Beyond the boundaries the future of borderless higher education

J. WillemsMonash University, Australia

B. TynanUniversity of Southern Queensland, Australia

R. JamesUniversity of New England, Australia

Global Challenges and Perspectives in Blended and Distance Learning

Lindsay Johnston Joel Gamon Jennifer Yoder Adrienne Freeland Austin DeMarco Kayla Wolfe Lisandro Gonzalez Jason Mull

Global challenges and perspectives in blended and distance learning / J. Willems, B. Tynan, and R. James, editors. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “This book highlights the perspectives, challenges, and current practices within higher and distance education around the world”--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-4666-3978-2 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-3979-9 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-3980-5 (print & perpetual access) 1. Distance education--Cross- cultural studies. 2. Blended learning--Cross-cultural studies. I. Willems, J. (Julie) LC5800.G54 2013 371.35--dc23 2012048055

British Cataloguing in Publication DataA Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Managing Director: Editorial Director: Book Production Manager: Publishing Systems Analyst: Development Editor: Assistant Acquisitions Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design:

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)701 E. Chocolate AvenueHershey PA 17033Tel: 717-533-8845Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2013 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

36

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Chapter 3

Don Olcott Jr.University of Maryland University College, USA

Beyond the Boundaries:The Future for Borderless

Higher Education

ABSTRACT

The rapid increase in internationalism and borderless higher education by public and for-profit uni-versities is changing the face of the global higher education landscape. Today, universities have more opportunities for serving campus-based international students and extending their programs and re-search on the international stage. Students also have more choices than ever before in navigating their educational future and are becoming active consumers of global HE. Language, culture, and social norms are as critical as any educational strategies used to build and sustain international partnerships. An understanding, tolerance, and humility about the educational process in other countries is a neces-sity for building successful partnerships. Borderless higher education is highly complex and involves various risks for colleges and universities and the need to justify foreign ventures or adventures to key stakeholders at home. The “new global regionalism” will accelerate HE competition for students, and the global destination choices for students may drive more students to remain in their region than going to traditional destinations such as the US, UK, and Australia. Universities will function more like busi-nesses, and their foreign partnerships and campus international recruitment will be based on leverag-ing profitable revenues to supplement their composite educational enterprise. This will be accentuated by reduced government funding and the need to temper continuous tuition and fee increases. Quality assurance agencies will exert greater pressure on universities to maintain accountability, program standards, and alignment with their core mission. University chief executives will need to navigate a range of complex issues before leading their universities into unchartered international waters. Indeed, some universities have no business in the business of borderless higher education. This chapter explores borderless higher education.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3978-2.ch003

37

Beyond the Boundaries

Strategically, there are very real benefits from institutional mobility (Borderless HE). Establish-ing a campus in another part of the world provides access to a new talent pool, creates interesting staff and student mobility opportunities, enables new and different research initiatives and en-hances global reputation. However, institutional mobility presents real challenges, both strategic and operational; there is much rhetoric around the benefits of overseas ventures in relation to diversifying income streams, but the reality is that projects are expensive and depend upon genuine cross-institutional support and a willingness to commit significant resource, both financial and human. Operationally, success depends upon the ability to mobilize organizational systems, pro-cesses, policies and people to operate in a differ-ent and unfamiliar environment. Strategically, the challenge is to ensure that what is being offered—in terms of both teaching and research—genu-inely meets an identified market need, builds appropriately on institutional strengths and aligns with longer-term educational priorities (Ennew, 2011, p. 14).

INTRODUCTION

During the past decade the international higher education landscape has changed dramatically. We have seen increased mobility among students and more universities engaged in cross-border delivery of higher education programs and research through branch campuses, open and distance learning and blended approaches to educational delivery (Verbik & Merkley, 2006). We have seen new providers, public and private, enter the global higher education arena (OECD, 2010), including the rapid proliferation of global branch campuses (Becker, 2009).

Borderless higher education has increasingly become a competitive feature of the international landscape. In some instances, home country stu-dents may forgo formal study abroad programs if

foreign providers are offering flexible, culturally sensitive, academic programs in their home lan-guage and/or English via distance technologies or a hybrid of distance and face-to-face delivery modalities (Olcott, 2008a). Conversely, distance education and cross-border delivery inherently face some major pedagogical, logistical, language, cultural and socio-economic challenges in the delivery of these programs. As Professor Chris Ennew from the University of Nottingham accen-tuates in the opening cited quote of this chapter, the opportunities and challenges of going global are complex and uncertain. It truly is a brave new world in the international higher education arena.

Driving this global transformation are diverse and complex forces including economic com-petition, advances in technology, English as the global language of commerce, employee mobility, workforce development, multiculturalism, emerg-ing markets, and global migration (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). University leaders are redefining the international dimensions of their institutions in response to globalization.

Globalization may be viewed as the worldwide flow of people, technology, economy, ideas, knowledge and culture. Internationalization may be viewed as part of globalization by its focus on relations between nations, people, and culture (Knight, 2005). Internationalization, viewed as a major response to globalization, evolves in colleges and universities in diverse ways and for varying institutional reasons. Knight also found that internationalization at the national, sector and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions and/or delivery of postsecondary education.

The increasing development of campus-based internationalization and cross-border higher edu-cation is, to a large extent, a direct response by universities to building an economic competitive edge that is driving the national agendas of many countries (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007; OECD, 2010). For many nations, the short-term strategy

38


of tapping into the expertise, research, and knowl-edge base of highly developed educational systems (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, etc.) is preferable to expending exponential resources domestically to gear up. The long-term strategy is for these nations, particularly in East Asia and the Gulf States, to develop a high quality, sustainable higher education system domestically (Mroz, 2009; Olcott, 2009).

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this chapter is to provide university leaders with a comprehensive overview of the major considerations for doing business in inter-national markets. Part 1 will examine the driving forces in global higher education, current trends in cross-border programs, and a brief review of the internal and external activities that may be part of a university’s internationalism strategy.

Part 2 will examine some selected challenges for universities exploring global opportunities. These include global resistance to distance learn-ing, factors influencing international student des-tination choices, and the importance of responsive student services for campus and cross-border international students.

Part 3 will briefly examine the future of bor-derless higher education and the implications for universities in a highly competitive global market, including considerations for university chief ex-ecutives. Appendix A will provide readers with a list of strategies for managing global partnerships.

PART 1: THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL HIGHER EDUCATION

Catalysts for Borderless Higher Education

What are the forces driving this international trans-formation for higher education? First, reductions

in government funding for higher education in many countries has driven colleges and universi-ties to become more entrepreneurial (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). This is certainly true in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and other major international players. These ‘Big Three’ host the largest numbers of international students and unsurprisingly are also the three major providers of cross-border higher education (Verbik & La-sanowski, 2007). Although institutional leaders are reluctant to articulate publicly that the pursuit of alternative revenue sources is a primary goal for their international programs, it is certainly a driving factor for most universities.

University leaders typically offer politically correct rhetoric that focuses on educational goals such as internationalising the curriculum, prepar-ing students for a global society, collaborative research, and the value of exposing and immersing students (and faculty) among and within a diverse multi-cultural, global society (Olcott 2008d, 2008a). Indeed, these factors are also important and valuable dimensions for visionary leaders; however, attracting more international students who pay significantly higher tuition and fees is, in fact, a major motivation for many, not all, institu-tions. Similarly, cross-border programs are also focused on revenue enhancement to strengthen institutional budgets. Olcott summed up the chal-lenge for institutional leaders attempting to build international programs and placate stakeholders on their campus:

And, if you have to redistribute existing institu-tional resources to even contemplate supporting your internal or external international program activities, who benefits and who loses? The academy is made up of competing interest groups all having a stake in institutional resources. Are you going to take resources away from academic programs? No. Are you planning to limit faculty raises or professional development funds? No. Are you going to propose tuition and/or fee increases for the fifth time in four years? Not if

39


you’re smart. What are you going to do and how are you going to do it? Common sense suggests that your internationalism strategy must be an extension of your mission and long-term strategic plan. Paradoxically, the mounting pressures for universities to secure alternative funding sources sometimes means common sense does not prevail (2008a, p. 5).

A second factor is that the demand for higher education globally is out-pacing capacity (OECD, 2010). Paradoxically, this demand over capacity is misleading because many qualified students often face various barriers and obstacles such as avail-able resources, family obligations, employment commitments and selecting the ‘right time’ to go to university. The result is that despite the increas-ing pool of qualified applicants, the competition among institutions for the current market is very competitive. For countries that charge major tuition and fees many leaders are concerned that providing affordable and accessible public higher education is becoming increasingly difficult (Olcott, 2009).

There are additional factors that are driving this global transformation. The growing intercon-nectedness of a global society and economy is creating a more diversified and mobile workforce (Knight, 2005; McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). Today’s students are seeking international desti-nations for employment during their studies and upon completion. Moreover, they are analysing the global market for countries that recognise their credentials and provide employment oppor-tunities. In Europe, the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Declaration are collaborative initiatives designed to create a European Higher Education Area and a European Credit Transfer System that will facilitate the transfer and recognition of cre-dentials across borders and the mobility of students for employment within Europe (Adelman, 2008).

The emergence of ‘English’ as the global lan-guage of commerce and a global society is also driving universities into the international arena. International students are increasingly exploring

foreign institutions that offer a comprehensive English language program that offered through-out their university program and supported by mentors and high quality international student services. These programs are growing particularly in postgraduate programs. These students see their future employability and career aspirations intimately tied to having English in their arsenal of skills and talents.

Trends at a Glance in Cross-Border Higher Education: 2007–2011

The delivery of cross-border programs, research, and related services is a complex enterprise for most universities. Despite the growing number of international providers in the past five years, there are emerging trends that suggest this market will become increasingly competitive and that host countries will focus on partnerships with foreign institutions that can help them build their own high quality, sustainable higher education system and economy (Olcott, 2009). Some of the preliminary trends from 2007–2010 included:

• Host nations (nations and/or universities hosting foreign programs in their country) have become more selective of foreign pro-viders (Helms, 2008).

• Asia, the Middle East, and Gulf States have been the most active cross-border re-gions yet increasingly inter-regional part-nerships are arising in these geographical areas (Fazackerley & Worthington, 2007; McBernie & Ziguras, 2007).

• Rapid growth of international branch cam-puses (Becker, 2009).

• Cross-border research exchange has been a rapidly growing priority among nations (McBernie & Ziguras, 2007; Thomas, 2007).

• Quality assurance oversight agencies, in-ternal and external, are paying increasing attention to universities operating abroad

40


(Helms, 2008; Stella, 2006; UNESCO/OECD, 2005; Woodhouse, 2006).

• Competition for internationally mobile students is growing more intense each year (Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007; Lasanowski, 2009).

• New models of public-private partnerships are emerging in cross-border higher edu-cation among business, higher education, government, and community organizations (McBernie & Ziguras, 2007).

These are just a few of the trends that are emerging on the horizon. We will examine more of these in detail in Part 3 covering the future of borderless higher education.

The Dimensions of Internationalization

Although definitional and philosophical founda-tions are critical aspects of any educational con-struct, this chapter will not focus on redefining the term borderless higher education. This has been addressed by UNESCO and The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) in which these definitions are available at their respective websites. For the purposes of this chapter, the author would like to keep the concept relatively simple and offer two basic guidelines to the broader discussion.

First, borderless higher education in practical terms means doing business with, or in, another country. Academic programs, research, and tech-nology transfer can be delivered directly in-country or via open and distance learning technology sys-tems. Simply stated, borderless higher education means crossing national boundaries physically and/or virtually.

A second parameter for this discussion is that borderless or cross-border programs/research is only one aspect of a university’s internationaliza-tion agenda and activities. This point is accentu-ated in the following section about university internationalization.

The various activities and functions that define university internationalization have been catego-rized as either internal or external dimensions of internationalism (Knight, 2003; Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2007). The following are key dimen-sions of internationalization at the campus:

• Internationalising the curriculum• Study abroad programs• Internationalization of research• Comprehensive English language programs• International recruitment of staff• International faculty exchange programs• Services and extra-curricular activities for

international students• Bologna process and Lisbon declaration.

The external dimensions of internationaliza-tion focus on the extension of academic programs, research, technology transfer, strategic partner-ships, and related services and activities in the international arena. A few of the key external dimensions of internationalization (Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2007) of universities may include:

• Establishment of branch campuses or re-gional offices abroad

• International distance learning programs• Recruitment of international students• Strategic alliances and partnerships with

foreign universities, private corporations, and governments

• Overseas consultancy, exchange of cur-riculum and learning materials, QA, and validation

• Staff and student exchanges• International branding, marketing, and PR

for the institution• Joint research and publication

The scope and focus of these activities, internal and external, vary across institutions based on mission, resources, strategic goals, and interna-tional experience and expertise (Olcott, 2009). The key strategic consideration, however, is that

41


institutional leaders build their internationalism strategy in a coherent way that integrates the various internal and external activities into the educational mission of the institution. Thus, a university’s internationalization strategy is a complex web of interconnected components that define how, what and indeed why the institution is engaged in the global arena. Moreover, these various aspects of university internationalization are impacted by multiple stakeholders and inter-est groups who often bring divergent agendas to the strategic discussion. Let’s look at selected examples of the challenges for universities.

PART 2: GOING GLOBAL – THE CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSITIES

Whilst there are numerous strategic, political, eco-nomic, academic, social, and other issues facing universities engaged in global higher education, it is beyond the scope of this chapter to cover the entire landscape. A few will be highlighted that are relevant to borderless program delivery and bringing international students to our campus.

Challenges for Global Distance Education

Institutional leaders often convince themselves that distance delivery will accelerate their welcome on the international stage. In some respects, this would be an excellent strategy if the rest of world would just see the value-added simplicity in this approach. The rest of the world, however, is not quite ready to play.

China, North and South Korea, Japan, the Gulf States, Eastern Europe, Russia, Malaysia, India, and other nations have publicly stated they want Western technology, academic programs, research and technology transfer to help create sustainable economies, develop a multi-talented workforces, and ultimately build stable higher education sys-tems at home (Olcott, Papi, & Newbould, 2008).

At the same time, the credibility of these West-ern resources appears to be directly related to hav-ing real people (academics, researchers, business executives, etc.) on the ground in country (Olcott, 2008d). The net result of these views is that the majority of cross-border higher education is be-ing delivered at branch campuses, corporate sites, and through unique public-private partnerships. There are, of course, exceptions and international students do take online and video-based courses but proportionally these numbers are relatively small (Olcott, 2009).

From an instructional design perspective, it is not surprising that foreign universities and govern-ments have been resistant to embracing external distance learning providers. Most faculty will tell you the inherent challenges in teaching foreign students and the potential for language, cultural and social miscommunication. Online teaching exacerbates these issues and creates a whole new range of challenges for teaching faculty (Olcott et al., 2008). The truth is we do not know what is ‘lost in translation’ (Olcott, 2009).

Technology is not culturally neutral and English is contextual like most other languages with potential for miscommunications. The fact is we know very little about the interconnected dynamics of culture, language, and social norms of academic communications delivered via me-dia. We have many assumptions but these do not equate to sound teaching and learning paradigms that are grounded in empirical research. Given that China, in fact, in the next few years may be the largest English-speaking nation on the planet it would seem prudent to begin addressing these pedagogical issues now rather than later (Helms, 2008; Olcott et al., 2008).

These teaching challenges are also intimately tied to the quality assurance measures of inter-national programs (Helms, 2008; Knight, 2003; Knight & de Wit, 1999; Stella, 2006; UNESCO/OECD, 2005; Woodhouse, 2006). We might argue that we employ the same quality standards for international student programs yet we have

42


not accounted for these language, cultural, and social differences. Going international through distance education will require these issues to be addressed in systematic and meaningful ways. This can only be accomplished through research and the development of new pedagogical models. Visionary leaders who desire to play on the in-ternational stage will take the necessary time to ensure these issues have been addressed.

Factors Affecting International Student Destination Choices

As competition for international student markets increase, competing institutions will conduct more sophisticated analyses of the factors that influence student choice. Perhaps historically institutional reputation and quality may have driven where international students desired to study abroad. Today, however, the increasing mobility of stu-dents globally suggests that additional factors will become increasingly important. This does not suggest that institutional credibility, brand, and quality are less important in the global market. Rather it suggests that these composite factors will play a more influential role in student choices in the immediate future.

Verbik and Lasanowski (2007), Lasanowski, (2009) and Olcott (2009) reported the following factors that are increasingly influencing student destination choices for international study:

• Institutional and program reputation• Social and cultural opportunities of institu-

tion, country, and region• Cost• Financial assistance and employment op-

portunities during and following program completion

• Streamlined immigration and visa require-ments and procedures

• Comprehensive and in-depth opportunities to master English

• Historical linkages between host-home countries

• Research facilities and resources.

The challenge is discerning which combina-tions of these factors will drive international student choices for the future. Many interna-tional students are looking regionally rather than internationally due to increasing costs and the proliferation of study abroad opportunities in their region. As this market becomes more competitive, assessing the relative importance of these choice factors will become equally important.

The 3S Global Village on Campus: Socialization, Support, and Services

The East Asian region, for example, includes the countries of China, North and South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Taiwan, and eastern Russia. East Asian students comprise a large sector of the international student populations in the United States and United Kingdom and these numbers are likely to increase over the next decade. What must you do on your campus to ensure a quality education experience for these students and other international students?

The socialization process is the first major challenge. Most East Asian students will align with their peers from their home country or region even when attending an institution in the United States or United Kingdom. This is natural of course but somewhat antithetical to creating a dynamic learning and living environment for international students. Campus administrators, faculty, and staff must help these students ‘reach out’ to English students and engage in mutually rewarding intellectual, social, and cultural activi-ties. Most international students are thousands of miles from home and they need both home con-nections and new connections with the campus community (Olcott, 2009; McBernie & Ziguras, 2007; UNESCO/OECD, 2005).

43


Universities must equally provide high levels of personal support for international students. Counseling, advising, employment opportunities, academic tutors, health services, are all impor-tant ‘personal’ support issues to these students. Moreover, university staff must educate the local community about their international student popu-lation and build international bridges between the university and the community.

Given the often controversial issues arising over immigration policy in the United States and the United Kingdom, the university must embrace its responsibility for ensuring their international students feel welcome in their new living environ-ment (Helms, 2008; Olcott, 2008c). Developing an agenda of social activities, clubs, travel excur-sions, and cultural celebrations all send a message to these students about the value the university places on their welfare, education, and assimilation into the local campus and community.

The Realpolitic and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Global Higher Education

The higher education sector must continually navigate the political landscape in pursuing in-stitutional initiatives. Dr. William Lawton (2011, p. 2), director of The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, also reminds us that ‘going international’ accentuates this geopolitical tension for universities. He wrote:

But international means ‘between nations’, and nations are players in international HE. The es-sence of geopolitics continues to be that foreign policy is geared toward either increasing or con-solidating a country’s power and influence in the world. For governments, higher education is an increasingly important component of the political and diplomatic toolkit (though they also know an easy target for spending cuts when they see one). Governments are the drivers of ‘education hubs’, a phenomenon which situates the role of universi-

ties as businesses in the service of national goals. Between the different models the sole purpose of education hubs is to enhance the competitive advantage of the state; the ultimate purpose of international university partnerships is to enhance the competitive advantage of the partners.

University leaders, however, must first deal with the institutional and national political spec-trum before playing in the international arena. At the institutional level, leaders must articulate the justification for going global given the diverse and complex competing interests across the institution and within the larger national sector. For example, to compete internationally means diverting institutional resources potentially from institutional needs locally. Most of us understand this all too well when attempting to convince our boards and faculty the justification for a China or India initiative when local initiatives (e.g., faculty pay increases, technology investments, capital projects, etc.) are continuous and often divisive governance-budget issues. The geopolitical land-scape clearly begins at home on the campus.

A second politically sensitive issue revolves around expectations by funding sources for how universities operate domestically and globally. Savvy politicians publicly and pointedly send ‘sound bites’ directed at universities to meet their service missions locally and nationally. Conversely, and in special interest driven cir-cumstances, Dr. Lawton has correctly said that government foreign policy will drive universities towards certain ‘politically correct’ international initiatives. This is usually followed by pressure on the quality control agencies that have oversight of a nation’s university international programs to tighten the screws on doing business abroad, and all in the name of academic quality, so the story goes. The reality is that this translates into a realpolitic euphemism for ‘don’t muck it up and embarrass our nation overseas.’

Do universities follow foreign policy and national political-economic agendas? As far as

44


this author is aware, the United States–United Kingdom foreign policy ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan were not followed by a proliferation of new branch campuses, study abroad students, or faculty exchanges. Moreover, it is a simplistic answer for universities to argue that ‘the gov-ernment made us do it’. Universities make their own political-economic choices and this includes choices to go global.

Education hubs are often driven by using the academic enterprize to promote a nation’s inter-national agendas but these ‘hubs’ are expensive and come with considerable political-economic risk. Becker (2009) reported the proliferation of branch campuses across the globe. There is truth is these data, however, the term ‘branch campus’ has to be approached with caution. Few univer-sities set-up comprehensive branch campuses abroad that actually mirror their home campus. It is simply not economically or politically viable. In the majority of cases, institutions extend selected programs that are market driven with high potential for profitable returns (e.g., business, engineer-ing, medicine, nursing, information technology, nano-technology, etc.) (Mroz, 2009). The United States is a primary example of this even in the domestic market where local branch campuses are usually centered in a major metropolitan area where market potential is highest for only a very few market driven programs.

So where does this leave us in the realpolitic arena of borderless higher education? First, univer-sities must navigate the complex tensions arising from the operational challenges of meeting its domestic mission versus overseas ventures or (ad) ventures. Second, the political dance is inevitably tied to domestic funding and quality assurance oversight. If you go global the institution better be able to demonstrate that its local-domestic mission is and will not be compromised. Third, the risks of going global are considerable and subject to geopolitical shifts that can occur without warning. For example, in 2011 what are the implications and unanticipated effects for foreign providers

in Egypt and Libya? Will the tragic earthquake and aftermath in Japan alter the higher educa-tion landscape domestically and globally? Will the devastating budget cuts to United States and United Kingdom higher education domestically drive institutions abroad for more international students or foreign partnerships, or will a period of retrenchment follow—domestic higher educa-tion will dominate over international initiatives?

The answers to these questions are complex and difficult to predict. What they illustrate is the volatility and uncertainty of the international landscape that collectively raise one fundamental question for university leaders: If your university is challenged to meet its domestic mission for some of the reasons discussed, how will your university manage an expanded international mission? The government, your funding agency, the quality assurance agency, institutional faculty, and your board are waiting for your informed, politically correct answer.

PART 3: THE FUTURE OF BORDERLESS HIGHER EDUCATION

Despite the challenges and risk-reward consid-erations that must be navigated when pursuing global higher education markets, there are some interesting trends emerging in 2012 and beyond, and some of these parallel trends were covered in Part 1 of this chapter.

At the forefront of these trends is private sector growth. The private sector (for profit universities—corporate universities) will continue to expand their role in higher education in domestic and international markets (Gourley, 2011; Bjarnason, 2011; van Rooijen, 2011). In a period of severe austerity in public higher education with increasing fees and government reductions in funding, this comes as no surprise to the sector. Van Rooijen (2011, p. 5) states that ‘higher education by and large is still locked in national systems, with only the biggest for-profit companies and a few very

45


courageous universities venturing at transnational levels.’ This may result in a greater convergence between the private and public sectors that may leverage some opportunities for innovative part-nerships.

Indeed, there emerges a subtle and yet pow-erful message in this private sector growth that parallels 1) student destination choices for study abroad and 2) students choosing credentials with for-profit providers over traditional academic universities: Academic quality and institutional-program reputation, although critically important to some students, are not the only selection fac-tors in these choice scenarios by the majority of students (see Part 2). Why? The private sector organizations have clearly placed an important premium on convenience and the quality and breadth of student services. And, it is certainly not due to lower costs. In many instances, the cost of for-profit providers is significantly higher that public providers for student tuition and fees. Recognising that private sector organizations have more access to venture capital, the fact remains that their focus on convenience and student services is commensurate with the academic quality issues of their programs.

A second interesting trend is what the author has identified as the ‘new global regionalism’ (Mroz, 2009). Following the model of the Bologna Process and the creation of the European Higher Education Area, other regions of the world are beginning to explore similar approaches to foster-ing regional collaboration. Asian universities have made considerable progress in world university rankings, raising the potential for future students to consider regional and local opportunities for study abroad. In the foreseeable future, the United States, United Kingdom and Australia will con-tinue to draw sufficient international students but clearly this market will be threatened in the next decade as other regions strengthen their higher education systems.

The ‘new global regionalism’ from a cross-border delivery of academic programs and research

is much more difficult to assess. Establishing foreign branch campuses is expensive, highly competitive, and a difficult political argument to make to stakeholders and funders back home (En-new, 2011). At the same time, there will likely be targeted opportunities for well-funded universities and for-profit universities that can leverage venture capital. These will still have to deliver a strong ROI (Return on Investment) to be sustainable and scalable over the longer-term. In India, the foreign provider bill (still pending in May 2012) has created heightened optimism about unique market opportunities for foreign providers. Time will tell on this one but clearly the volatility of economic markets and high tuition and fees will impact the real strength of the Indian market.

A third potential trend that continues to promise great results is the power of educational technologies (Gourley, 2011). Unquestionably these tools afford universities a vast arsenal to serve students globally. Conversely, the social, economic, cultural, and linguistic challenges of global online programs and open and distance learning in general face considerable challenges (see Part II). The potential of these technologies as educational tools and instruments of economic development and workforce growth remains chal-lenged in developing countries where the digital divide and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing, not contracting. Despite these challenges the potential of open educational re-sources, Web 2.0 and 3.0, and related technologies opens many new venues to address these reoccur-ring economic and social challenges.

There are, of course, many other trends on the horizon. Quality will be front and centre and we should expect more regulation from the oversight agencies (van Rooijen, 2011). Universities will increasingly place greater importance on strategic management and fiscal efficiencies that may, in fact, inhibit major international initiatives in the short-term. This is certainly likely in the United States and perhaps in the United Kingdom as well. Australia, conversely, may see a renewed interest

46


in offshore higher education ventures. With greater oversight of quality parameters of domestic pro-grams over the past two years, perhaps offshore partnerships will enter its second phase of growth from the early nineties expansion (Ziguras, 2011).

CNN/BBC News Headlines: 2015-2020

Making predictions for the future is suspect and enigmatic at best. The onset of the 2009 global financial crisis is proof of this cold fact. How-ever, pondering the future in uncertain times and during a rapidly changing global landscape also reminds educators that contingency planning is a valid exercise of leadership for universities. So what might the headlines be leading up to 2020 relative to international higher education? These are fictitious headlines yet may stimulate some interesting dialogues for discussion.

• ‘Asian Higher Education Area (AHEA)’ Reports Unprecedented Interregional Student Mobility and Foreign Private Sector Growth.’

• ‘U.S. – UK Report Increasing Numbers of Domestic Students Enrolled in Study Abroad Programs – Majority Going to East Asia, Australia Middle East and Africa.’

• ‘China Opens 7th Higher Education Regional Center in Africa.’

• ‘Renewing Global Citizenship via Respect and Integrity: The Heroic Return of Language Programs to the University Core Curriculum.’

• ‘Rapid Growth in 3 Year Bachelors Programs due to Web 4.0 Technologies.’

• ‘Gates Foundation Partners with European, U.S., and Chinese Universities to create Global Learning Analytics Consortium.’

• ‘South to South Partnerships Expand in Latin and South America: More Student Access across the Region’

• ‘Accrediting Commissions Phased Out in U.S. – States and Institutions to Assume Greater Quality Oversight of Universities and Community Colleges.’

• Australian Off-Shore Campuses continue Student Growth for 8th Consecutive Year.’

• ‘European Higher Education Area’ experi-ences 47% Increase in Student Fees since 2014.’

• ‘Higher Education as a Public Good – Gone with the Wind with Fee Increases in the UK and U.S.’

Indeed none of these headlines could come to pass . . . or could they? Time will tell.

International Considerations for University Chief Executives

Given the complexity of borderless higher educa-tion and the increasingly competitive landscape for global higher education, what must university chief executives consider before embarking upon a foreign venture or adventure? The following offers some key factors to consider.

1. Whether you like it or not, whether your alumni and ‘old guard’ like it or not, your university is a business. Your students are customers with unlimited options to buy another brand of education if you don’t/won’t meet their needs. Your products are credentials and legitimacy and they are value for money worth paying for by your customers—domestic or foreign.

2. As a business enterprise, be honest with your-self and with your stakeholders. Tell them your purpose (international and cross-border programs/research) is to make a significant profit to leverage reinvestment options into your educational enterprise (Curtis, 2012).

3. As the institution’s chief executive, clearly articulate to your foreign partners the con-

47


tinuum of benefits that you bring to the host country, not just the money you send home to Mum to satisfy international stakehold-ers. Do your programs-research contribute to economic development and diversifica-tion? Does your presence in the host country threaten or empower the culture, history, traditions, language and heritage of the host country? If it is perceived as a threat, then your educational value has been diminished by half. How many host-country faculty’ teach in your program? Are they bi-lingual?

4. Have you charged your ‘techno-staff’ to explore the uses of Open Educational Resources (OER) to enhance cross-cultural teaching, learning and research for your international students on the home campus and in cross-border programs?

5. Have your curriculum experts considered integrating selected ‘home-language instruc-tion’ into your foreign-based programs? Or this an alien cultural feature of your business plan?

6. Does your campus support service infra-structure provide a comprehensive array of services to your international students? Have you talked to your local community stakeholders about the ‘global village’ (and economic) benefits to the community by your international student population?

7. Have you considered multi-lateral cross-border programs rather than unilateral deliv-ery to one institution—one country? Private corporations and private higher education providers are experimenting with programs across multi-national boundaries in South America, Asia, and the Gulf Region. Why? Because it makes good business sense – re-member your university is a business.

8. The most difficult question a chief executive must answer is essential. Are you out of your league on the international playing field? Is your drive to establish your legacy getting in

the way of what’s best for your institution? Some institutions have no business in the business of cross-border higher education. Are you one of these institutions? Despite all the planning, investments, political po-sitioning, and aspirations to be one of the premier league universities on the global playing field, is your institutional mission better served by staying home, investing those resources in high-quality, campus education, and giving foreign students on your campus who have entrusted you with providing them with value for money the credential and legitimacy they seek? These questions demand your attention ...integrity... and professional judgment.

SUMMARY

The dramatic increase in internationalism and borderless higher education by public and for-profit universities is changing the face of the global higher education landscape. Today, universities have more opportunities for serving campus-based international students and extending their programs and research on the international stage. Students also have more choices than ever before in navigating their educational future and are becoming active consumers of global HE.

Language, culture, and social norms are as critical as any educational strategies we use to build and sustain international partnerships. An understanding, tolerance, and humility about the educational process in other countries is a neces-sity for building successful partnerships. We can never understand or be successful in building global partnerships if we believe that the only rules of the game are the ones we normally practice at home. The ones we are most comfortable with do not work and they will not work no matter how convinced we are they are right. In the end, this will take more than just a superficial familiarity

48


with another country and its culture. It means unlearning some of the strategies that work well in our worldview yet are often barriers when building global relationships.

Borderless higher education is highly complex and involves various risks for colleges and univer-sities and the need to justify foreign ventures or adventures to key stakeholders at home.. The ‘new global regionalism’ will accelerate HE competition for students and the global destination choices for students may drive more students to remain in their region than going to traditional destinations such as the U.S., UK, and Australia. Universities will function more like businesses and their foreign partnerships and campus international recruitment will be based on leveraging profitable revenues to supplement their composite educational en-terprise. This will be accentuated by reduced government funding and home and the need to temper continuous tuition and fee increases. Qual-ity assurance agencies will exert greater pressure on universities to maintain accountability, program standards, and mission-related programs abroad. University chief executives will need to carefully examine a continuum of complex issues to be suc-cessful on the international playing field. Indeed, some universities have no business in the business of borderless higher education.

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2008). What U.S. higher education can learn from a decade of European recon-struction. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (Eds.). (2007). Higher education in the new century: Global challenges and innovative ideas. Boston, MA: Centre for International Higher Education, Boston College and Sense Publishers.

Becker, R. (2009). International branch campuses: Markets and strategies. London, UK: The Obser-vatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Bjarnason, S. (2011). Privatization, convergence, and institutional autonomy. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Connelly, S., Garton, J., & Olsen, A. (2006). Models and types: Guidelines for good practice in transnational education. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Curtis, S. (2012). Implementing international-ization. In Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Ennew, C. (2011). Strategic mobility diversifi-cation. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Border-less Higher Education.

Fazackerley, A., & Worthington, P. (Eds.). (2007). British universities in China: The reality beyond the rhetoric. Retrieved from http://www.agoraedu-cation.org/pubs/docs/Agora_China_Report.pdf

Gourley, B. (2011). Open learning comes of age. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Helms, R. M. (2008). Transnational education in China: Key challenges, critical issues and strate-gies for success. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Knight, J. (2003). Internationalisation: Devel-oping an institutional self-portrait, readings for EOTU project. Retrieved from http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/Illinoisnovfinal.pdf

Knight, J. (2005). Borderless, offshore, transna-tional and cross-border education: Definition and data dilemmas. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

49


Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris, France: IMHE/OECD.

Lasanowski, V. (2009). International student mobility: Status report 2009. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Lawton, W. (2011). Forward. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher education. London, UK: Routledge.

Middlehurst, R., & Woodfield, S. (2007). Inter-national activity or internationalization strategy? Insights from an institutional pilot study in the UK. Tertiary Education and Management, 13, 263–279. doi:10.1080/13583880701502190

Mroz, A. (2009, August 27). We must adapt to survive. Times Higher Education.

OECD. (2010). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Organisation for Eco-nomic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

Olcott, D. J. (2008a). Rock n’ on the international stage: Commentary oninternationalism, cross-border higher education and distance learning – Lessons for presidents who care enough to do what is right. Distance Education Report, 12(11), 5–7.

Olcott, D. J. (2008b). Managing international partnerships: Strategies for success. Paper pre-sented at the Guardian Higher Education Summit. London, UK.

Olcott, D. J. (2008c). Going global: Perils and promises for open and distance education. Dis-tance Learning, 5(3), 81–89.

Olcott, D. J. (2009). Global connections to global partnerships: Navigating the changing landscape of internationalism and cross-border higher educa-tion. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 57, 1–9. doi:10.1080/07377360902804085

Olcott, D. J., Papi, C., & Newbould, D. (2008). Building global bridges to the future: Opportu-nities and challenges for cross-border distance education. In Proceedings of the 2008 European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) In-ternational Conference. Lisbon, Portugal: EDEN Secretariat.

Stella, A. (2006). Quality assurance of cross-border higher education in Australia. Paper pre-sented at the UNESCO Seminar on Regulation in Cross-Border higher Education: Issues and Trends. New Delhi, India.

Thomas, E. (2007). Defining the global university: The observatory on borderless higher education. Paper presented at the OBHE-WUN Conference Realising the Global University. London, UK.

UNESCO/OECD. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education. Paris, France: UNESCO and OECD.

van Rooijen, M. (2011). Privatisation, conver-gence, and institutional autonomy. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Verbik, L., & Merkley, C. (2006). The inter-national branch campus—Models and trends. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

50


Woodhouse, D. (2006). The quality of trans-national education: A provider view. Qual-ity in Higher Education, 12(3), 277–281. doi:10.1080/13538320601072883

Ziguras, C. (2011). Strategic mobility diversi-fication. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

ADDITIONAL READING

Becker, R. F. (2009). International branch cam-puses: Markets and strategies. London, UK: The Observatory for Higher Education.

Bone, D. (2008). Internationalisation of HE: A ten-year view. London, UK: Department of In-novation.

Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to open edu-cational resources (OER). Vancouver, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.col.org/oerBasicGuide

De Langen, F. H. T., & Bitter-Rijkema, M. E. (2012). Positioning the OER business model for open education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-13.

de Wit, H. (Ed.). (2009). Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education. Oc-casional Paper 22. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Association for International Education.

EUA. (2004). Developing joint masters pro-grammes for Europe: Results of the EUA joint masters project. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

Gore, T. (2012). Higher education across borders: Models of engagement and lessons from corpo-rate strategy. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Knight, J. (2008). Joint and double degree pro-grammes: Vexing questions and issues. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Knight, J. (2010). Regional education hubs — Rhetoric or reality. Industry and Higher Educa-tion, 59, 19–20.

Lane, J. E., & Kinser, K. (2011). Reconsidering privatization in cross-border engagements: The sometimes public nature of private activity. Higher Education Policy, 24, 255–273. doi:10.1057/hep.2011.2

Lawton, W., & Katsomitros. (2012). International branch campuses: Data and developments. Lon-don, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Middlehurst, R. (2008). Leadership and interna-tionalisation. In Shiel, C., & McKenzie, A. (Eds.), The Global University: The Role of Senior Manag-ers. Bournemouth, UK: Bournemouth University.

Middlehurst, R., Woodfield, S., Fielden, J., & Forland, H. (2009). Universities and international higher education partnerships: Making a differ-ence. London, UK: Million.

OBHE. (2011). Perspectives on the future. Lon-don, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Olcott, D. (2010). Par for the course. The Times Higher Education.

Olcott, D. J. (2009). Global connections – Local impacts: Trends and developments for interna-tionalism and cross-border higher education. In Coverdale-Jones, T., & Rastall, P. (Eds.), Interna-tionalising the University: The Chinese Context. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Olcott, D. J. (2009). Going global: Trends in cross border higher education for ODL. China Journal of Open Education Research, 15(4), 4–9.

51


Olcott, D. J., & Hardy, D. (Eds.). (2005). Danc-ing on the glass ceiling: Women, leadership, and technology. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Taylor, J. (2010). The management of interna-tionalization in higher education. In Maringe, F., & Foskett, N. (Eds.), Globalization and Interna-tionalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives (pp. 97–107). London, UK: Continuum.

UNESCO/Commonwealth of Learning. (2011). Guidelines for open educational resources (OER) in higher education. Paris, France: UNESCO/COL.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., & Pfotenhauer, S. (2012). Guide-lines for quality assurance in cross-border higher education: Where do we stand? OECD Education Working Paper No. 70. OECD Publishing. Retrie-ved from http://dx.doilorg/10.1787/5k9fd0kz0j6b-en

Zgaga, P. (2011). The European higher education area in a global setting: An idea its implemen-tation, and new challenges. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Borderless Higher Education/Cross-Border Higher Education: The provision of academic programs, research, services, and/or technol-ogy transfer across national boundaries by a foreign university/organisation to a university/organisation in another country; the exchange of educational services across national borders. These programs and/or services may be delivered f2f—in-country, via open and distance learning technologies, or through a blended modality of f2f and ODL Typically, the foreign provider (s) has a host-country partner (university, govern-ment agency, corporation); emerging cross-border

partnerships may include multi-national consortia of provider and host nations.

Dimensions of Internationalism: The com-bined range of internal and external activities, programs, services and linkages that comprise a university’s internationalism agenda.

Distance Education: The delivery of educa-tional programs where the teacher and students may be physically-geographically separated by time and distance. The range of delivery options include f2f at distance locale, online, video, audio, and print and may include a blended delivery model combining f2f and distance education. Distance education is synonymous with online learning or elearning and includes the broader range of delivery technologies.

Education Hub: An evolving term that gener-ally refers to a major regional urban location that is viewed as the ‘hub’ for educational providers, domestic and foreign, that are serving a global geographical region. The most recent emphasis has been on Asia and the Gulf States. Common examples include Dubai, Singapore, Kuala Lum-pur, Hong Kong, Delhi, and Shanghai. Education hub may also refer to a nation that is driving the emerging geopolitical and educational agenda in a region (China, Brazil, US, UK, Australia, South Africa, etc.).

F2f: Face-to-face delivery of education by teachers.

Foreign Provider: The organisational entity providing educational services to another nation. The most common providers are universities, corporations, and/or government agencies.

HE Realpolitic: The political demands by internal and external stakeholders upon a univer-sity’s agenda, mission autonomy and leadership. In the international context, the management of university realpoliltic often restricts or constrains the capacity of the institution to be entrepreneurial and effective in the international arena.

Host Nation: The country where cross-border programs, research and services are being de-

52


livered. The host-country partner is typically a university, college, corporation, and/or govern-ment agency.

International Branch Campus: An extension (branch) of a foreign university’s home campus that is physically established in the host-country. International branch campuses usually offer select, high-demand academic programs and services by the foreign institution in collaboration with the host-country partner (university, corporation, and/or government agency).

Internationalism: Component of globaliza-tion focusing on the relations of people, nations, and cultures. The composite range of internal and external programs, services, research, partnerships and technology transfer that provides linkages for universities to global educational, cultural, busi-ness, and economic markets.

New Global Regionalism: An emerging trend where universities, corporations and governments are redirecting the focus of educational partner-ships and HE student mobility within their geo-graphical region.

Private Sector Providers: Refers to private for-profit universities and corporate universities expanding their base of operations domestically and internationally.

Quality Assurance: Process of monitoring, measuring, and evaluating the overall performance of a university based on a strategy of continued quality improvement and data-based decision making.

Student Mobility: Demographic patterns for tracking the movement of college and university level students across international borders to complete their higher education credential.


53

APPENDIX: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

The following are basic principles for developing and sustaining long-term international partnerships (Altbach & Peterson, 2007; Connelly, Garton & Olsen, 2006; McBernie & Ziguras, 2007; Olcott, 2008b; Olcott, 2009).

• What are the most effective techniques? ◦ You never have a second chance to make a first impression. Do your homework before, not

after, you establish an international partnership. Research your partner organization, it’s cul-ture, language, history, current partners, partnership record, financial stability, and how the organization is perceived in their own country. What do they bring to the table that you need? What are the potential benefits for both partners?

◦ Build partnerships that compliment your organizational strengths? Does your potential part-ner view these attributes as your strengths? Why or Why not? Do not attempt to be all things to all people.

◦ Establish formative and summative performance review processes— managerial, program-matic, and financial from the outset. Presume from the start that you will need to make ad-justments, modifications and perhaps major alterations to your partnership strategy. Global economic, cultural, political, and social environments can change rapidly, can you?

• How do you create sustainability? ◦ Create a diversified investment strategy—one partner but additional stakeholders who per-

ceive value in the endeavor and may invest money, people, and time. Remember internation-al partnerships particularly in higher education must be approached as a business venture.

◦ Build contingencies into your budget planning. Every higher education budget on the planet looks good on paper, when it hits the real world is when the problems start. Build your bud-gets based on real costs plus inflation and the projected costs of doing day-to-day business.

◦ Conduct extensive market research on your customer (s) base. If your financial plan is highly dependent on student enrolment tuition and fees, analyze the changes that are occurring in this sector for the partnership country and surrounding region. Students are becoming more mobile and more selective with more higher education choices.

• Collaboration and the curriculum. ◦ If your university-department is the primary content provider, you retain control of the cur-

riculum, period. From a practical standpoint, however, connecting your faculty with in-ternational faculty in the partnership country can be beneficial and strengthen partnership collaboration.

◦ Align curriculum delivered abroad with the process of ‘internationalising’ the curriculum on the campus. Developing curriculum that is culturally, socially, historically, ethnically, and gender accurate and sensitive are prerequisites for all international curriculum.

◦ Diversify your delivery modes. Can you deliver a significant part of the curriculum via edu-cational technologies (distance learning)?

• How do you present your partnerships to internal and external stakeholders? ◦ Leaders must be able to articulate how the partnership aligns, strengthens, and enhances the

mission of the university. How will the partnership impact specific stakeholders?


54

◦ Benefits—benefits-benefits? What are the benefits from the partnership? How will these benefits be assessed and by whom?

◦ Provide status reports to all key stakeholders, particularly academic deans, faculty, and board members.

◦ What is your exit strategy if the partnership must be terminated? Do you have an answer? Indeed, you will be asked this question by multiple stakeholders. Have you considered this from a public relations, reputation, and marketing perspective?

• Staff diversity to reflect the partnership ◦ Foreign-based partnerships—hire local staff to strengthen instruction and support services.

Take advantage of the culturally and language rich human resources available to support your program and partnerships

◦ Campus-based—ensure you have diverse staff with the communication, language, cultural awareness, and social skills to interact effectively with your international students.

◦ Ensure that partnership staff, faculty, and students have multiple opportunities for sharing comments, suggestions, and recommendations. This should be an essential part of the part-nership and program assessment process.

Beyond the boundaries the future of borderless higher education

Education

Transcript of Beyond the boundaries the future of borderless higher education