1

Knowledge Transfer in Transnational Programmes

Opportunities and challenges for the Pacific region

Agustian Sutrisno and Hitendra Pillay

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

The Globalised World: The Current Higher Education Community

The last decade has seen rapid changes in the landscape of higher education (HE) throughout the world,largely as a product of globalisation. A major effect has been to propel the interconnectedness between nations and people across the globe (Scholte, 2005). The use of information and communication technology (ICT)has diminished the distance between countries. The world’s economies are becoming more integrated and interrelated through neoliberal economic policies, free trade agreements and open access of goods and services beyond national borders, policies promulgated by organisations such as the World Trade Organization and The World Bank (MarginsonOrdorika, 2011; Mok, 2011). As a consequence, universities are operating at global, national and local levelssimultaneously. In the Pacific region, new universities are emerging. For example, Fiji now has one regional and two national universities; Samoa has a national university and Solomon Islands has an institute of higher education. These new players add to regional competition as they open opportunities for global partnerships and transnational programmes. Thus, participating at these multiple levels is inevitable, and no university is immune to these changes (Marginson, Kaur & Sawir, 2011a). Universities are now part of a global HE community that cannot be confined within a nation’s borders. Transnational HE programmes are perhaps one of the most evident demonstrations of the interconnectedness of universities across countries in this global era.

Driven by the marketisation, internationalisation and neoliberal economic models of HE, universities in many developed countries are increasingly engaging in transnational education programmes to meet the growing demand for HE in developing countries (ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b). The Pacific and Asia are immediate neighbours of Australia and New Zealand, where diminishing government subsidies and the adoption of neoliberal economic models have forced universities to diversify their income sources. Thus the Pacific–Asia region provides important target markets for offering transnational programmes (ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b). In order to access the growing HE student market, Australian and New Zealand universities partner with local universities or educational institutions to deliver their transnational programmes (McBurnieZiguras, 2007). While transnational education programmes can be viewed as new forms of imperialism in the education sector and as profit-oriented enterprises (Yang & Yao, 2007), they may have potential for improving the quality of a developing country’s universities by transferring knowledge from partner universities located in developed countries (Vincent-Lancrin, 2007). However, little research is available for understanding and guiding such a knowledge transfer (KT) process (Li-Hua, 2007).

This chapter examines transnational programmes and situates the potential KT opportunities through those programmes as an integral part of engaging with the global HE community. First, the discussion clarifies the impacts of globalisation on HE in developing countries, drawing some examples from Pacific countries and setting the context for the discussion that follows. Second, the chapter examines what is meant by transnational HE programmes and the constellation of these programmes in the Pacific. This examination provides a clear underpinning for discussing the inter-university KT potentials through the programmes. Third, KT, as a concept often utilised in the commercial sector, requires some explanation and articulation when applied in the context of transnational HE programmes. Finally, an integrated framework for understanding and operationalising KT in transnational HE programmes is presented. Overall, this chapter seeks to stimulate discussion among the HE community in the Pacific in considering the opportunities and challenges that transnational education programmes pose.

Globalisation of Higher Education: The Scenes in the Pacific Region

Globalisation has translated into the marketisation and internationalisation of HE (MarginsonOrdorika, 2011; Mok, 2011). What happens in the Pacific countries as a part of the global community of HE cannot be separated from their larger and powerful neighbours, particularly Australia and New Zealand. Some exploration of how marketisation and internationalisation have been implemented in Australia and New Zealand is also necessary, prior to delving into the specifics of transnational programmes as a principal example of the intertwining of internationalisation and marketisation of HE in the global era.

Marketisation refers to the application of market principles to the HE sector (Jongbloed, 2003; Lynch, 2006). It is implemented by reducing state subsidies to universities, organisational restructuring of universities to enhance their effectiveness and efficiency, and using government deregulation policies to transform universities into free commercial entities (Jongbloed, 2003; Mok & Welch, 2003). Higher education is treated as a market commodity and students are perceived as universities’ customers and consumers of knowledge, so universities are actively pursuing them by using marketing techniques (Adams, 2007; Lynch, 2006; Mok, 2011). Another example of the marketisation of higher education is the commercialisation of research findings to garner income for the universities (Meek, 2006). Having high quality, internationally valued teaching programmes and research outputs can be very strong ‘marketing triggers’. Universities influenced by marketisation of education in terms of financial returns can often risk becoming highly competitive in securing financial returns at the expense of other altruistic responsibilities noted in the foreign policies of many developed countries (Welch, 1988). In commercialising academic programmes to overseas clients, Australian and New Zealand universities have been offering numerous transnational programmes and several of these universities operate branch campuses in Asia and the Pacific region (Universities Australia, 2009; Fielden, 2011; Vince Catherwood & Associates & Taylor, 2005). They have developed advanced marketing strategies and pathways for their programmes to attract potential students (Adams, 2007). In the Pacific region, the recent rise of national HE institutions and private higher education providers, intertwined with the growing presence of transnational courses, provides an indication of this marketisation (Chandra, 2011).

Internationalisation of higher education is ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education’ (Knight, 2003, p. 2). Initially, internationalisation was considered for on-campus study programmes in Australian and New Zealand universities, where universities may offer a variety of programmes with international perspectives for international and local students, such as foreign language teaching, introducing modern Western approaches to teaching and learning, and discussing international issues in the classes (Knight, 2006). However, this initial internationalisation effort shifted because of the changes to Australian and New Zealand foreign policies, including the aid provisions. The governments in both countries changed their policies to charge full fees for international students, necessitating a search for alternative approaches for recruiting international students. Transnational programme providers took the programmes to the foreign markets, which was cheaper for the international clients and also financially more attractive to the Australian and New Zealand universities. This shift in approach reinforced the export orientation of university internationalisation and supported the early marketing campaigns (Adams, 2007; Macaranas, 2010; ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011a). The earlier objectives of including international dimensions, such as foreign culture and language, to enrich the learning experience of international students had been transformed into a marketing tool. Consequently, Australian and New Zealand universities have embarked on a strong commercial orientation and have built support infrastructure, regulations and management structures that are oriented towards building a multi-billion dollar export industry (Adams, 2007; Marginson, 2007; Marginson, KaurSawir, 2011b). Included in this internationalisation effort is the proliferation of their transnational programmes, not only in East and Southeast Asia but also in the Pacific (Mok, 2011; ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b).

Internationalisation has,since the inception of its first regional university, beena necessity and reality in the Pacific region. It can be argued that lecturers and students in regional universities like the University of the South Pacific (USP) have always been multinational, as small island countries cannot maintain their own universities with limited resources (Chandra, 2011; Thaman, 2007). USP as the premier university in the region maintains presence in 12 countries that collectively own it, and uses ICT to deliver distant-education courses throughout the region (Chandra, 2009; Chandra, KoroivulaonoHazelman, 2011; Thaman, 2007). USP has maintained articulation agreements with other Pacific institutions, to facilitate the granting of USP degrees to their students, which can be seen as transnational education within the South Pacific region (Chandra, 2009). However, in recent years, the small national universities in the Pacific have, instead of seeking accreditation with USP, now also sought regional accreditation from Australian and New Zealand quality assurance agencies (Chandra, 2011). In the context of Pacific higher education, internationalisation has arguably been implemented earlier than the commercially driven internationalisation of HE seen in Australia and New Zealand. At that time, internationalisation was genuine capacity building and KT, and to some extent was a consequence of the colonial past. A level of regional cooperation and support existed for encouraging local capacity development. Marketisation was not a feature of the partnerships at that time.

Although small compared with the giants in Africa and Asia, nations of the Pacific region provide Australian and New Zealand universities with an easy-to-access market (Thaman, 2007). The adoption of English as the medium of instruction in most of the Pacific countries combines with the common British Commonwealth education system to provide an advantage for entry to Australian and New Zealand universities (Chandra, 2009). The visa requirements for Pacific Islanders to study in Australia and New Zealand also tend to be less stringent than those for some African or Asian countries. Such a close relationship often comes with opportunities for Pacific Islanders to migrate to these two countries after completing their education. The Pacific countries also generally fall within the Australian and New Zealand sphere of influence, with strong dependency on their educational aid and quality assurance models (Chandra, 2009; Chandra, KoroivulaonoHazelman, 2011; Thaman, 2007). With a substantial demand for Australian and New Zealand qualifications, often for migration purposes (Chandra, 2011), the Pacific market is lucrative for transnational operators, albeit the overall market is small.

While the manifestations and drivers of marketisation and internationalisation in the Pacific region may be different from those in Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Pacific countries are experiencing the impacts of globalisation and neoliberal policies similar to their neighbouring larger countries. As noted, of particular interest are the transnational programmes from universities in Australia and New Zealand, which form an integral part of their internationalisation endeavour (Knight, 2006). Given their largely for-profit motivation and cross-border operation, transnational programmes can be viewed as a prime example of globalisation in HE, which also has implications for Pacific countries (ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b).

Transnational Higher Education

Before discussing the current state of transnational programmes in the Pacific region, it is necessary to define ‘transnational HE’. It can be understood as:

All types of higher education study programmes, or sets of courses of study, 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. (UNESCO Council of Europe, 2001)

The term transnational education originated in Australia in the early 1990s when universities needed to distinguish between international students studying onshore in Australian campuses and students enrolled in Australian programmes but studying offshore (Knight, 2005). The term is used as an umbrella to include all types of HE programmes delivered across a country’s borders, such as articulation, twinning, franchise and dual degree programmes (Naidoo, 2009). In the main, these transnational programmes have been offerings from English speaking universities in the developed countries to the developing countries in Asia, but also in other parts of the world, including the Pacific region (ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b). The programmes have been delivered in English and supported by research that emanates from English-speaking countries.

In the Pacific, universities from a number of countrieshave offered transnational programmes, often partnering with local Pacific institutions. Both Australia and New Zealand are important sources of transnational programmes in the region. AmongNew Zealand’s 137 transnational programmes in 2004, 21 percent were in the Pacific region, making this New Zealand’s second largest offering of suchprogrammes after thoseto China (28%) and exceeding those to Malaysia (13%). Most of these New Zealand offerings in the Pacific have been in the Cook Islands and Tonga, with nine programmes each (Vince Catherwood & Associates & Taylor, 2005). In 2008, Australia had 889 transnational programmes, with the overwhelming majority in Southeast Asia and East Asia (Universities Australia, 2009). The Universities Australia report notes that, Australian universities have maintained quite a strong presence in Fiji and Papua New Guinea. The University of Sunshine Coast, University of Southern Queensland, Central Queensland University and James Cook University each offers a range of programmes in Fiji, starting from bachelor degrees to graduate certificates. Papua New Guinea has hosted programmes from Queensland University of Technology, Southern Cross University and Deakin University. The University of Queensland also has had a programme in New Caledonia. In addition to Australia and New Zealand, some Indian information technology training providers have been active in Fiji (Chandra, 2009). As mentioned earlier, the USP also has had some regional-level transnational programmes with other Pacific institutions to overcome the limited resources and small student body. However, these USP programmes are distinct from the programmes offered by the Australian and New Zealand universities that are more commercially driven and originate from developed countries outside the Pacific region, with all their perceived prestige and afforded migration possibilities.

The Australian transnational operation in recent years has shown a declining number of programmes, yet an increasing number of students enrolled in them (Australian Education International, 2011; Universities Australia, 2009). There seems to be a consolidation and rationalisation of offshore programmes to maximise profit (Fielden, 2011). However, the number of students in those programmes has continued to rise, from 93,596 in 2008 to 104,678 in 2010, roughly a 12% increase (Australian Education International, 2011). These trends suggest that some Australian universities have reduced the number of their transnational programmes in order to focus on building multidimensional, long-term partnerships with selected strategic partners (Fielden, 2011). The shifting focus on building multidimensional and lasting partnerships with a small number of preferred partners provides an opportunity for some of the key institutions in the host countries, including those in the Pacific, to cement stronger and more constructive relationships with the transnational education providers from Australia and New Zealand (ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b).

One of the most advocated advantages of transnational education programmes is the possibility of improving the capacity of the local partners through KT (Vincent-Lancrin, 2007; ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b). Despite the vast literature depicting Australian universities’ revenue generation rationale in establishing transnational programmes, some Australian universities seem recently to have been more driven by collaborative research agendas with more possibilities for bi-directional KT with the partner universities (Murray, 2011a, 2011b; Scroop, Johnson & Russel, 2009). For example, Monash University recently changed its international engagement direction to focus on international research collaboration (Murray, 2011a). The university significantly reduced the number of international partnerships, to focus on a small number of high-profile international research partnerships. Their transnational programmes with Chinese Sichuan University were utilised to strengthen the partnership with that university and attention was given to joint PhD programmes in order to facilitate more high-quality research partnerships. Monash also dedicated around A$200,000 to bolster its partnership with Sichuan,which resulted in 11 research project proposals submitted for external funding. Monash University’s new direction targeting long-term partnerships with a local university, and intention not only to market Western HE to Asian countries but also to learn from them, are perhaps due to the likelihood of the economic power base shifting to the East (see Marginson, Kaur & Sawir, 2011b; MarginsonOrdorika, 2011; Wesley, 2011). This interesting shift regarding the assumptions driving transnational programmes perhaps indicates that many Australian and New Zealand universities now acknowledge that a purely Western education programme may not be what other countries are seeking.

Nevertheless, the situation in the Pacific is different from that in China, where the large population and resources render the Chinese universities many privileges and the potential to be the preferred partners of prestigious research-intensive universities from developed countries. In the Pacific, the local HE institutions struggle with the limited resources and pool of available students in the research programmes (Chandra, 2009). Most Pacific universities depend on international donor support from organisations, such as the Australian Agency for International Development, the New Zealand Agency for International Development, the Asian Development Bank and Japan International Cooperation Agency, that may be structured as a long-term programme-level support rather than the current project and activity based one. The Monash and Sichuan University initiative may be a useful example for long-term partnerships. While resource constraints could limit the potential for multidimensional and high-profile partnership with Pacific universities, it does not mean that KT cannot take place in transnational programmes with Pacific universities. With the right alignment of strengths and interests, transnational programme partners may have mutually beneficial KT opportunities.

At this point, it is necessary to be mindful that transnational education is not always beneficial for the host countries and, despite having vast potential, KT does not provide a panacea for improving the quality of partner Pacific universities (ZigurasMcBurnie, 2011b). Transnational education has been criticised as a profit-making enterprise, where quality assurance is not always in place, course delivery is not adjusted to the local context, and the KT between partners is not prioritised (Chandra, 2009; Yang & Yao, 2007). It is also possible that Pacific universities partnering with developed country universities are relegated to a subordinate position in terms of power relations. The developed country universities might exert greater power in making decisions concerning the joint transnational operation and position the partner Pacific universities only as recruiting agents of local students, as is the case in some transnational programmes in Southeast Asia (Altbach, 1999; Murray, 2011b). Some researchers have argued that the transnational operations of developed country universities in developing countries represent a form of neo-imperialism in the knowledge sector that undermines the local knowledge and wisdom (see MarginsonOrdorika, 2011; Mok, 2011). In terms of knowledge production, Pacific universities have successfully navigated themselves against the global challenges posed by their insularity, and used innovative ways of course offering and university administration (Chandra, KoroivulaonoHazelman, 2011; Thaman, 2007). They possess local expertise and know-how that are low cost, contextually relevant and effective. Thus transferring external knowledge from developed country universities that operate in a different context may not always be useful. By focusing on KT, this chapter does not ignore a Pacific university’s capabilities to generate its own knowledge (Kumar & Ganesh, 2009). However, for a university that forms a partnership with another university, KT has the potential to improve its quality by acquiring new useful knowledge from the partner university (Khamseh & Jolly, 2008). In the context of the discussion presented here, there is an assumption that the Australian and New Zealand universities are of better quality and that the Pacific universities wish to learn and adopt their knowledge. The universities in the Pacific region need to be selective in identifying what knowledge to acquire and emulate from their partners, and harness factors that can improve the KT process and the capacities of their own quality assurance.