Transnational education is one of the consequences of
internationalization and openness of the countries to the outside world. The
issue of the transnational education is still ambiguous and vague due to its
dyadic nature of working under both sending and accepting states’ rules and
regulations. In the complexity of this issue paying attention to the benefits and
challenges of cross-border education might be essential.
Different countries have their own reasons to be open
or close to the global community. It
depends on countries’ external politics and relations with other states. Talking
about cross-border education, often universities from developed countries tend
to initiate the opening of their branch campuses overseas (Ziguras and
McBurnie, 2011). Even though, mutual benefit could be felt: (1) the recipient-country
might have weak and low quality higher education (HE) and accepting foreign
providers might help to increase the local HE quality; (2) country is too dense
and existing HE institutions cannot embrace the student capacity, for example,
India (Altbach, 2010). But with all these seemingly positive influences there
are some things recipient-countries need to be aware of.
Double sided effect is always present. Therefore, some
hidden traps would be dangerous for both sides. Recipient-country might have
low level of legal security which might backlash local universities’ lives (low
enrollment rate, weak faculty retention policy etc.) and contribute to the
appearance of state-in-a-state trend (when originally autonomous foreign university
could dictate its own rules using its worldwide reputation). As for the
cross-border education provider there is no guarantee on economic return. By
this I mean, that entering a foreign market is like walking on ice when it
could be both stable and fragile simultaneously depending on the intensity of
steps and chosen direction.
A
concluding thought is in the inevitability of people’s movement due to a
globalized world. If internationalization enhances its presence through cross
border education recipient-countries have little chance to resist it. Although,
developing smart legal frameworks which will allow cross-border educators come
in but respect this country’s rules and regulations is under their [recipient-country’s]
authority.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2010).
India’s open door to foreign universities: less than meets the
eye. International
Higher Education, 60, 16-18.
Ziguras, C., & McBurnie, G. (2011). Transnational
higher education in the Asia-Pacific Region:
From distance education to the branch campus. In S. Marginson, S. Kaur,
& E. Sawir (Eds.), Higher education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic
responses to globalization (pp. 105-122). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dana, I like your concluding thoughts about pervasiveness of growing forces, and this increasing foreign presence with its ‘perceived prestige’ has potential to disadvantage local HE that strive to respond to national needs. According to the recent research findings of the same authors you mention, Ziguras and McBurnie, published in 2015, some host nations experience difficulty regulating the presence, activity, quality of foreign programs. These education importing countries fear that their institutions will lose staff and students to wealthier, commercially driven foreign competitors. Number of Altbach’s works on cross border HE does also emphasize challenges due to ongoing inequality and dependency of the academic periphery on the core. He argues that protecting culture, intellectual independence, and the values of civil society are simply not at the same level as free trade in automobiles or equal access to market for soya beans or even other services that are included in the GATS agenda. I really admire the author’s incredible contribution in this highly controversial politico-intellectual space. I think his arguments are staggering in understanding the potential dilemmas in the globalization and internationalization arena.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Dana, I agree with you that any actions or initiatives especially in the sphere of education have both positive and negative outcomes. As for branch campuses, I tend to believe that the positive sides overweigh than negative. First, domineering campus providers are English-speaking countries like US, UK and Australia, meaning that they will provide programs in English, which is good for receiving (developing) countries. Secondly, learners can get the education and diploma of that branch university without crossing the border and spending money. As for drawbacks, I don’t see any of them except your statements mentioned in the article. But there might be a risk for the reputation of providers. Do you remember, at Globalization class Dr. Lee narrated a case about a closure of one branch university in Singapore, which turned to a big issue and decline of reputation at the end, and that impeded the university to open other branches in oversee countries.
ReplyDelete