1. Global Challenges and
Perspectives in Blended
and Distance Learning
J. Willems
Monash University, Australia
B. Tynan
University of Southern Queensland, Australia
R. James
University of New England, Australia

2. Managing Director:
Editorial Director:
Book Production Manager:
Publishing Systems Analyst:
Development Editor:
Assistant Acquisitions Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Lindsay Johnston
Joel Gamon
Jennifer Yoder
Adrienne Freeland
Austin DeMarco
Kayla Wolfe
Lisandro Gonzalez
Jason Mull
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web 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
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 Data
A 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All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material.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.

3. 36
Chapter 3
Beyond the Boundaries:
The Future for Borderless
Higher Education
Don Olcott Jr.
University of Maryland University College, USA
ABSTRACT
The rapid 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 used to build and sustain international partnerships.
An understanding, tolerance, and humility about the educational process in other countries is a necessity 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 businesses, and their foreign partnerships and campus international recruitment will be based on leveraging 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
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

4. Beyond the Boundaries
Strategically, there are very real benefits from
institutional mobility (Borderless HE). Establishing 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 enhances 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, processes, policies and people to operate in a different and unfamiliar environment. Strategically, the
challenge is to ensure that what is being offered—
in terms of both teaching and research—genuinely 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 students may forgo formal study abroad programs if
foreign providers are offering flexible, culturally
sensitive, academic programs in their home language 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 accentuates 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 competition, advances in technology, English as the
global language of commerce, employee mobility,
workforce development, multiculturalism, emerging 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 education 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
37

5. Beyond the Boundaries
of tapping into the expertise, research, and knowledge 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 international 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 learning, factors influencing international student destination choices, and the importance of responsive
student services for campus and cross-border
international students.
Part 3 will briefly examine the future of borderless higher education and the implications for
universities in a highly competitive global market,
including considerations for university chief executives. 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 transformation for higher education? First, reductions
38
in government funding for higher education in
many countries has driven colleges and universities 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 & Lasanowski, 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, preparing 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, institutions. Similarly, cross-border programs are also
focused on revenue enhancement to strengthen
institutional budgets. Olcott summed up the challenge for institutional leaders attempting to build
international programs and placate stakeholders
on their campus:
And, if you have to redistribute existing institutional 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

6. Beyond the Boundaries
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 available resources, family obligations, employment
commitments and selecting the ‘right time’ to go
to university. The result is that despite the increasing 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 interconnectedness 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 destinations for employment during their studies and
upon completion. Moreover, they are analysing
the global market for countries that recognise
their credentials and provide employment opportunities. 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 credentials across borders and the mobility of students
for employment within Europe (Adelman, 2008).
The emergence of ‘English’ as the global language 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 throughout 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 providers (Helms, 2008).
Asia, the Middle East, and Gulf States
have been the most active cross-border regions yet increasingly inter-regional partnerships are arising in these geographical
areas (Fazackerley & Worthington, 2007;
McBernie & Ziguras, 2007).
Rapid growth of international branch campuses (Becker, 2009).
Cross-border research exchange has been
a rapidly growing priority among nations
(McBernie & Ziguras, 2007; Thomas,
2007).
Quality assurance oversight agencies, internal and external, are paying increasing
attention to universities operating abroad
39

7. Beyond the Boundaries
•
•
(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 education 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 foundations are critical aspects of any educational construct, 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 technology transfer can be delivered directly in-country
or via open and distance learning technology systems. 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 internationalization agenda and activities. This point is accentuated in the following section about university
internationalization.
40
The various activities and functions that define
university internationalization have been categorized as either internal or external dimensions of
internationalism (Knight, 2003; Middlehurst &
Woodfield, 2007). The following are key dimensions 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 internationalization focus on the extension of academic programs,
research, technology transfer, strategic partnerships, 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 regional 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 curriculum 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 international experience and expertise (Olcott, 2009).
The key strategic consideration, however, is that

8. Beyond the Boundaries
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 interest 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, economic, 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 systems at home (Olcott, Papi, & Newbould, 2008).
At the same time, the credibility of these Western resources appears to be directly related to having 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 being 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 governments 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 media. 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 international 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
41

9. Beyond the Boundaries
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 international 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 students 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:
•
•
•
•
•
•
42
Institutional and program reputation
Social and cultural opportunities of institution, country, and region
Cost
Financial assistance and employment opportunities during and following program
completion
Streamlined immigration and visa requirements 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 combinations of these factors will drive international
student choices for the future. Many international 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 activities. Most international students are thousands of
miles from home and they need both home connections and new connections with the campus
community (Olcott, 2009; McBernie & Ziguras,
2007; UNESCO/OECD, 2005).

10. Beyond the Boundaries
Universities must equally provide high levels
of personal support for international students.
Counseling, advising, employment opportunities,
academic tutors, health services, are all important ‘personal’ support issues to these students.
Moreover, university staff must educate the local
community about their international student population 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 environment (Helms, 2008; Olcott, 2008c). Developing
an agenda of social activities, clubs, travel excursions, 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 SocioEconomic Dynamics of
Global Higher Education
The higher education sector must continually
navigate the political landscape in pursuing institutional 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 essence of geopolitics continues to be that foreign
policy is geared toward either increasing or consolidating 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 spectrum 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 landscape 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 circumstances, 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
43

11. Beyond the Boundaries
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 government 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 international 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 universities 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, engineering, 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, universities 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
44
in Egypt and Libya? Will the tragic earthquake
and aftermath in Japan alter the higher education 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 education 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 considerations 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

12. Beyond the Boundaries
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 partnerships.
Indeed, there emerges a subtle and yet powerful 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 institutionalprogram reputation, although critically important
to some students, are not the only selection factors 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 fostering 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 continue 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 crossborder 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 (Ennew, 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 challenged 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 resources, Web 2.0 and 3.0, and related technologies
opens many new venues to address these reoccurring 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
45

13. Beyond the Boundaries
in offshore higher education ventures. With greater
oversight of quality parameters of domestic programs 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. However, 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.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
46
‘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’ experiences 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 education 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 yourself 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-

14. Beyond the Boundaries
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
tinuum of benefits that you bring to the host
country, not just the money you send home
to Mum to satisfy international stakeholders. Do your programs-research contribute
to economic development and diversification? 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?
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?
Have your curriculum experts considered
integrating selected ‘home-language instruction’ into your foreign-based programs? Or
this an alien cultural feature of your business
plan?
Does your campus support service infrastructure 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?
Have you considered multi-lateral crossborder programs rather than unilateral delivery 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 – remember your university is a business.
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 positioning, 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 forprofit universities is changing the face of the global
higher education landscape. Today, universities
have more opportunities for serving campusbased 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 necessity 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
47

15. Beyond the Boundaries
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 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 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 enterprise. This will be accentuated by reduced
government funding and home 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 mission-related programs abroad.
University chief executives will need to carefully
examine a continuum of complex issues to be successful 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 reconstruction. 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.
48
Becker, R. (2009). International branch campuses:
Markets and strategies. London, UK: The Observatory 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 internationalization. In Perspectives: Policy and Practice
in Higher Education. New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Ennew, C. (2011). Strategic mobility diversification. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on the
Future. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Fazackerley, A., & Worthington, P. (Eds.). (2007).
British universities in China: The reality beyond
the rhetoric. Retrieved from http://www.agoraeducation.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 strategies for success. London, UK: The Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education.
Knight, J. (2003). Internationalisation: Developing an institutional self-portrait, readings for
EOTU project. Retrieved from http://www.eotu.
uiuc.edu/events/Illinoisnovfinal.pdf
Knight, J. (2005). Borderless, offshore, transnational and cross-border education: Definition and
data dilemmas. London, UK: The Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education.

16. Beyond the Boundaries
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). International 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 Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
Olcott, D. J. (2008a). Rock n’ on the international
stage: Commentary oninternationalism, crossborder 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 presented at the Guardian Higher Education Summit.
London, UK.
Olcott, D. J. (2008c). Going global: Perils and
promises for open and distance education. Distance Learning, 5(3), 81–89.
Olcott, D. J. (2009). Global connections to global
partnerships: Navigating the changing landscape
of internationalism and cross-border higher education. 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: Opportunities and challenges for cross-border distance
education. In Proceedings of the 2008 European
Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) International Conference. Lisbon, Portugal: EDEN
Secretariat.
Stella, A. (2006). Quality assurance of crossborder higher education in Australia. Paper presented 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, convergence, 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 international branch campus—Models and trends.
London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless
Higher Education.
49

17. Beyond the Boundaries
Woodhouse, D. (2006). The quality of transnational education: A provider view. Quality in Higher Education, 12(3), 277–281.
doi:10.1080/13538320601072883
Knight, J. (2008). Joint and double degree programmes: Vexing questions and issues. London,
UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher
Education.
Ziguras, C. (2011). Strategic mobility diversification. In Borderless 2011: Perspectives on
the Future. London, UK: The Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education.
Knight, J. (2010). Regional education hubs —
Rhetoric or reality. Industry and Higher Education, 59, 19–20.
ADDITIONAL READING
Becker, R. F. (2009). International branch campuses: Markets and strategies. London, UK: The
Observatory for Higher Education.
Bone, D. (2008). Internationalisation of HE: A
ten-year view. London, UK: Department of Innovation.
Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to open educational 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. Occasional Paper 22. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
European Association for International Education.
EUA. (2004). Developing joint masters programmes 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 corporate strategy. London, UK: The Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education.
50
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. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher
Education.
Middlehurst, R. (2008). Leadership and internationalisation. In Shiel, C., & McKenzie, A. (Eds.),
The Global University: The Role of Senior Managers. Bournemouth, UK: Bournemouth University.
Middlehurst, R., Woodfield, S., Fielden, J., &
Forland, H. (2009). Universities and international
higher education partnerships: Making a difference. London, UK: Million.
OBHE. (2011). Perspectives on the future. London, 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 internationalism and cross-border higher education. In
Coverdale-Jones, T., & Rastall, P. (Eds.), Internationalising 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.

18. Beyond the Boundaries
Olcott, D. J., & Hardy, D. (Eds.). (2005). Dancing on the glass ceiling: Women, leadership, and
technology. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Taylor, J. (2010). The management of internationalization in higher education. In Maringe, F.,
& Foskett, N. (Eds.), Globalization and Internationalization 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). Guidelines for quality assurance in cross-border higher
education: Where do we stand? OECD Education
Working Paper No. 70. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doilorg/10.1787/5k9fd0kz0j6b-en
Zgaga, P. (2011). The European higher education
area in a global setting: An idea its implementation, 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 technology 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, government agency, corporation); emerging cross-border
partnerships may include multi-national consortia
of provider and host nations.
Dimensions of Internationalism: The combined range of internal and external activities,
programs, services and linkages that comprise a
university’s internationalism agenda.
Distance Education: The delivery of educational 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 generally 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 Lumpur, 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 university’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-
51

19. Beyond the Boundaries
livered. The host-country partner is typically a
university, college, corporation, and/or government 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 globalization 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, business, and economic markets.
52
New Global Regionalism: An emerging trend
where universities, corporations and governments
are redirecting the focus of educational partnerships and HE student mobility within their geographical 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.

20. Beyond the Boundaries
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 culture, 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 partner 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, programmatic, and financial from the outset. Presume from the start that you will need to make adjustments, 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 perceive value in the endeavor and may invest money, people, and time. Remember international 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 budgets 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 curriculum, period. From a practical standpoint, however, connecting your faculty with international 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 educational 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?
53

21. Beyond the Boundaries
◦◦
•
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 partnership and program assessment process.