Tensores e impactos sobre fauna costera ó recursos hidrobiológicos

In the process of internationalising, institutions have restructured and reformed their strategies in response to changing global political networks (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000) placing competitiveness at their core (Wing Ng, 2012). To compete globally, institutions often commit to the development and promotion of their HE services to overseas markets. The process of establishing cross-border programmes is complex, influenced by a myriad of international, national, sectorial (Knight, 2005) and institutional factors, which require careful monitoring for the purposes of quality and value. However, regardless of the complexities, TNE represents a ‘relatively new, but rapidly growing phenomenon’ (Keay et al., 2014, p. 251).

13

De Vita and Case (2003) contend TNE is a product of the marketisation of HE and the ‘competitive rush for international’ students and their money (2003, p.384). This view is supported by academics such as Dobson (1998), Marginson (2003) and Enslin and Hedge (2008) who infer that financial motives provide the key rationale for TNE, with the pursuit of profit being cited as a key motivating factor (Feast & Bretag, 2005). However, cross-border relationships, which transpire out of a desire to satisfy monetary results, can be problematic, not just for the development of society and future generations (Tencati & Zsolnai, 2009), but also for academic communities who manage these relationships (K. Smith, 2014).

As evidenced in the research of Feast and Bretag (2005), institutions who adopt transnational strategies put increasing pressures upon staff members to deliver ‘value for money’ for the ‘client’ (2005, p. 75). ‘Excessive requests’ (2005, p. 75) can compromise academic standards and put the TNE programme at risk, by placing commercial

considerations ahead of academic issues (K. Smith, 2014). To ensure an overseas provision’s quality and longevity, management therefore need to manage a series of

complex factors (Adam, 2001), which extends beyond a ‘focus on money’ (K. Smith, 2014, p. 129). As Feast and Bretag (2005) suggest, a multitude of potential factors can undermine the delivery of an international programme, thus creating losses in income and reputational damage. In a time of heightened global awareness and competitiveness, this is an

unacceptable possibility (International Education Advisory Council, 2013).

1.5.1 Defining Transnational Higher Education and Transnational

Arrangements

Although many national definitions of TNE exist (British Council, 2013), in order to stop conceptual confusion within this study, the ubiquitous definition universally accepted and cited in TNE research from UNESCO and the Council of Europe (2002) is preferred.

They define transnational higher education in their Code of Good Practice 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. Such programmes may belong to the education system of a state different from the state in which it operates, or may operate independently of any national education system.

14

They further define a transnational arrangement as:

An educational, legal, financial or other arrangement leading to the establishment of (a) collaborative arrangements, such as franchising, twinning, joint degrees, whereby study programmes or parts of a course of study, or other educational services of the awarding institution are provided by another partner institution; (b) non-collaborative arrangements, such as branch campuses, off-shore institutions, corporate or

international institutions, whereby study programmes, or parts of a course of study, or other educational services are provided directly by an awarding institution.

Transnational arrangements are therefore complex, enabling awarding institutions that reside outside of a host nation to provide a variety of educational provisions to

international students who may not have the means or motivations to travel abroad (Hénard, Diamond, & Roseveare, 2012). Furthermore, as trade in HE develops, so will TNE, therefore increasing the likelihood that programme and institutional mobility will eclipse student

mobility in the future (Adam, 2001; Bone, 2008; Naidoo, 2009). Moreover, a study which can contribute towards a better understanding of TNE affords opportunities for HEIs considering it as an internationalisation strategy.

1.5.2 Transnational Arrangements: Assessing Types of Provision and

Methods of Working

The definitions provided by UNESCO and the Council of Europe (2002) on the surface provide a logical and coherent way in which to classify TNE activities. However, due to the GATS, educational arrangements can fuse multiple modes of trade into one service, whereby programme, staff and student mobility (GATS modes 1, 2 and 4) can run

concurrently in one arrangement (Healey & Bordogna, 2014). Knight (2011) suggests this complexity means GATS does not capture or reflect the fullness of cross-border activities, arguing a trade framework in which to categorise educational activity is too limited. This creates discrepancies in the way programmes are reported and classified, creating a dearth of comprehensive statistics on transnational activities (P.G. Altbach, 2007; Naidoo, 2009).

Drew et al. (2008) argue discrepancies exist as the UNESCO and the Council of Europe Code of Good Practice (2002) does not consider all the different types of contractual arrangements which can exist between international students and educational providers. They claim ten models of TNE provision exist, with each one requiring different forms of validation and management, as well as necessitating different learning and teaching

15

methods. These ten arrangements supersede the list provided by the Code of Good Practice (2002, p. 3) and spilt into two forms of inter-organisational working.

First, depending on the institution with which the students have a contract, the type of provision will vary. Student contracts with local partners include six types of provision

including validation, articulation, joint awards, partial credit, dual awards and franchise (Drew et al., 2008). Secondly, contracts directly with an awarding institute create four other types of provision, including fly-in-fly-out faculty (K. Smith, 2014), distance learning, blended delivery and on-campus provision overseas (Drew et al., 2008). Chapman and Sakamoto (2011) claim there is not one dominant model of cross-border partnership in HE as they all reflect different initiatives and rationales. They argue that variety in TNE arrangements highlights the flexibility of HE and its creative potential in designing and delivering education in a variety of different contexts, meeting a variety of different needs.

Regardless of the different types of arrangements available, TNE can only develop if a local university and an overseas counterpart agree to cooperate in joint activities (Saffu & Mamman, 1999). TNE and the arrangements it generates therefore create multiple inter- organisational possibilities, depending on the management approaches and the requirement of each interaction (Sorenson, Folker, & Brigham, 2008).

As partnership configuration varies depending on providers, programmes, disciplines, stakeholders and national boundaries, synthesizing what is known and finding common ground in which to communicate becomes problematic (Pannan & Gribble, 2005). Relationships are therefore not static, but dynamic, changing with the requirements and choices available to the partners, and making TNE complex with no consistency in terms of message and measurement (Adam, 2001; Drew et al., 2008). This makes data collection difficult (P.G. Altbach, 2007), as observed in the variety of different sources that seek to measure TNE activity (Baskerville, MacLeod, & Saunders, 2011; HESA, n.d; International Unit, 2011/12).

1.5.3 Opportunities for Developing TNE: China and the UK

It is beyond the scope of this research to explore all forms of TNE. I have therefore chosen to situate my research in Sino-British TNE. In 2013, the British Council identified Malaysia, China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Pakistan as being the UKs top partners for TNE programmes. Moreover, the UK ranked top, above other countries such as Australia,

16

France, Canada and Germany in terms of countries exporting TNE across the globe (British Council, 2013).

In regard to countries receiving TNE provision, China is ranked top, with China recording 730 ‘cooperative education programmes’ and 55 ‘cooperative education institutions’ (British Council, 2013, p. 17) delivered in conjunction with the USA (ranked number one in terms of destination), UK, Russia, Australia and Canada. According to HESA data, a population of 598,925 students were studying wholly overseas for a UK qualification in 2012/13. Of the total 598,925 offshore students, 457,170 study via some form of

collaborative provision between a UK HEI and a local delivery partner institution. The figure of 598,925 represents a 4.9% increase on 2011/12 numbers (571,010), with Asia (China, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Pakistan) accounting for more than 20% of the total (281,775).

In an analysis of Global Student Mobility 2025, Bohm (2003) claims international student numbers will increase from ‘over 2 million in 2003 to 7.6 million in 2025’ (2003, p. 3). A recent study conducted by Project Atlas® on student mobility confirmed these predictions, documenting a rise in international students from 2.1 million in 2001 to 4.5m in 2014 (Project Atlas®, 2014). Furthermore, Bohm (2003) suggests ‘Asia will again be the dominant source region increasing its share of global demand from 79% in 2003, to 93.7% in 2025’ (2003, p. 4). The International Education Advisory Council (2013) of Australia concurs with this sentiment, suggesting that the growing middle class in China continue to place great emphasis on higher education. Therefore, whilst China is directing resources to improve its own HE capacity, demand will continue to outstrip domestic supply, creating opportunities for developed nations to cultivate transnational educational relationships with China.

Currently, China ranks top in terms of countries hosting global TNE programmes. It therefore seems an investigation into Sino-British TNE partnerships could advance

knowledge in the field. By unearthing the challenges and opportunities afforded by China’s higher educational demands, the aim of this study is to offer new insights into ways in which TNE partnerships can be enhanced between China and the UK.