: Questions 2 and 11. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,410 (based on six countries of nationality).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Understanding the conditioning factor in driving alumni’s country-focused affinity – the perceived level of welcome as a student – at a granular level is a helpful alumni programming modifier. Survey results suggest that, for example, German alumni require limited relationship modulation since the level of base affinity to New Zealand is exceedingly high.

This stands in contrast to alumni from China, who have reported much less favourable student perceptions of New Zealand. While feedback was highly positive overall, more efforts should be placed on making sure that a number of identified nationalities are better integrated during their student days.

Connection

Alumni’s Connection to their Alma Mater

Question 14 asked alumni to share how connected they felt to their alma mater overall, with options ranging from “very much” to “not at all” (on a five step scale).

Responses to this question provide important control information for the rest of the survey. Alumni may profess to wanting to stay in touch and engage with their alma mater, but if their real level of connection is not deep, such preferences typically do not translate into action.

Typically, alumni’s depth of connection is influenced by experiences on campus, which often result in distinct subsequent affinity levels. To this end, this section analyses two cross tabs (alumni age category and academic unit).

Graph 23: Depth of Alumni’s Connections to their Alma Mater

Notes: Question 14. New Zealand Alumni 1,461, International Alumni 1,471.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Two insights emerge from Graph 23. First, international alumni are significantly more likely to have felt “very much” connected to their alma mater than New Zealand alumni (21% versus 10%). The distribution of alumni who felt “somewhat” connected is nearly even, at 38% and 37% respectively. By contrast, only 17% of international alumni felt “very little” or “not at all” connected to their alma mater, compared to 23% of New Zealand alumni. Overall, international alumni related significantly more deeply to their alma mater than New Zealand alumni.

Second, the overall level of connection alumni indicated towards their alma mater was rather moderate. This was especially the case with New Zealand alumni, only 45% of whom professed a positive connection. Given that the survey was subject to multiple levels of positive self-selection bias, this suggests that the overall level of positive connections will be substantially lower in the overall (un-surveyed) alumni pool.

Graph 24 (below) applies a cross tab analysis of two variables: Level of connection depth relative to alumni age category. Two age categories were chosen for juxtaposition purposes: 29 years old and younger, and 60 to 69 years old. Overall, differences between these two age categories were relatively small. Younger alumni felt “very much” connected slightly more often than older alumni (18% versus 15%), but also more often “very little” connected (16% versus 11%). Alumni age as a factor thus caused only minimal differentiation in alumni’s depth of connection to their alma mater.

Graph 24: Alumni’s Connection to their Alma Mater (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 14. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 867 (based on two age categories).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 25 (below) deploys a second cross tab analysis: Level of connection depth relative to affiliated academic unit. Differences between alumni from different academic units (here: business vis-à-vis humanities and arts) proved to be even less notable than differences by age.

Both groups of alumni indicated that they felt “very much” or “somewhat” connected at 52%. An equally small share, 3% each, indicated that they felt “not at all” connected. An alum’s academic unit background can be a strong driver for connection to an alma mater. In the case of alumni from New Zealand universities, however, this was not the case.

Graph 25: Alumni’s Connection to their Alma Mater (by Academic Unit)

 

Notes: Questions 6 and 14. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 1,741 (based on two academic units).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

The key driver for differences in alumni connectedness is nationality rather than age or affiliated academic unit. The latter two factors exerted little influence, while the former clearly showed international alumni feeling more connected than domestic alumni to their alma mater.

This finding is not surprising, given the implications of a student’s decision to study outside his or her home country. In general, the financial and personal investment in studying overseas is larger than when studying domestically. This initial investment finds its translation in a subsequently elevated level of connectedness (or affinity) to the university.

This finding provides Alumni Relations offices with a clear indication that international alumni are a good target for increased programming and networking efforts.

Alumni’s Connection to New Zealand

The fifteenth question asked alumni to share how connected they feel to New Zealand on a five step scale, ranging from “very much” to “not at all”.

This question relates to the previous question by offering a contrast between alumni’s attitudes toward their alma mater vis-à-vis New Zealand as a country. Given that about half of the survey’s respondents were non-New Zealand citizens, responses to this question provided a useful perspective on relative differences in alumni connection dynamics between former New Zealand (domestic) students and international students, as well as between former international students by nationality.

Graph 26: Alumni’s Connection to New Zealand

Notes: Question 15. New Zealand Alumni 1,468, International Alumni 1,474.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The survey results depicted in Graph 26 reveal three important insights. First, the level of overall alumni connection to New Zealand is high across the board: 73% of international alumni felt “very much” or “somewhat” connected to New Zealand, as did a full 87% of New Zealand alumni.

Second, the share of alumni who indicated highly positive connections to New Zealand differed significantly between New  Zealand alumni (56%) and international alumni (37%). This result is not surprising, given the high affinity levels New Zealand citizens have for their home country in general.

Third, alumni related much more strongly to New  Zealand than to their respective alma maters. While only 10% of New Zealand alumni felt “very much” connected to their alma mater, 56% felt “very much” connected to New Zealand. The same dynamic, albeit reflecting a much reduced spread, was found among international alumni (21% versus 37%).

Differences between alumni from different countries with regard to connection level are displayed in Graph 27 (below). The cross tab graph displays data from the six largest alumni groups by nationality (including New Zealand) and is ordered by (descending) levels of alumni connectedness to New Zealand.

The most relevant finding is that the share of international alumni from different countries who felt “very much” connected differed notably, ranging from a high of 55% (USA) to a low of 22% (China). When adding “somewhat”, alumni from all displayed countries indicated positive connection levels of more than 63%, though Chinese alumni again indicated the relatively lowest level of positive connection.

Another finding is that alumni from the USA and Germany felt so closely connected to New Zealand that their positive responses exceeded those of New Zealand alumni (when taking “very much”, “somewhat”, and “a bit” into account). However, this finding, while of interest, is statistically not significant.

Graph 27: Alumni’s Connection to New Zealand (by Nationality)

 

Notes: Questions 2 and 15. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,317 (based on six countries of nationality).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 28 (below) is based on a cross tab analysis of Question 15 (alumni connectedness) and Question 3 (alumni age category). Survey responses revealed a slightly higher degree of connectedness amongst younger alumni (29 years old and younger) than older alumni (60 to 69 years old). This was expressed most clearly in the “very much” connected response category, which was chosen by younger alumni at a rate of 51%, relative to 43% for older alumni. It is likely that age is less of a driver for these differences than nationality.

Graph 28: Alumni’s Connection to New Zealand (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 15. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 1,749 (based on two age categories).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

New Zealand is a very well-liked country, by both its own citizens and former international students. Alumni’s survey responses reflected this fact by exhibiting a high degree of connectedness to New Zealand.

While New Zealand alumni on average connected most positively with their home country, a number of international alumni did so at similar levels (e.g. the Germans and Americans). On the other hand, alumni from other countries related much less to New Zealand (e.g. China and Malaysia).

This finding can serve as a key driver for country-specific alumni relations programming efforts by justifying the categorisation of events by theme; for example, New Zealand-themed versus other events.

How Do Alumni Connect with their Alma Mater?

Today’s alumni expect to be able to get in touch with their alma mater through multiple modes. Being aware of what connection mode is preferred by which alumni group assists Alumni Relations offices with customising their engagement and communication strategies.

The twelfth question assessed these modes in a matrix, by offering participants ten specific responses with four options each: “Regularly,” “sometimes,” “never” and “don’t know/does not apply”. Owing to the comprehensive nature of Question 12, the subsequent graphs are split to show in-person connection modes, print publication modes, e-mail connection modes, and online connection modes.

In contrast to the previous report section, which analysed (past and/or essentially passive) experiences, this section focuses on actual, active behaviour by alumni.

Graph 29: Connecting with the Alma Mater in Person (by Connection Mode)

Notes: Question 12. New Zealand Alumni 1,503, International Alumni 1,508. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Question 12 offered survey participants four response options indicating (past) in-person connection modes: Having attended a New Zealand-themed event, having joined a local alumni club/chapter, having attended alumni events, and having met with other alumni on a social basis (see Graph 29).

The results from this set of responses indicate a high degree of alumni passivity, regardless whether they are New Zealand or international alumni. No response option attracted more than 11% of alumni indicating that they engage in person “regularly”. Social interaction with fellow alumni was the most popular activity.

A partial explanation for these low scores is the geographical situation of alumni who may not have access to a club or chapter, have not been privy to university-hosted alumni events, or who might not be aware of the presence of other alumni in their region.

Differences between international and New  Zealand alumni with regard to engaging either “regularly” or “sometimes” proved to be minor and not of consequence for alumni relations programming purposes.

Graph 30: Connecting with the Alma Mater by Reading Publications

Notes: Question 12. New Zealand Alumni 1,503, International Alumni 1,508. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Question 12 also offered survey participants two response options indicating past report reading connection modes: Having received and read e-newsletters from their alma mater, and having read the university magazine during the past 12 months (see Graph 30). Receiving reports is not a truly active engagement mode for alumni; however, reading reports can be considered active alumni behaviour (albeit at the lower end of the active behaviour scale).

Overall, differences between international and New Zealand alumni again proved to be minor and not consequential. For example, a total of 82% of international alumni and 84% of New Zealand alumni indicated that they had read a given university magazine “regularly” or “sometimes” during the past twelve months. Alumni thus expressed a clear interest in reading university magazines across the board.

Electronic newsletters proved to be somewhat less popular, with combined scores of 66% (international alumni) and 62% (New Zealand alumni). This may be due to different communication preferences based on age (i.e. print being preferred over electronic communication), or to the level of attractiveness and professionalism of electronic communication by Alumni Relations offices.

Graph 31: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through the University Website

Notes: Question 12. New Zealand Alumni 1,503, International Alumni 1,508. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Institutional websites have rapidly become the most popular information sharing platform for universities worldwide. As such, university websites are the premier information “pull” medium for alumni from an information richness, timeliness, and cost-of-information acquisition view point.

Graph 31 shows that only a small number of alumni professed to “regularly” access their alma maters’ websites – 10% of New  Zealand and 17% of international alumni. Yet 63% of New Zealand and 66% of international alumni have “sometimes” accessed their universities’ websites. Overall, well over 70% of a given university’s alumni utilize its website.

That international alumni accessed their universities’ websites more frequently than New Zealand alumni despite the fact that both groups reside outside New Zealand suggests either that New  Zealand alumni utilised additional, different communication channels, or that international alumni were more active in obtaining information from their alma mater.

While university websites proved somewhat popular, Alumni Relations office websites were much less frequented by alumni. Less than 5% of all survey respondents accessed a respective website “regularly”, and less than 45% did so “sometimes”. Reasons are bound to differ and may include a lack of compelling content, a lack of specific information, or difficulties in finding an Alumni Relations office’s website.

Graph 32 (below) highlights online communities, an emerging alumni relations engagement platform. As previous data discussions have already pointed out, the utilisation of online communities to date is largely driven by younger alumni. Online communities have also proven quite popular with alumni from certain countries such as China and Hong Kong.

Overall usage patterns differed only marginally between international and New Zealand alumni, with the former showing slightly higher usage rates. Regular usage (as defined by joining a group) – either of a user-generated group or an official group – ran at 3% or less. Infrequent use (“sometimes”) ran between 11% and 16%, with neither response category attracting more than 19% usage overall. Given the recent emergence of online communities, it is reasonable to assume that usage rates will increase very notably over the next couple of years.

Graph 32: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through Online Communities

Notes: Question 12. New Zealand Alumni 1,503, International Alumni 1,508. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 33 (below) is based on a cross tab analysis of alumni’s in-person connection mode (Question 12) split by academic unit affiliation (Question 6). Alumni engagement research suggests that some alumni of certain academic units engage and/or network more than others. To follow up on this research, the cross tab analysis focused on business (and related) subjects in one group and on humanities and arts subjects in another.

Graph 33: Connecting with the Alma Mater in Person (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 1,594 (based on two academic units). Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

This survey’s result could not validate this research outright. Business alumni connected slightly more to their alma mater in-person than humanities and arts alumni in some ways, but not in others. Connection rates were somewhat higher (when combining “regularly” and “sometimes”) for more formal activities such as having “joined a local alumni club/chapter” and having “attended an alumni event”. Results for two other in-person connection activities, having “met with alumni on a social basis” and having “attended a New Zealand-themed event” were effectively level.

Additional cross tab research for business as well as humanities and arts alumni showed that differences with regard to other connection areas were also small. As Graph 34 (below) demonstrates, both alumni groups received and read e-newsletters from their alma mater at the same rate of 76% (“regularly” and “sometimes” combined).

Humanities and arts alumni read their alma mater’s university magazine at a slightly higher rate of 83% when compared to business alumni at a rate of 80%, when combining “regularly” and “sometimes”. In both categories, the differences between the groups are not meaningful.

Graph 34: Connecting with the Alma Mater by Reading Publications (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 1,723 (based on two academic units). Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 35: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through the University Website (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 1,651 (based on two academic units). Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 35 further reiterates this finding by displaying analysis of the past usage of university and alumni relations programme websites, split by arts and humanities versus business alumni.

Both alumni groups accessed the university website at roughly even levels – arts and humanities alumni at 80% versus 77% of business alumni – and the alumni relations programme website at an even 47% (“regularly” and “sometimes” combined).

Graph 36: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through Online Communities (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 1,544 (based on two academic units). Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Typically, business alumni are amongst the more, if not the most, active adopters of online communities, especially for professional networking purposes. This would suggest that survey respondents with a business education background would have indicated an above average utilisation of online communities. In addition, the age composition of business alumni is somewhat younger than the age composition of arts and humanities alumni, which should have further reinforced this dynamic.

Yet, as Graph 36 reveals, while business alumni did indeed join respective university groups at higher rates, differences between both alumni groups were again quite small. Business alumni utilisation rates of official groups ran at 19% while arts and humanities alumni rates ran at 17% (“regularly” and “sometimes” combined). Rates for user-generated groups ran at 21% and 19%, respectively.

One explanation is the low overall rate of intensive users (i.e. “regularly”), which rarely exceeds 5% of a given alumni sub-group. Social network theory suggests that certain participation thresholds need to be passed before online communities become viable and eventually inevitable. The observed level of 5% of regular users is clearly not sufficient to induce either dynamic.

Another explanation is the overall lack of presence and brand supported by New Zealand’s universities. Other ICG research has evidenced a very minor brand footprint of all New Zealand universities in the most important online communities, such as Facebook and LinkedIn. While alumni can drive most of the activity, they cannot drive everything.

Graph 37: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through User-Generated Online Community Groups (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,571.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

While the previous data discussion revealed quite limited differences in alumni connection patterns by affiliated academic unit, Graphs 37 to 45 show that differences do exist when conducting a cross tab analysis by age category.  Owing to the nature of the cross tab data, each of these graphs provides a single cross tab perspective (hence the need to present nine graphs).

In alignment with other age category based alumni behaviour differentiation, Graph 37 displays substantial differences with regard to alumni having joined user-generated online community groups (either reflecting a university or an academic unit such as a faculty or college).

Alumni 29 years old and younger joined such groups at a rate of 26% (“regularly” and “sometimes”), while alumni 70 years and older only did so at a rate of less than 2%. Remarkably, a small core group of between 2% to 3.5% existed amongst alumni under the age of 60 who engaged in such groups “regularly”. This indicates that online community usage has its supporters across a wide age band, albeit at a low level.

Graph 38 (below) juxtaposes the preferences expressed in Graph 37. Instead of a user-generated online community group, alumni were asked whether they had joined an official online community group. A bifurcated picture emerged. Older alumni were notably more likely to join an official group than a user-generated group. The joining rate for 70 years old and older alumni increased from 2% to 5%, and from 6% to 11% for 60 to 69 years old alumni (combining “regularly” and “sometimes”).

By contrast, younger alumni were actually less likely to join official online community groups than user-generated groups. The joining rate for 29 years old and younger alumni dropped from 26% to 22%, and from 19% to 15% for 30 to 39 years old alumni (again, combined categories).

This is an important finding, since it makes quite clear that alumni relations programming in online communities is complex, driven by diverging alumni preferences, and still largely unexplored.

Graph 38: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through Official Online Community Groups (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,583.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Differences between age categories were apparent – yet not surprising – in the way alumni accessed university websites, as Graph 39 (below) shows. Nearly 21% of young alumni (29 years old and younger) “regularly” accessed their alma mater’s website – about twice the rate of alumni over the age of 50 years. In addition, 62% of the former accessed their alma mater’s website “sometimes”.

Yet even alumni aged 70 years and older accessed their alma mater’s website at a rate of more than two-thirds (“regularly” and sometimes”). This result speaks as much to the ubiquity of Internet access as to the need for a high quality, attractive, and compelling website which offers information and services useful to alumni. Most but all websites of New  Zealand universities face the need for significant improvements in this regard, as other ICG research has evidenced.

Graph 39: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through the University Website (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,771.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 40 (below) highlights (in concurrence with the findings from other graphs) that alumni are not only less likely to access an alumni relations program website relative to a university website, but that age is a significant driver for this behaviour.

For example, the share of young alumni (29 years old or younger) who “regularly” accessed the university website shrunk from 21% to 2% for those who “regularly” accessed an alumni relations programme website. The share of those who accessed either website “sometimes” dropped from 62% to 36%.

Access rates for older age categories were also depressed for alumni relations programme websites, but increasingly less so. Eventually, alumni aged 70 years and older accessed alumni relations programme websites and university websites “regularly” at the same level. This alumni feedback indicated in quite drastic terms that young alumni see little value in alumni relations programme websites.

Graph 40: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through the Alumni Relations Programme Website (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,689.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 41: Connecting with the Alma Mater by Attending Events (Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,689.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graphs 41 and 42 (below) juxtapose two kinds of event attendance: General (official) events, and events with a New Zealand-theme. In line with previous findings, Graph 41 shows that older alumni (70 years old and older) are much more likely to attend official alumni events than younger alumni (29 years old and younger), at a rate of 67% to 21% (“regularly” and “sometimes”).

Alumni younger than 60 years old displayed a sharp drop in past event attendance when compared to alumni 60 years old and older. While some of this drop can be explained by alumni life cycle theory, Alumni Relations offices should be concerned about whether the eventual rise in event attendance is an organic occurrence, or whether past non-attendance patterns of younger alumni will lead to future depressed attendance rates of (then older) alumni.

Graph 42: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through Attending New Zealand-Themed Events (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,620.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Overall, alumni indicated that they were less interested in New Zealand-themed events than official university events (see Graph 42). In particular, older alumni were much less interested. No age category group reaches a regular attendance rate of 10%, and the share of alumni who have never attended such an event ran from 42% to 62%.

A deviation from this picture was the youngest alumni age category, which saw an increase of alumni who “regularly” or “sometimes” participated in such events (30% versus 20%). This finding further confirms the quite distinct nature of young alumni across multiple behavioural dimensions.

Graph 43 (below) aligns with the two previous graphs with regard to two key insights. First, older alumni (60 to 69 years old and 70 years old and older) were partial to meeting fellow alumni on a social basis, with 12% to 17% indicating that they did so “regularly” and another 46% to 59% having met “sometimes”. Alumni in younger age categories were less interested, but still indicated at a percentage rate of mid 40s to high 40s that they “regularly” or “sometimes” met with fellow alumni on a social basis.

The social and, by extension, networking component of alumni events has shown itself to be a key driver for alumni event attendance, and thus engagement with their alma mater. This finding should be used to adjust alumni programming efforts as needed.

Graph 43: Connecting with the Alma Mater Through socially Meeting Alumni (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,681.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Another way to connect with an alma mater is by reading a given university magazine. As Graph 44 (below) demonstrates, this was a highly popular activity for respondents. Nearly three-quarters of alumni 70 years old and older read their alma mater’s university magazine “regularly”. Amongst alumni in the youngest age category, some one-quarter still did so. Overall, the vast majority of alumni actually read university magazines at least “sometimes”.

Graph 44: Connecting with the Alma Mater by Age Category (Read Magazine)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,891.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Reading magazines was more popular than reading electronic newsletters (Graph 45 below). Interestingly, magazines were preferred by every alumni age category, including young alumni who had otherwise indicated an interest in electronic media and online communities.

Graph 45: Connecting with the Alma Mater by Age Category (Read E-newsletter)

Notes: Questions 3 and 12. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,732.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Though interest levels still ranged between about 70% and 80% (“regularly” and “sometimes”), the share of alumni who made a point to connect “regularly” by reading electronic newsletters was clearly diminished relative to magazine readership. Reasons are likely to differ – format, content, presentation, and reach of a given electronic newsletter could all have been possible factors.  Given the cost effectiveness of electronic communication, alumni offices should consider analysing how this communication tool can be improved to increase alumni readership.

Perspectives

The analysis of alumni connection preferences with their alma mater yielded a number of relevant insights. First, alumni admitted to a relatively low level of active connection behaviour such as expressed through event attendance. The latter is of course curtailed by the availability of events for alumni in their given location. With few international alumni chapters in place and a relatively low number of events taking place this is not a surprising finding.

Second, notable differences between alumni emerged. For example, alumni age proved to be the decisive factor with regards to connection behaviour.  Younger alumni were significantly more willing to utilise online communities to connect with their alma mater than older alumni. On the other hand, older alumni favoured event attendance notably more than younger alumni.

Accessing the university’s websites was a wide-spread behaviour across all age groups. A salient finding is that alumni preferred the university website by a strong margin over a given alumni relations programme’s website. This hints at the lack of relevance of the latter for alumni and should given rise to improvement efforts.

Communication

Alumni’s Preferred Mode of Communication with their Alma Mater

Question 13 asked alumni to express their preferred modes of communicating with their alma mater, by indicating their preference for different communication channels on a three step scale from “like” to “dislike”. This question followed up on Question 12 by probing more deeply for relative preferences.

Survey participants were offered a selection of five communication tools, ranging from traditional postal mail to electronic communication (e-mail, e-newsletters) to web-based communication (university website postings, online communities). These options differ in their communication structure, their push/pull nature, and their basic appeal to certain alumni segments (particularly noticeable when split by age category).

Graph 46: Preferred Mode of Communication with the Alma Mater (by Channel)

Notes: Question 13. New Zealand Alumni 1,511, International Alumni 1,508. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

As Graph 46 shows, results from Question 13 reveal two distinct patterns amongst alumni. First, differences between international and New  Zealand alumni were clear with regard to three communication tools. International alumni “liked” to share information in online communities at a rate of 30%, which only 18% of New  Zealand alumni preferred. Similar differences existed with regard to reading university website postings (32% versus 19%), and receiving postal mail (52% versus 41%).

Second, overall alumni communication preferences differed between passive and active channels. Survey respondents expressed a clear preference for passive (push) communication modes such as receiving e-mail (approximately 70%) and electronic newsletters (approximately two-thirds). By contrast, active communication (pull) modes, such as accessing a university website or sharing information in online communities, were only “liked” by about one quarter of respondents.

Graph 47 (below) displays the results from a cross tab analysis which referenced alumni’s communication tool preferences to their academic unit affiliation. Differences between alumni with a business versus a humanities and arts study background were minor within three push channels (e-mail, electronic newsletters, postal mail).

Differences emerged, however, in the two pull channels: Online communities and university website postings. Alumni with a business education background claimed to “like” these channels notably more than alumni from a humanities and arts background (30% to 23% and 28% to 24%, respectively).

This suggests two dynamics: First, alumni with a business study background are more actively engaged than alumni from a humanities and arts background. Second, alumni with a business study background are slightly more prone to adopting new communication channels such as online communities.

Graph 47: Preferred Mode of Communication with the Alma Mater (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 13. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 8,360. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni (based on two academic units).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 48: Communication by Postal Mail with the Alma Mater (by Age)

Notes: Questions 3 and 13. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,766.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The cross tab analysis of Question 13 with Question 3 (age) as shown in Graph 48 reveals that older alumni (over the age of 60) were especially in favour of receiving postal mail: More than 50% of alumni in this bracket indicated that they “like” this communication channel. Alumni under the age of 60 “liked” this channel at noticeably lower rates.

Graph 49: Communication by E-mail with the Alma Mater (by Age)

Notes: Questions 3 and 13. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,939.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 49 continues the communication preferences cross tab analysis by focusing on alumni attitudes toward e-mail communication. As previously stated, alumni “like” e-mail communication across the board: Between 67% and 73% of survey participants indicated that they “like” e-mail. Only a small minority (less than 7%) of alumni in a given age category indicated that they “dislike“ e-mail communication.

This makes e-mail the preferred communication tool for alumni across all age groups. Moreover, it is a low cost, flexible, and immediate tool from an Alumni Relations office perspective. Alumni who do not like e-mail communication should of course be catered to, by providing e-mail recipients with the option to opt out of receiving e-mails.

Closely related to e-mail are electronic newsletters and magazines. Graph 50 (below) shows a similar alumni preference dynamic for these two communication tools. With the exception of alumni of the ages 70 and older, all other alumni age categories indicated that they “like” to receive electronic newsletters and magazines at rates of more than 62%. Again, only a small fraction of alumni expressed a “dislike” for this communication tool.

Graph 50: Communication by Newsletter with the Alma Mater (by Age)

Notes: Questions 3 and 13. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,871.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Differences between age categories became even less significant when alumni were asked whether they like or dislike to “read postings on the university website” (see Graph 51 below). While the share of alumni professing to “like” doing so dropped across all age categories, differences between age categories themselves were minor (“like” choices ranged from 23% to 29%). One reason for this drop is the pull nature of this channel, which requires an alum to be more actively engaged.

Graph 51: Communication Through the University Website with the Alma Mater (by Age)

Notes: Questions 3 and 13. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,680.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 52: Communication in Online Communities with the Alma Mater (by Age)

Notes: Questions 3 and 13. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,674.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The final communication preference cross tab analysis considered alumni attitudes toward online communities (Graph 52, above). While a number of other communication channels were not subject to fundamental user preference differentiation by age, online communities proved to be different.

Approximately 30% of alumni of the ages 39 years and younger professed to “like” sharing information in online communities. Favourable opinions of this channel dropped substantially in older alumni age categories. Only about 10% of alumni aged between 50 and 69 “liked” to share information in online communities, and only half as many expressed this in the 70 years and older age category.

While these results might indicate that online communities are not a universally preferred channel for alumni relations programming efforts, quite the opposite is the case. For one, online communities are a very recent phenomenon which is experiencing rapid adoption around the globe – with the strongest growth rates occurring amongst users over the age of 40.

Second, compelling content and interaction tends to drive the adoption of online communities as much as the network effect (i.e. members of a group joining an online network because a sufficient number of other group members has joined). This effect has not yet kicked in for many older alumni, but can be expected to do so eventually.

Perspectives

Three lessons emerged from the analysis of alumni’s communication preferences. First, alumni are fond of passive, push communication channels and tools. This is generally true of alumni across the board, and reflects today’s communication landscape and time management as well as communication flow demands on alumni.

Second, electronic communication has become widely accepted. Alumni no longer insist on printed correspondence; e-mail and electronic newsletters are entirely acceptable to them. This is an affirmation of the strategy shift in many Alumni Relations offices toward electronic communication. An additional benefit is that e-mail is a highly cost effective channel.

Third, one alumni segment has emerged as being especially interested in staying in touch through electronic channels – young international alumni. As indicated by analysis in other chapters of this report, this segment should be focused on by Alumni Relations offices. Not only are these alumni likely to take on leadership roles as they mature, but they are also at the vanguard of interactive and self-organized alumni volunteer dynamics.

Engagement

Alumni’s Readiness to Support their Alma Mater

Question 16 inquired into alumni’s readiness to actively support their alma mater by ranking their willingness to participate in a diverse set of activities. Response options were offered on a three step scale: “Yes”, “maybe”, and “no”, as well as “do not know/does not apply”. The alumni programming categories investigated included event participation, club activities, online engagement, and marketing support.

Beginning with Question 16, the survey shifted from asking alumni about their experiences and preferences to inquiring about actual, tangible engagement behaviour. This question, in combination with Questions 17 to 19, thus provides insight into the likely levels of engagement alumni can be expected to show for their alma mater and/or New Zealand.

Graph 53: Readiness to Support the Alma Mater (by Support Category)

Notes: Question 16. New Zealand Alumni 1,477, International Alumni 1,476. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Question 16 asked survey participants “Can you imagine supporting [name of university] by…”, followed by the five response categories depicted in Graph 53. Alumni responses to this question can be summarised into three dynamics. First, international students expressed a stronger willingness to support their alma mater, with affirmative responses (“yes”) leading New Zealand alumni by 6% to 19% in each response category.

Second, attending events and sharing experiences with potential students proved to be the two most popular activities for respondents, with affirmative response rates of 36% to 55%. Club or chapter participation and joining a Facebook group found notably less support.

Third, the proportion of alumni who stated that they did not want to get involved were small to moderate. The exception was New Zealand alumni, a considerable 49% of whom stated “no” when asked if they would consider joining a Facebook group. In general, New Zealand alumni demonstrated a more pronounced unwillingness to support their alma mater in each response category.

Graph 54 (below) breaks down the support analysis further, by conducting a cross tab analysis with alumni age category. Response patterns show a gradual age category-based weakening of alumni willingness to participate in a local club or chapter, declining from a relatively high support level of 78% in the bracket 29 years old and younger, to 70% in the bracket 60 to 69 years old (“yes” and “maybe” combined). Alumni aged 70 years and older indicated much less willingness to participate in this way, a preference that is no doubt partially driven by personal logistics and mobility considerations.

Graph 54: Readiness to Support the Alma Mater by Club/Chapter Participation (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 16. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,851.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Creating and maintaining an alumni club or chapter requires a relatively high degree of organizational capability, for both alumni and a given Alumni Relations office. By contrast, joining and/or creating a Facebook group is a near effortless activity. Graph 55 (below) disaggregates survey respondents’ willingness to join a university-themed Facebook group with an age category-based cross tab analysis.

In line with previous analysis, younger alumni (under the age of 40) shared a sustained willingness to join such a Facebook group at rates of 34% to 49% (“yes” responses). Interest levels dropped severely amongst older alumni, with only 1% of alumni aged 70 years and older expressing a definitive interest (“yes” responses).

Graph 55: Readiness to Support the Alma Mater by Joining a Facebook Group (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 16. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,810.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Regional university events are another alumni activity which typically experiences differentiated support rates based on alumni age. Often, younger alumni are more interested in specific networking events, and are less interested in attending general, university-centric alumni events.

As Graph 56 (below) shows, this dynamic does not hold for New Zealand’s young alumni. Indeed, alumni aged 29 years old and younger demonstrated the greatest interest in university events, with 52% indicating “yes” when asked if they would attend them. By contrast, alumni in the oldest age category (70 years and older) only indicated interest at a rate of 31%. This squarely hints at the elevated networking needs of young alumni which, so far, do not appear to be satisfactorily addressed.

Graph 56: Readiness to Support the Alma Mater by Attending Regional  University Events (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 16. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,898.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 57: Readiness to Support the Alma Mater by Volunteering for Advertising/Marketing Profiles (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 16. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,842.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 57 is based on an analysis of alumni responses to the question of whether they would be available for alumni profiles for university advertising and/or marketing purposes. Such profiles have proven popular amongst potential students and fellow alumni, and are one of the most authentic marketing tools a university can draw on. Some universities deploy both alumni and student profiles to great effect. An example is the London School of Economics, which has offered hundreds of such profiles over the years.

Similar to the response dynamics depicted in the immediately preceding graphs, younger alumni indicated the highest levels of support for this, with more than 80% responding “yes” or “maybe”. By contrast, alumni aged 70 years and older indicated a combined support level of just 40%.

A related question asked alumni whether they could imagine supporting their alma mater by sharing their experiences with potential students. To do so, alumni would have to get personally engaged and make a substantial personal commitment. Graph 58 (below) displays the results, which are largely in line with the response patterns to previous questions.

Younger alumni indicated a willingness to support their alma mater in this way at higher rates than older alumni. However, support rates (“yes” and “maybe”, combined) were high for all alumni under the age of 60, ranging from 80% to 92%. Older alumni were again less likely to volunteer for this activity, with support rates for the 70 years and older age category dropping to 50% (“yes” and “maybe” combined). 

Graph 58: Readiness to Support the Alma Mater by Sharing Experiences with Potential Students (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 16. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,872.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Actively supporting an alma mater requires a higher engagement level from alumni than the \passive reception of communication pieces such as email. The willingness to engage with potential students or participate in a local club are expressions of active affinity behaviour. The positive news emerging from the analysis of Question 16 is that alumni respondents expressed a high level of readiness to support their respective alma mater in these active ways.

Support levels differed between international and New Zealand alumni, with the former persistently indicating greater levels of commitment in their responses.   Alumni age was also an influencing factor, albeit in a atypical way. The survey demonstrated that younger alumni were typically more engaged or more willing to be engaged than older alumni, which is somewhat unusual. It should be noted that this dynamic is partially driven by the sustained shift in alumni nationality and country of residence composition towards a more internationalized alumni pool over time.

However, while somewhat unusual, this finding is, again, positive news for New Zealand universities’ alumni relations programming. Young alumni, if appropriately engaged by a given university, are likely to carry their positive engagement attitude forward. Over time, the alumni networks of New Zealand universities should benefit from a much raised alumni engagement level – if proper institutional efforts are made.

These efforts should pay particular focus to the group of alumni – possibly constituting 40% of the overall alumni pool – who are open to more and deeper engagement dynamics with their respective alma mater, but who responded to this question with “maybe”. Engaging and winning over this group will be a critical task for alumni relations offices.

Alumni’s Interest in Participating in New Zealand-themed Events

Question 17 investigated alumni interest in participating in New Zealand-themed events. Response options included four distinct event types – a multi-institutional event (hosted by multiple universities), an entertainment-driven event (sports), a networking event (Kiwi Expatriates Abroad), and a formal event (hosted by a New Zealand embassy).

A driver for asking survey participants specific questions in this context was to determine if alumni hold specific preferences with regard to events which move beyond institutional boundaries. Understanding such preferences is especially relevant to situations in which a given university does not have sufficient capacity to hold events on its own, or to situations in which alumni may benefit from a broader event context.

Graph 59: Participating in New Zealand-themed Events (by Event Category)

Notes: Question 17. New Zealand Alumni 1,461, International Alumni 1,451. Response option wording is only displayed once for international alumni but also applies to the below row for New Zealand alumni.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Question 17 asked survey participants “Can you imagine participating in general New Zealand-themed events?”, followed by four response categories (see Graph 59). Alumni responses can be summarised into two dynamics.

First, events with a highly specific New  Zealand theme were more attractive to New Zealand alumni. Both of the “Attending a sports event with a New Zealand team” and “Attending a Kiwi Expatriates Abroad (KEA) event” categories were notably popular with New  Zealand alumni, who indicated a 50% “yes” response rate in each. It is rather surprising that close to 40% of international alumni signalled their interest in such events too (“yes” responses).

Second, somewhat more formal events – such as embassy events or events hosted by multiple New Zealand universities – proved to be especially popular, with potential participation levels coming in at 83% to 90% (“yes” and “maybe”, combined). This is due in part to the fact that, for alumni, these are essentially leverage events.

This finding suggests that alumni are interested in events which will expose them to a larger number of alumni than they would meet at an event individually hosted by their own alma mater, and in events which provide a framework for professional networking.

Graph 60 (below) highlights a further variable which shapes alumni preferences for a leverage event, such an embassy event: Country of residence. This factor matters for two reasons. First, a given country of residence must have a New Zealand embassy present to allow for this to even be an option. Second, while in most countries alumni nationality aligns with their chosen country of residence, this is not always the case (most notably in Australia, which is home to a sizeable contingent of New Zealand expatriate alumni). This fact is bound to have an effect on response (event attendance?) rates.

Graph 60: Participating in a New Zealand Embassy Event (by Country of Residence)

Notes: Questions 1 and 17. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,326 (for ten countries of residence).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Overall interest levels in embassy events were high, with percentage shares of “yes” responses ranging from the high 30s to the high 50s. When including “maybe” responses, potential interest levels exceed 80% across all displayed countries. Other than this, no single conclusive perspective emerges; responses were specific to each country.

Graph 61 (below) applies the country of residence cross tab analysis to the response category regarding events hosted by multiple New Zealand universities. While, again, no overarching theme emerged, clear differences between countries came into view.

Alumni in Germany, China, and the United States were the most open to potential multi-university events, with 50% or more indicating “yes”. By contrast, alumni in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were the least interested, with “yes” response rates of less than 36%. A sizeable contingent of “maybe” responses moves the share of alumni in these countries who would be generally favourable beyond the 80% marker (“yes” and “maybe”, combined), with the exception of Australia. Thus, while there is little outright resistance to multi-institutional events, alumni in some countries are notably more favourably disposed to such events than those in other countries, a fact that alumni programming efforts should take into account.

Graph 61: Participating in a Multi-University Event (by Country of Residence)

Notes: Questions 1 and 17. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 2,311 (for ten countries of residence).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Survey respondents were generally open to participating in New Zealand-themed events. It is worth noting that this is another proof of the attractiveness of New  Zealand. For example, German survey respondents were highly positive in their attitudes toward New Zealand, contrasting with the fact that a much smaller share would attend Germany-themed events. While differences exist on an event category and potential host country level, there is little reason not to integrate more New Zealand-themed events into international alumni events.

Benefits and Information which Alumni Expect from New Zealand-Themed Events

Question 18 followed up on Question 17 by asking respondents for their concrete expectations of New Zealand-themed events (expected benefits and information from event attendance). This question was asked in a multiple choice format. Response options covered eight distinct areas of interest, ranging from immigration information to business opportunities to simple socializing.

This question was intended to provide granular information about alumni’s specific needs and expectations when attending an event. It was hoped that patterns emerging from the analysis of responses to this question would assist Alumni Relations offices with their programming efforts.

Graph 62: Benefits and Information Expected from New Zealand-Themed Events

Notes: Question 18. New Zealand Alumni 1,423, International Alumni 1,449.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 62 reveals a number of response patterns that were more or less expected.  Alumni nationality had a strong impact on overall event expectations and desired benefits. International alumni, for example, were much more likely to look for forward-looking themes and activities such as “information on studying in New  Zealand”, “information on visiting New Zealand”, and “New Zealand immigration information”.

In contrast, New Zealand alumni were more interested in backward looking (i.e. sentimental), social, and relationship-oriented events, indicating a preference for themes such as “a bit of socializing”, “New Zealand social and cultural updates”, and “how the All Blacks have been doing”. 

Alumni age is generally considered to be a key influencing factor with regard to alumni expectations. Graph 63 (below) bears this assumption out by displaying the (at times pronounced) differences in event expectations between alumni age categories. Younger alumni – broadly speaking, under the age of 50 – were much more interested in pragmatic, career-enabling, and mobility enhancing themes than older alumni. This is a natural outcome of alumni life cycles.

For older alumni (70 years and older), nearly three-quarters of their overall interests were accounted for by two themes: Socializing, and social and cultural updates. These two themes combined accounted for just 40% of mid-age alumni’s interests (40 to 49 years old) – not too dissimilar from the youngest group of alumni (29 years old and younger) at 32%. Past alumni relations practice developments have seen the introduction of dedicated “young alumni” events. It may well be asked whether Alumni Relations offices should not also consider the outright creation of “older alumni events”.

Graph 63: Benefits and Information Expected from New Zealand-Themed Events (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 18. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 10,220.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Another factor widely considered to influence alumni’s event expectations is an alum’s academic unit affiliation, with alumni from professional and business degree backgrounds supposedly being more interested in professional and networking opportunities than other alumni. Graph 64 (below) validates this view to some degree. The analysis contained in the graph uses a cross tab analysis of Question 18 with academic unit affiliation. Two academic unit categories, business and humanities and arts, were selected as showcases for this view.

As expected, alumni with a business background were notably more interested in business opportunities and immigration information than alumni with a humanities and arts background. The latter showed an elevated level of interest in social and cultural updates as well as socializing. This finding confirms some widely held beliefs – which, while sounding rather stereotypical, are important information points in event planning considerations.

Graph 64: Benefits and Information Expected from New Zealand-Themed Events (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 18. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 6,373 (based on two academic units).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Planning international events for alumni is a challenge on many levels, of which geographic distance, cost, and lack of ground support are just a few. Ensuring that events address alumni’s expectations as much as possible is therefore of great importance. Otherwise, events are likely to be less effective at best and under-attended and unsuccessful at worst.

The data and analysis presented in this section paint a granular picture of alumni event expectations. Key drivers are, as demonstrated, age, nationality, and academic unit affiliation. Advanced planning of New Zealand-themed events is therefore well advised. Alumni relations offices should match these expressed needs and expectations with the composition of alumni in a given region, in order to draw up events which would fit those alumni best.

Activities and Information which Alumni Expect from Regional Alumni Events

Question 19 asked respondents to specify their specific expectations concerning regional (i.e. local) alumni events. Survey respondents were offered eight response categories in a multiple choice format, ranging from purely social aspects to professional networking to receiving updates on their alma mater’s research accomplishments (identical to Question 18).

Regional events are an important tool in international alumni relations programming, given the “lighthouse” function of such events for many international alumni, for whom a local event may be the only way to connect with their alma mater in a physical sense, for many years or at all. New Zealand-themed events of course serve this function well, but typically occur less often, especially if the physical representation of alma mater staff is needed.

Graph 65: Benefits and Information Expected from Regional Events

Notes: Question 19.  New Zealand Alumni 1,412, International Alumni 1,444.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Graph 65 shows relatively small variations between New Zealand and international alumni with regard to their regional event expectations, which stands in contrast to alumni’s expectations of New Zealand-themed events. Small differences emerged nonetheless.

International alumni showed a slightly more pronounced preference for “meeting faculty” (12% to 10%) and “making new friends” (15% to 13%). In contrast, New  Zealand alumni were slightly more interested in “receptions and dinners” (15% to 13%), and “professional networking” (16% to 15%). Meeting university leadership was the least favourite category (8% or less) which tends to run, at times, counter to university leadership’s self-perception.

A noteworthy finding is that alumni indicated an interest in learning opportunities, with 20% of responses being directed at “listening to a lecture” and receiving an “update on the university’s research”. This is an area which is likely to see growing alumni interest, given the ongoing transition in many countries toward a knowledge driven economy.

The above compressed expectation differences, which were visible with regard to New Zealand-themed events, are also evident when Question 19 is analysed with alumni age as a cross tab factor. Graph 66 (below) shows expectations amongst different age categories, which are not too dissimilar, with two exceptions.

Older alumni (60 years and older) were notably less interested in an “update on [a] university’s research” and “listening to a lecture”. Instead, they favoured more socially oriented themes, such as “connecting to friends from student days” and “making new friends”. This is in line with previous findings regarding these age categories and their focus on social interaction.

Differences in expectations amongst alumni under the age of 50 turned out to be fairly minor. This is an interesting finding, insofar as it questions whether “young alumni” events are truly a reflection of young alumni’s needs and preferences, or an attempt to programme into a non-existent segment.

Graph 66: Benefits and Information Expected from Regional Events (by Age Category)

Notes: Questions 3 and 18. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 12,290.
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

The final graph (Graph 67) addresses the question of whether alumni’s expectations regarding regional events are influenced by an alum’s academic unit affiliation. Again, business as well as humanities and arts were used as analytical categories with the assumption that differences would emerge.

Differences, while present, were even smaller than the corresponding differences regarding New Zealand-themed events. Alumni with a business background were in slightly greater favour of “connecting to friends from student days” (17% to 15%) and receiving an “update on the university’s research” (17% to 15%). Alumni with a humanities and arts background were slightly more interested in a “reception or dinner” (12% to 10%), and “making new friends” (15% to 13%). None of the differences are of significance for alumni relations programming efforts.

Graph 67: Benefits and Information Expected from Regional Events (by Academic Unit)

Notes: Questions 6 and 18. Total data points for cross tab analysis: 7,332 (based on two academic units).
Source: New Zealand International Alumni Survey.

Perspectives

Two key lessons emerged from the responses to Question 19. Overall, expectations of international and New Zealand alumni with regard to regional (local) events are quite – and somewhat surprisingly – similar. The strongest differentiation was visible based on age categories, which mirrors many of the other differentiation dynamics previously discussed.

The implication for alumni event programming is that local events are easier to target at alumni, not least because alumni are more likely to be involved in the conception and execution of such events.

Open-ended Commentary

The survey’s final question was open-ended. Out of the 3,417 survey respondents – of which 3,210 were deemed qualified – a total of 766 alumni submitted open-ended commentary. That nearly one-quarter of respondents made the effort to add to their structured survey responses is testament to the high level of engagement in this core group of alumni.

Due to the nature of open-ended commentary, no deep statistical analysis was attempted. The personal nature of many comments made any analysis difficult without the benefit of proper context. Instead, responses were grouped by response type, and then counted.

It is important to point out that most of the commentary reflects alumni’s experiences within specific alumni relations programmes, as well as their time as a student at a given university. However, since this report focuses on the overall perspective of alumni, individual institutions have not been identified. The content of institution-specific commentary was made individually available to the eight participating universities.

The following list provides an overview of free-text commentary grouped by major theme:

• Praise
  
  • Several hundred alumni expressed pride in being an alum of a given university. Others expressed appreciation for specific events. Well over 50 shared that they appreciated the survey itself, which was viewed as an effort to reach out to alumni.

• Criticism
  
  • Approximately 200 alumni shared critical feedback. The key complaint was that alumni are not being properly tapped to support their respective alma mater. Another often-cited disappointment was the lack of consistency (and/or existence) of university communication with alumni. A small but vocal group of alumni pointed to specific instances of communications that they took to be misguided fundraising attempts.

• Suggestions (Events)
  
  • Approximately 100 alumni offered suggestions with regard to events. More than 50 alumni specifically requested regional events. Others shared suggestions pertaining to event foci (e.g. by age or faculty), kind (e.g. reunions or embassy events), and organizational tasks, an area in which many thought alumni should be more involved.

• Suggestions (Structure)
  
  • More than 50 alumni voiced their desire to be better integrated in their alma maters’ alumni programming efforts. Some offered to tap into their own networks, and to provide grassroots (as opposed to centralized) support for university efforts.

• Suggestions (Technology and Community)
  
  • Close to 50 alumni collectively produced a long list of largely technical suggestions, including: Moving from paper to electronic communication; utilising online communities (either internal communities or public ones, such as Facebook or LinkedIn); and improving university websites in a variety of (specified) ways.

• Anecdotes
  
  • Please note that the following anecdotes have been selected based on their poignancy, and should not be taken as representative:
    
    • “Very proud of being […] Alumni!”
    • “Some alumni events seem to be for aliens.”
    • "I had a really great time in New Zealand. I can say that my experience as an exchange student at […] University changed my life. I have been connected with NZ ever since.”
    • “Surely there is more to NZ than the All Blacks.”
    • “It would be great if we can start to connect with other alumni in [F]acebook, …”
    • “I believe Facebook is an unsuitable & unprofessional method of communication & contact.”

Overall, the open-ended comments tended to reiterate preceding survey responses. Many comments were positive, and most of the critical comments made concrete suggestions for improvement. Only a small fraction of alumni voiced strongly negative sentiments.

While open-ended commentary provides colour, it is suggested that specific comments not be given too much focus, since – as mentioned above – critical context is missing. In addition, anecdotes, at best, do not lend themselves to systematic alumni relations programming development – and, at worst, distract attention away from more critical systematic issues.

Footnotes

4. In this report, the term “Anglo-Saxon” comprises the following English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States.
   
5. The survey did not probe for dual or multi-citizenship situations, or naturalization scenarios as this would have added significant complexity on the face of what would have been very likely a low number of possible survey respondents.  The survey did not include alumni residing in New Zealand and therefore omits the bulk of New Zealand alumni, as well as all those international alumni who have stayed on in New Zealand after their studies or who subsequently took up residence.
6. The pool of 70 years old and older survey respondents was relatively small (3.3% of overall survey respondents), different in geo-graphic composition than the average of survey responses, and therefore any analysis and interpretation of trend variations must be undertaken with caution.
7. Owing to the relatively small number of respondents in the 70 years old and older age bracket this group was not used for this graph.