the future of transnational education: stakeholder attitudes
DESCRIPTION
The TNE landscape is a complex one, with multiple stakeholders, each having different perceptions, expectations and motivations. Differing starting points and expectations have spawned a vibrant and diverse range of engagement models. Some have been more successful than others, but all have contributed to the rich fabric of international higher education and in most cases benefitted their stakeholders either directly or indirectly. For institutions looking to enter into or reassess their existing TNE arrangements, understanding stakeholder attitudes and how their context is reshaping perspectives is critical to ensuring a program’s viability. It is now more important than ever to ensure that TNE programs are aligned, not just to the strategic goals of the foreign degree provider, but also the needs of the stakeholders in the hosting country. This presentation explores stakeholder attitudes to TNE utilising the most recent research and market based insights.TRANSCRIPT
The future of transnational education: stakeholder attitudes
Lorne Gibson, Deakin University (Australia) Nigel Healey, Nottingham Trent University (UK)Kurt Kirstein, City University of Seattle (USA)
1
PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPTUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2014 - 12:30 TO 15:00MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER B112
Workshop Outline
2
Time Activity1230 – 1240 Welcome and Introduction
1240 – 1300 Overview of TNE environment today and stakeholders
1300 – 1310 Group discussion 1
1310 – 1340 Positioning TNE in global higher education sector and stakeholder motivations
1340 – 1350 Group discussion 21350 – 1400 Afternoon tea1400 – 1430 Is TNE the future for universities?1430 – 1440 Group discussion 31440 Closing remarks and open questions1500 Close
Key Messages
1. TNE is vast, complex and growing2. TNE operations have many stakeholders3. Stakeholder motivations and expectations vary according to
the respective socio-economic status of the respective countries
4. TNE operations will mature, socio-economic status will develop and stakeholder requirements will change
5. Traditionally, ‘sending’ institutions overlook many stakeholder requirements, reflecting institutional biases and preconceptions
3
4
What is TNE?
5
What is TNE?
• “Any teaching or learning activity in which the students are in a different country to that in which the institutional providing the education is based” (Global Alliance for Transnational Education, 1997)
• “All types of higher education study programmes, sets of study courses, or educational services (including those of distance education) in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based” (Council of Europe, 2002)
How big is TNE?
United Kingdom Australia≈ 90,000 students
Distance
Branch CampusPartnershipDistance,
Flexible or Distributed
Collaborative Provision
Other Partner Arrangement
Branch Campus
≈ 599,000 students
Other Countries
200,000 or 300,000+ students
?
6
UK’s HESA Data
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13Overseas campus 7,120 9,885 11,410 12,305 15,140 17,525Distance, flexible and distributed learning
100,345 112,345 114,985 113,065 116,520 123,635
Other students registered at HEI 59,895 68,595 74,360 86,630 96,060 103,795
Overseas partner organisation* 29,240 197,185 207,790 291,575 342,910 353,375
Other students studying overseas for HEI's award
70 35 50 125 345 600
Total 196,670 388,045 408,595 503,700 570,925 598,930
* Includes 337,000 Oxford Brookes University/ACCA students
8
General agreement on trade in services (GATS)
• Cross-border supply corresponds to the common form of trade in goods; only the service itself crosses the border. Mode 1
• Consumption abroad refers to a situation in which a service consumer moves to another country to obtain the service Mode 2
• Commercial presence refers to the commercial establishment of facilities abroad to deliver the serviceMode 3
• Presence of natural persons refers to people travelling to another country on a temporary basis to provide the serviceMode 4
9
General agreement on trade in services (GATS)
• Distance educationMode 1• Export education, articulation,
dual/joint degreesMode 2• International branch campuses,
franchising/twinning, validationMode 3• Flying facultyMode 4
10
GATS Applied to Current TNE Landscape
4
Seco
nded
or L
ocal
Hire
For
eign
Ac
adem
ics
Visi
ting
prof
esso
rshi
ps
Fly
In F
ly O
ut U
nive
rsity
Run
Notti
ngha
m T
rent
DBA
/Exe
cutiv
e Ed
ucati
on
1Pu
re D
ista
nce/
Onl
ine
Uni
vers
ity o
f Liv
erpo
ol
Non
Aca
dem
ic S
uppo
rt O
ffice
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sou
ther
n Q
ueen
slan
d So
uth
Afric
an
Supp
ort O
ffice
Acad
emic
Sup
port
Cen
tre
Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
Inte
rnati
onal
Pro
gram
s Affi
liate
Cen
tres
3
Fly
In F
ly O
ut -
Hos
ting
Cent
reU
nive
rsity
of M
anch
este
r MBA
in
Sing
apor
e/M
alay
sia
Bran
ch C
ampu
s /S
choo
lU
nive
rsity
of N
otting
ham
Mon
ash
Uni
vers
ity
Fran
chis
e Ce
ntre
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sta
fford
shire
in M
alay
sia/
Sri L
anka
Valid
ated
Cen
tre
Uni
vers
ity o
f Wal
es V
alid
ated
Cen
tres
Si
no F
orei
gn Jo
int P
rogr
ams
Uni
vers
ity o
f Wai
kato
- ZU
CC
2
Co
nsor
tium
of N
orth
ern
UK
Uni
vers
ities
in C
hina
Trad
ition
al A
rticu
latio
n
(O
n an
d O
ffsho
re)
SQA
HN
D D
iplo
mas
and
CSC
SE in
Chi
na
Joint Double Degree Delivery
Partner
Twinning
11
GATS Applied to Current TNE Landscape
Joint Double Degree Delivery
Partner
Twinning
4
Seco
nded
or L
ocal
Hire
For
eign
Ac
adem
ics
Visi
ting
prof
esso
rshi
ps
Fly
In F
ly O
ut U
nive
rsity
Run
Notti
ngha
m T
rent
DBA
/Exe
cutiv
e Ed
ucati
on
1Pu
re D
ista
nce/
Onl
ine
Uni
vers
ity o
f Liv
erpo
ol
Non
Aca
dem
ic S
uppo
rt O
ffice
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sou
ther
n Q
ueen
slan
d So
uth
Afric
an
Supp
ort O
ffice
Acad
emic
Sup
port
Cen
tre
Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
Inte
rnati
onal
Pro
gram
s Affi
liate
Cen
tres
3
Fly
In F
ly O
ut -
Hos
ting
Cent
reU
nive
rsity
of M
anch
este
r MBA
in
Sing
apor
e/M
alay
sia
Bran
ch C
ampu
s /S
choo
lU
nive
rsity
of N
otting
ham
Mon
ash
Uni
vers
ity
Fran
chis
e Ce
ntre
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sta
fford
shire
in M
alay
sia/
Sri L
anka
Valid
ated
Cen
tre
Uni
vers
ity o
f Wal
es V
alid
ated
Cen
tres
Si
no F
orei
gn Jo
int P
rogr
ams
Uni
vers
ity o
f Wai
kato
- ZU
CC
2
Co
nsor
tium
of N
orth
ern
UK
Uni
vers
ities
in C
hina
Trad
ition
al A
rticu
latio
n
(O
n an
d O
ffsho
re)
SQA
HN
D D
iplo
mas
and
CSC
SE in
Chi
na
Joint Double Degree Delivery
Partner
Twinning
11%
20%
3%
15%
37%
14%
Limits of existing typologies
13 April 2023 13
…and some TNE partnerships off the radar
Further reading on TNE typologies
• Healey, N. and Michael, L. (2014), Towards a new framework for analysing transnational education, Higher Education Policy (in press)
• Healey, N. (2014), Towards a risk-based typology for transnational education, Higher Education, (DOI) 10.1007/s10734-014-9757-6
Group Discussion 1
• What TNE models are your experienced with?• Can you name a successful TNE operation?• Can you name a failed TNE operation?• What are the key elements which determine
success or failure in TNE partnerships?• Why would someone want to engaged in a
TNE program as a student, teacher, partner or government?
15
TNE Environment Positioning Definitions / Explanations
• Countries above this regression line nominally have a more efficient/effective higher education sector than forecast based on their level of per capita income
Position Efficient
• Countries below this regression line nominally have a less efficient/effective higher education sector than forecast based on their level of per capita income
Position Inefficient
• Demand for higher education significantly exceeds supply via existing institutions
• The market/government is facilitating entry of new supply purely to meet growing demand
Demand Absorbing
• Focus on building institutional capacity across all areas including, teaching; research; engagement; and, student support
• Demand is increasing at a slower rate and supply is more targeted
Capacity Building
•Existing high level capabilities and generally no supply constraints•Seeking to leverage skills internationally in partnership to mutual benefit
Capability Leveraging
South Korea
UAE
Pakistan
Malaysia
Japan
16
TNE Environment Positioning Map (GER%)
Per Capita IncomeLow Middle High
Participation RatesH
ighM
iddleLow
Position Efficient
PositionInefficient
Demand Absorbing
Capacity Building
Capability Leveraging
ChinaIndia
United States
Russian Federation
Brazil
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
JapanTurkey
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
Germany
Philippines
ArgentinaUkraine
Thailand
United Kingdom
France
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Vietnam
Poland
Bangladesh
Venezuela, RB
Italy
Spain
Colombia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Canada
Australia
Algeria
Chile
Malaysia
Saudi Arabia
Peru
Romania
Netherlands
South Africa
Kazakhstan
Ethiopia
Belarus
Ecuador
Morocco
Greece
Iraq
Sweden
BelgiumCzech Republic
Portugal
Bolivia
Nepal
Hungary
Israel
Tunisia
Austria
Paraguay
Finland
Dominican Republic
UgandaGhana
Bulgaria
Uzbekistan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Yemen, Rep.
Sudan
New Zealand
Guatemala
Kyrgyz Republic
Switzerland
Denmark
Jordan
Cameroon
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Norway
SerbiaSlovak Republic
Cambodia
Lebanon
Ireland
Cote d'Ivoire
Costa Rica
Tajikistan
Lithuania
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
Uruguay
Kenya
El Salvador
Honduras
Croatia
Angola
Armenia
PanamaMoldova
Lao PDR
Georgia
Nicaragua
Benin
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovenia
Latvia
United Arab Emirates
Guinea
17
TNE Environment Positioning Map (Economic Size)
19
Per Capita IncomeLow Middle High
Economic Size
High
Middle
Low
China
India
United States
Russian Federation
Brazil
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Japan
TurkeyKorea, Rep.Mexico
Germany
Philippines
ArgentinaUkraine
Thailand
United Kingdom
France
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Vietnam
Poland
Bangladesh
Venezuela, RB
Italy
Spain
ColombiaPakistanNigeria
Canada
Australia
AlgeriaChile
Malaysia
Saudi Arabia
PeruRomania
NetherlandsSouth Africa
Kazakhstan
Ethiopia
BelarusEcuadorMorocco
Greece
Iraq
SwedenBelgium
Czech Republic
Portugal
Bolivia
Nepal
HungaryIsrael
Tunisia
Austria
Paraguay
Finland
Dominican Republic
Uganda
Ghana
BulgariaUzbekistan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Yemen, Rep.
Sudan
New Zealand
Guatemala
Kyrgyz Republic
Switzerland
Denmark
Jordan
Cameroon
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Norway
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Cambodia
Lebanon
Ireland
Cote d'IvoireCosta Rica
Tajikistan
LithuaniaAzerbaijan
Mongolia
Uruguay
Kenya
El Salvador
Honduras
Croatia
Angola
Armenia
Panama
Moldova
Lao PDRGeorgiaNicaragua
Benin
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovenia
Latvia
United Arab Emirates
Guinea
20
TNE Environment Positioning Map (GINI Index)
Per Capita IncomeLow Middle High
Income Inequity
High
Middle
Low
China
India
United States
Russian Federation
Brazil
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Japan
Turkey
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
Germany
Philippines
Argentina
Ukraine
Thailand
United Kingdom
FranceEgypt, Arab Rep.
Vietnam
Poland
Bangladesh
Venezuela, RB
ItalySpain
Colombia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Canada
Australia
Algeria
Chile
Malaysia
Peru
Romania
Netherlands
South Africa
Kazakhstan
Ethiopia
Belarus
Ecuador
Morocco
Greece
Sweden
Belgium
Czech Republic
Portugal
Bolivia
Nepal
Hungary
Israel
Tunisia
Austria
Paraguay
Finland
Dominican Republic
Uganda
Ghana
Bulgaria
Uzbekistan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Yemen, Rep. New Zealand
Guatemala
Switzerland
Denmark
Jordan
Cameroon
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Norway
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Cambodia
Ireland
Cote d'Ivoire
Costa Rica
Tajikistan
Lithuania
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
Uruguay
Kenya
El Salvador
Honduras
CroatiaArmenia
Panama
Moldova
Georgia
Nicaragua
Benin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovenia
Latvia
Guinea
TNE Environment Positioning Map (GINI Index v GER%)
GER %Low Middle High
Income Inequity
High
Middle
Low
China
India
United States
Russian Federation
Brazil
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Japan
Turkey
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
Germany
PhilippinesArgentina
Ukraine
Thailand
United Kingdom
FranceEgypt, Arab Rep.
Vietnam
Poland
Bangladesh
Venezuela, RB
Italy Spain
Colombia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Canada
Australia
Algeria
Chile
Malaysia
Peru
Romania
Netherlands
South Africa
Kazakhstan
Ethiopia
Belarus
Ecuador
Morocco
Greece
Sweden
Belgium
Czech Republic
Portugal
Bolivia
Nepal
Hungary
Israel
Tunisia
Austria
Paraguay
Finland
Dominican Republic
Uganda
Ghana
Bulgaria
Uzbekistan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Yemen, Rep.New Zealand
Guatemala
Switzerland
Denmark
Jordan
Cameroon
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Norway
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Cambodia
Ireland
Cote d'Ivoire
Costa Rica
Tajikistan
Lithuania
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
Uruguay
Kenya
El Salvador
Honduras
CroatiaArmenia
Panama
Moldova
Mozambique Georgia
Nicaragua
Benin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovenia
Latvia
Guinea
21
Overview of TNE stakeholders
Academic Partners
Faculty and Staff
Students and
Families
Host Government
Home Government
Employers and
Community
Local Institutions
22
Stakeholder MotivationsHost Government
• GER <30%
• GER >30%
Per Capita IncomeLow Middle High
Economic Size
High
Middle
Low
• Access Provision• White Knight• Economic
Development
• Increase Supply• Capacity Building• Economic Alignment• Private v Public Supply
• Private v Public Supply • Middle Class Supply• Local Elite Enhancing
• Middle Class Supply• Economic
Development• Local Elite Enhancing
• Increase Supply• Capacity Building• Joint Partnering• Private v Public Supply
• Has Internal Capacity to Meet Demand
• Capacity Building• Local Elite to Global
Elite• Capability Leveraging
• Niche Provision• Competition• Capability Leveraging
• Local Elite Enhancing• Joint Partnering• Capability Leveraging
• Private v Public Supply • Local Elite Enhancing
23
24
Stakeholder MotivationsStudents and Families
• Access• International• Financial• Work• Employability• PG Access• Mobility
Per Capita IncomeLow Middle High
Economic Size
High
Middle
Low
• Limited Access to Local Institutions
• Question on Local Quality
• Award Based Choice• Working and Studying• Limited Access to Local
Institutions• Question on Local Quality
• Degrees v non-Degrees
• Mode of Delivery
• Easier Entry?• Differentiation?• English Based?
• Easier Entry?• Differentiation?• English Based?• Experiential?
• Limited Access to Local Institutions
• Working and Studying• Niche Programs
Elite
to M
iddl
e Cl
ass
25
Stakeholder MotivationsFaculties and Staff
• Sending (to)
• Hosting
• Shared
Per Capita IncomeLow Middle High
Economic Size
High
Middle
Low
• Employment (primary/secondary)
• Access to international expertise
• IP transfers• Methodology transfers• Training/mentoring• Status benefits
• International exposure• Off-shore experience• Mentoring• Access to local
Institutions/cases/data• Career development• RRR
• (Potentially) more professional autonomy
• Research collaboration
• Research collaboration• PhD/Doc. students• > Direct teaching
Transferring PLUS• Academic peer
exchanges• Status benefits• Reciprocal knowledge
transfers• Research collaboration• Access to local
Institutions/cases/data• Career development• RRR
Dim
inishing sym
metry
Stakeholder Motivations/Impacts
• Local (Educational) Institutions
• Competitive effects on
indigenous players
• Tendency towards net-quality
enhancement
• Potential wage determination
effects = ‘salary dispersion’
• Talent switching
• Scope for Vertical linkages
• Scope for Horizontal linkages
Employers/Industry
• Better education at lower
employment cost
• Stopping the ‘Brain Drain’
• Boosting talent supply
• Employment creation
• Economics spill-over
effects
26
Group Discussion 2
• Choose a country you are familiar with1. Do these stakeholder categories and respective
motivations reflect reality?2. Was the situation 5-10 years ago different?
• Pick a TNE engagement model and a country1. Which stakeholder motivations are most likely to
align or not?2. What can be done to increase alignment?
27
Is TNE the future for universities?
13 April 2023 28
S(domestic) = ƒ(domestic HE capacity)D(domestic) = ƒ(population and GDP growth)
All other things equal…
• Demand for transnational education will increase:– If population (especially 18-22 years) grows– Per capita income grows
• Demand for transnational education will decrease:– If capacity/quality of domestic higher education increases
• In many developing countries, population and per capita income are growing…
• …but governments are investing in major expansion of domestic higher education
13 April 2023 29
Balance will change by country and over time
13 April 2023 30
Population growth,
GDP growth
Domestic HE capacity,
regulatory regime
Hi
Lo
TNE
mar
ket
What about us as stakeholders (the ‘supply-side perspective)?
• Healey, N. (2013). Is UK transnational education “one of Britain’s great growth industries of the future”? Higher Education Review, 45(3), pp.6-35
• Qualitative study of the attitudes of senior university decision-makers to expanding TNE
13 April 2023 31
Attitudes to expansion of transnational education: positive themes
1. Broaden the market for UK higher education– ‘never will be more than a tiny minority [of students] who can go overseas…
There is going to be an increasing need for TNE because of the growing numbers going into higher education’.
– ‘TNE is also becoming a core recruitment tool…some big universities have the majority of their international students coming from TNE programmes’
2. Build a global brand for UK universities– ‘any good research university needs to be globally connected… [TNE] hits the
soft power agenda’
3. UK government is driving TNE across all ministries– ‘[government] see TNE as a key part of export education, which doesn’t need
international students coming here’– ‘the British Council, the International Unit of UUK, UKTI, the new BIS unit,
Education UK, they are all trying to get us to do TNE’
13 April 2023 32
Attitudes to expansion of transnational education: negative themes
1. Risk aversion– ‘There have been lots of issues and there has been a reduction in these
projects [franchising and validation]. They are very one sided’– ‘too many failed IBCs, like UNSW Asia and George Mason University’
2. Some TNE activities are not scalable– ‘most [academics] do not understand or care…they want to concentrate on their research’.– ‘people see [TNE] as a pain in the arse’– ‘the QAA i(Quality Assurance Agency) s so overstretched, how can we ensure that quality
is maintained?’
3. Some forms of TNE are not sustainable– ‘[This] is not a sustainable model, you’re just plugging the gap until their own sector
fills it’
13 April 2023 33
Attitudes to expansion of transnational education: negative themes (cont’d)
4. No pot of gold– ‘if it’s about making money, there are more interesting
things to do — you’ll never make money in the medium term’
– ‘always a mismatch between promise and delivery… Projections in terms of numbers never materialise’
– ‘the costs of tutors, academic overheads, etc are not taken into account. If you included everything, you probably don't make money’
5. Internal resistance– ‘it is not our core business, we shouldn't be doing
something that takes up resources that could be used elsewhere’
13 April 2023 34
Oxford undergraduates head for class
Group Discussion 3
• In your own university, what do you think are the attitude of fellow academics and/or administrators to:
1. Establishing an international branch campus?
2. Franchising the university’s degree to a foreign college?
3. Validating the degrees of a foreign college?
35
36
Closing remarks: Modelling the benefits of strategic partnering• Across TNE partnership categories there are some broad benefits
of partnership that can be assessed and examined.• Examination may be linked to existing or proposed arrangements,
each of which can be modelled (or visualised) in relation to the 6Rs: – Reputation (R1)– Revenue (R2)– Risk (R3)– Reach (R4)– Resource (R5)– Recognition (R6)
Thanks to: Prof Simon Mercado, Nottingham Trent University
37
6Rs Explained• Reputation - encouraging measurement of association benefits linked to
brand development, positioning, status and/or ranking.• Revenue – encouraging measurement of fiscal or monetary benefits, both
direct and indirect.• Risk – the extent to which a partnership exposes or protects the institution
to/from some combination of political, security, financial and legal risk.• Reach – the extent to which a partnership takes the institution and its
stakeholders into new and/or targeted markets or territory.• Resource – encouraging measurement of resource demands and/or the
extent to which engagement leads to resource enhancements.• Recognition - encouraging measurement of association benefits linked to
recognition for excellence, specialisation and/or membership (e.g. of high value projects or networks).
Pre-supposes a preliminary test based on:• Relevance – the extent to which a partnership and its focus aligns directly
with institutional priorities.
Using 6Rs to Visualize TNE
38
Reputation
Revenue
Risk
Reach
Resource
Recognition
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Partner A
Partner B
Partner C
Small ProgramDual DegreeHighly Reputable Partner
Large Growing ProgramUp and Coming InstitutionMid Risk Market
Strong Revenue ProgramHigher Risks on Most Categories
How Stakeholders Can Influence the 6Rs
6RsReputation (R1)
Revenue (R2)
Risk (R3)
Reach (R4)
Resource (R5)
Recognition (R6)
StakeholdersAcademic Partners
Faculty and Staff
Students and Families
Government
Employers and Community
Local Institutions
40
Open Discussion And Q&A
