ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Through an exploratory case study of four Australian universities this article finds that foreign market entry strategies are shaped by prestige-seeking motivations and a culture of risk aversion. From the market selection, entry mode and higher education literature, a conceptual model, embedded with four propositions, is presented. The model sees market selection and entry mode as inter-dependent decisions which are influenced by manager and university motives, risk aversion and host government constraints in a gradual process of internationalisation. Among our key findings are that prestige is the key driver for university internationalisation and, due to a high degree of risk aversion, universities prefer zero-equity modes unless risk can be minimised or accommodated through suitable hedging strategies.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Macquarie University]
On: 16 May 2013, At: 16:59
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
Prestige-oriented market entry
strategy: the case of Australian
Mark Tayar a & Robert Jack a
a Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business
and Economics , Macquarie University , Macquarie Park , NSW ,
Published online: 16 May 2013.
To cite this article: Mark Tayar & Robert Jack (2013): Prestige-oriented market entry strategy: the
case of Australian universities, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35:2, 153-166
To link to this article:
Full terms and conditions of use:
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2013
Vol. 35, No. 2, 153–166,
Prestige-oriented market entry strategy: the case of Australian
Mark Tayar and Robert Jack*
Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie
University, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia
Through an exploratory case study of four Australian universities this article finds that
foreign market entry strategies are shaped by prestige-seeking motivations and a culture
of risk aversion. From the market selection, entry mode and higher education literature,
a conceptual model, embedded with four propositions, is presented. The model sees
market selection and entry mode as inter-dependent decisions which are influenced by
manager and university motives, risk aversion and host government constraints in a
gradual process of internationalisation. Among our key findings are that prestige is the
key driver for university internationalisation and, due to a high degree of risk aversion,
universities prefer zero-equity modes unless risk can be minimised or accommodated
through suitable hedging strategies.
Keywords: higher education; international campuses; internationalisation;
transnational education
International education has taken on major economic importance (Czinkota, Grossman,
Javalgi, & Nugent, 2009; King, 2009). A significant proportion of international students
take courses via online learning platforms in offshore branch campuses, or through partner
institutions abroad (Harman, 2004; Mazzarol, Soutar, & Seng, 2003). Foreign market entry
is labelled by the higher education industry as ‘transnational education’ defined by Jones
(2001, p. 113) as any teaching or learning activity in which students are in a different
country (the host country) from that in which the institution providing the education is
based (the home country).
Decision-making processes required to enter new foreign markets has received a signif-
icant amount of attention from researchers. Selection of appropriate markets for expansion
has been seen as a sequential series of decisions based on a cost-benefit comparison
of potential markets. These decisions can be made systematically and logically. Some
decision-making processes for market selection (see Brewer, 2001) recommend that man-
agers use extensive networks and information sources to identify, evaluate, select and
re-evaluate all feasible markets. Other studies have focused on a mix of external variables,
including the overlapping concepts of psychic, cultural and geographic distance, and host
market similarity.
However, few studies investigate how internal decision-making processes and exter-
nal incentives and constraints interact within the context of the internationalisation of
*Corresponding author. Email:
© 2013 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
154 M. Tayar and R. Jack
higher education. As the fundamental orientation of universities has been found by some
researchers (see Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002; Clark, 2004; Dill, 2003; Garvin, 1980;
Geiger, 2004; van Vught, 2008) as not profit-maximisation but prestige-maximisation,
internationalisation strategies may need to be viewed through a different lens. Education,
it has been argued, has intrinsic value and should focus on passing cultural values from
one generation to the next rather than earning profit (Bantock, 1967; Edwards & Edwards,
2001; Eliot, 1965; Oakeshott, 1972). Reputation and prestige are so crucial to universities
because these factors help attract and retain administrators, faculty, students, and resources
(Clark, 2004).
Our study, therefore aims to investigate how the behaviour and perspective of decision-
makers interact with external constraints and incentives to shape entry into a foreign
market. A conceptual framework developed around four propositions is developed for
empirical testing. To understand ‘how’ and ‘why’ entry decisions are made and justified,
a qualitative analysis of four Australian universities is presented. The first area of analy-
sis specifically aims to discover how the decisions of university managers are impacted by
their own perspectives and the culture of their organisations. Our paper then seeks to inves-
tigate whether there are clear phases of internationalisation patterns where managers adopt
gradually higher risk modes. Finally, the study looks at the external forces of government
regulations and incentives which help determine entry mode choice. We conclude our paper
with some suggestions for future research.
Conceptual development and overview of the literature
Universities have been viewed as simultaneously profit-maximising and ‘prestige-
maximising’ organisations (Garvin, 1980; Marginson & Considine, 2000; Slaughter &
Leslie, 1997). Understanding how these orientations influence the internationalisation
strategies and actions will be a useful starting point for explaining how and why univer-
sities select specific entry modes and markets. Specific studies on market entry in higher
education have mainly focused on ‘pull factors’ that attract international students or ‘push
factors’ that encourage students to leave their home markets to study (Mazzarol et al.,
2003). Roberts (1999) labels this type of entry mode as domestically located exporting.
Indeed, Czinkota et al. (2009) explained that when physically entering new markets, higher
education institutions consider the same entry modes, timing and market selection decisions
as other service industries.
A common reason for university internationalisation is to integrate international or
inter-cultural dimensions into teaching, research and service functions (Harman, 2004).
Building on this, Knight and De Wit (1995) detail four categories of motives considered
distinctive to the industry: (1) academic grounds related to prestige; (2) economic and
financial motives; (3) cultural, social, political, and diplomatic considerations; and (4) fear
of appearing outmoded or being outperformed by a competitor. Subsequent research has
developed around these unique motivations. Universities are seen to be moving away from
a public service model towards a profit-motivated model (see Barnett, 2005; Carlson &
Fleisher, 2002; Giroux, 2001; Stilwell, 2003) supporting Knight’s (1999) view that eco-
nomic motives and market orientation is becoming more prevalent. Universities may ‘mask’
this profit focus by using ‘surplus’, ‘profits’ and ‘earnings’ interchangeably (Bolsmann &
Miller, 2008).
Some researchers acknowledge the importance of profitability but also recognise other
motives. McBurnie and Pollock (2000) saw new profits as an important motive but also
added ‘national prestige’ as a possible motive. As well as national prestige, the actions
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 155
of universities appear to be intensely driven by the need to uphold a reputation and gain
academic prestige (Brewer et al., 2002; Garvin, 1980; Geiger, 2004; van Vught, 2008).
Marginson and Considine (2000) propose that research is the primary source of both pres-
tige and income. Logically, for research-based prestige to be an important driver for the
establishment of an offshore campus or partnership there must be significant research
aspects to that offshore operation.
Therefore, our first proposition is as follows:
Proposition 1. Prestige is the dominant driver for market entry
Research has revealed that it is not actual risks that impact on decision-makers but
rather perceived risks (see Czinkota et al., 2009; McNaughton, 1999). In these studies,
actual risk is treated as immeasurable or of lesser importance whereas perceived risk is val-
ued as a determinant of entry mode. Organisations with little international exposure tend
to be risk-averse (Erramilli, 1991; Johanson & Vahlne, 1990). Naidoo (2009) argues this
is true for many universities. Chipman (2002) further emphasises this point by stating that
public universities are risk-averse by culture not legality. The key risks of transnational
education are financial, reputational, legal, sovereign or physical/personal (McBurnie &
Pollock, 2000). Harman (2004, p. 117) claims that ‘it is well known that a number of uni-
versities have experienced some financial failures in their international efforts’. In extreme
cases, the financial difficulties of an offshore campus could endanger the viability of the
‘home institution’ (McBurnie & Pollock, 2000). Past failures have led home governments to
mandate that universities closely monitor and manage risk (Harman, 2004). The knowledge
of past failures, and discouragement of higher risk strategies through greater compli-
ance requirements, may weigh heavily on the minds of decision-makers. With risk-averse
decision-makers, organisations are more likely to pursue zero or low-equity entry modes
(Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Decker & Zhao, 2004). Therefore, our second proposition
is as follows:
Proposition 2. Public universities prefer low risk entry modes with a zero equity stake due
to a culture of risk-aversion
The significant role of government restrictions on choice of entry mode is well cov-
ered by the literature (see Contractor, 1985; Fagre & Wells, 1982; Gomes-Casseres, 1990;
Lecraw, 1984). Government regulations are important as obstacles and opportunities for
market entry and include matters such as recognition of qualifications, quality assurance,
accreditation and visas (King, 2009). Host governments also regulate to protect local insti-
tutions, to advance national goals and for consumer protection (McBurnie & Ziguras,
2001). Beyond tax incentives, ‘the cost of establishing a high-quality offshore campus
may necessitate funding from a range of sources, including the parent university, host gov-
ernment and international development agencies’ (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007, p. 154).
Universities often enter countries with government support, which encourages the decision
to enter and decreases risk (Czinkota et al., 2009).
Koch (2001) has recommended that market selection and market entry mode selection
be looked upon as two aspects of one decision process. This is important when considering
host government constraints because choice of market may constrain the choice of mode.
Sanchez-Peinado, Pla-Barber, and Hébert (2007) found that host government regulations
may force organisations to choose certain entry modes. For higher education, governments
such as in Singapore have prevented universities from entering or have limited choices of
entry mode for universities (Mok, 2008; Ziguras, 2003). Therefore, our third proposition is
as follows:
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
156 M. Tayar and R. Jack
Proposition 3. Host country government constraints and incentives specific to foreign
universities impact market selection and limit the choice of entry mode.
Mazzarol et al. (2003) identified three ‘waves’ of internationalisation for Australian
universities: domestically-located exporting, then alliances or coalitions, then offshore
campuses and online delivery. Mazzarol et al.’s analysis points to an evolutionary or incre-
mental process of internationalisation. McNaughton (1999) found that as experience is
gained, more market alternatives will be considered, and operations will gradually expand
into countries perceived as riskier or ‘distant’. As well as international experience, the size
of a university has been shown to impact levels of involvement and risks taken. In separate
Australian case studies Mazzarol and Soutar (2008) and Poole (2001) found that smaller
institutions tended to be reactive and opportunistic with ad hoc internationalisation strate-
gies. One prominent model of internationalisation, the Uppsala model (see Johanson &
Vahlne, 1990), has been questioned because it assumes risk aversion and sees the achieve-
ment of knowledge and experience as a ‘seek and learn process’ (Cumberland, 2006). Even
so, if the condition of risk aversion is met by the universities in this study, the Uppsala
model may prove relevant and useful. Incremental international involvement is also chal-
lenged by the contingency view which recommends that entry mode be tailored to the
specific characteristics of the ‘product’ and the traits of the market selected (Kwon &
Konopa, 1993). University offshore campuses, however, do require substantial financial
and human resource commitments (Mazzarol et al., 2003). Thus, incremental models may
still be relevant to traditional universities. Therefore, our fourth proposition is as follows:
Proposition 4. Internationalisation of universities is an incremental experience and learning
process with separate phases
Based on an overview of the extant literature, our proposed conceptual framework is
detailed below in Figure 1.
The model aims to investigate the degree to which risk aversion and government con-
straints impact patterns of internationalisation and to determine how these conditions affect
the internationalisation process. To start the model, an impetus for internationalisation must
exist (P1). With compelling motives to internationalise, the model then seeks to investigate
the key influencers in the decision making process. The pace and nature of this process
is seen to be moderated by perceived risk (P2) and by host government constraints and
incentives (P3). The outcomes of this model are two-fold. First, the drivers of interna-
tionalisation and influencers shape the interdependent entry decisions made by managers
in terms of market selection, timing and entry mode. Second, the entry decisions lead to
a new phase of internationalisation actions that is distinct from the previous phase and
has been shaped by an incremental process (P4). The internationalisation process is not
seen as organically leading to logical sequences of entry modes or expansions to new
Actions: new phase of internationalisation (P4)
(P2 & P3) Decisions
• Profitability • Risk aversity
• Entry mode
• Timing
• Market selection
• Host government
• Prestige
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 157
markets but rather a process that is shaped internally by management’s tolerance of risk
and externally by the host and home governments that promote or prohibit specific entry
Research method
When the aim of a study is to gain insights to provide a better understanding of specific fac-
tors, as well as to describe a phenomenon, the qualitative approach is deemed appropriate
(Yin, 2009). In order to conduct an exploratory, inductive investigation, we employ a mul-
tiple case study methodology of four Australian public universities. This approach allows
data from several cases to be examined in a process which constantly compares theory and
case data to seek a close fit between the two. In addition, comparison of similarities and
differences across cases allows the researcher to suggest explanations for possible patterns,
trends or linkages. The case study method in this study is adapted from Eisenhardt (1989),
Miles and Huberman (1994), and Yin (2009). Generalisation is not sought by this study,
but is reserved for future theory-testing research (Flint & Mentzer, 1997).
Case selection is an important aspect of building theory from case studies. Eisenhardt
(1989, p. 545) states that ‘there is no ideal number of cases [and] a number between four
and ten cases often works well’. The criterion used to short-list potential case studies was
as follows. The Australian list of institutions and courses around the world (AusLIST) was
used as a starting point for identifying universities with transnational operations. Given
that registration to AusLIST is optional rather than mandated by compliance requirements,
university managers were contacted and asked if their university met the research criteria.
Among a short-list of 24 universities four agreed to participate in the study. The entry
modes and geographic market focus of the four case studies are tabulated in Table 1.
To ensure the confidentially of the participants, each university is labelled, respectively,
University 1, University 2, University 3 and University 4.
In each case study two classes of respondents were consulted: senior institutional man-
agers recognised as part of the Chancellery of each university and transnational managers
who are responsible for offshore campuses, programmes and international partnerships.
The researcher spent over 90 minutes with each respondent and used interview guidelines
to direct semi-structured in-depth interviews at the respondents’ place of employment.
The methods used to improve data validity and reliability was as follows. Development
of propositions prior to conducting the interviews provided direction and focus to the
research. These propositions also created a benchmark from which to analyse information
obtained from each case university (internal validity) and to evaluate the usefulness of the
case findings to other universities (external validity). To further enhance validity, interviews
were transcribed and sent to the interviewees for review (Flick, 2007). This type of ‘mem-
ber check’ increases validity and reliability of the data by avoiding possible interpretation
Table 1. Case study universities.
Entry modes Geographic region
University 1 Branches through non-equity partnerships Asia-Pacific
University 2 Branches through non-equity partnerships Multiple regions
University 3 Wholly-owned branches and some non-equity branches Multiple regions
University 4 Alliances and agreements Asia-Pacific
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
158 M. Tayar and R. Jack
Computer assisted qualitative data analysis software was used to organise and struc-
ture the interview transcripts and to aid coding efforts. The existing propositions were
developed and refined into 49 free nodes and tree nodes in NVivo 9 (QSR International,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia) and potential new propositions were explored and coded based
on recurring themes in the data. Once data had been coded and categorised, findings for
each context were summarised in conceptually clustered conceptual maps or ‘mind maps’.
These maps were employed as an analytical tool to organise, analyse and display data. This
technique allowed for pattern matching and visualisation of potential linkages and associa-
tions between themes. The emergent findings were then tied to the relevant entry mode and
international education literature, to enhance internal validity and generalisability.
Table 2 provides an overview of the data and the propositions developed for the study.
These findings are discussed in detail below.
P1 – Prestige as the dominant driver
The perspectives offered by all of the university managers downplayed the importance of
profitability as a core driver of internationalisation. All of the universities agreed, if you
are setting up campuses solely for the purposes of profitability, you are going to be sorely
Most transnational partnerships are break-even at best. So, while they do bring revenue into
the university, if you accounted for every moment of time that’s spent on each of those, you
would find they are probably just break-even. (Chancellery, University 3)
The real investment for the university is time and intellectual property in the form of course
materials and reputation. The potential financial return on this investment is not seen by
Table 2. Case study support for propositions.
Prestige as the
dominant driver
Host governments
influence decisions
University 1 Supported: Focus on
prestige within
Supported: All
zero equity
Incentives in one
market constraints
in others
Supported: Clear
University 2 Supported: Focus on
Supported: All
zero equity
Incentives in one
market constraints
in others
Supported: Clear
University 3 Supported: Focus on
Not supported:
Most zero
equity but
Supported: Host
limited entry
Supported: Clear
University 4 Supported: Profit
downplayed and
Supported: All
zero equity
Supported: Host
limited entry
Not supported: No
clear phases
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 159
the interviewees as a sufficient justification for internationalisation. Instead, the return on
investment for Universities 3 and 4 was measured by prestige in the form of reputational
impact. Universities 1 and 2 seemed more concerned about the risk that offshore partners
could harm their reputation. Thus, reputational impact can be a driver and a deterrent:
The most valuable thing that [University 2] has is our reputation. So we’re not going to go with
a partner that is going to damage our reputation. (Chancellery, University 2)
Three of the four case study universities were found to have internationalised using only
non-equity modes. Only University 3 pursued an equity entry mode in the form of a wholly-
owned subsidiary. This subsidiary was structured in a way that if it did fail, the financial
harm to the university could be minimised.
University 1 sought to repatriate some profits to the ‘mother’ campus but also empha-
sised between-campus mobility, and research goals as drivers. University 2 avoided
situations where it could not repatriate profits, emphasised mobility and reputation and was
partly motivated by the fear of being relegated to ‘suburban university’ status. University 3
sought to create sustainable offshore campuses on every continent and University 4 cre-
ated international partnerships to prove they are not a provincial university and to achieve
mobility, teaching, humanitarian and reputational goals. Thus, the only drivers identified
across all the universities were prestige and international mobility.
Proposition 1 is supported by the results of this study because profitability was a consid-
eration in market entry decision-making but was not seen by any of the university managers
as the main driver of internationalisation. Prestige-oriented drivers were more widely found
and highly valued by respondents than other motives.
P2 – Zero-equity modes
In three out of the four current cases though, wholly or even partly-owned subsidiaries
were considered impractical due to perceived risks. The perceived risks identified were
reputational risk specifically related to extending the university brand to a partner, risk of
intellectual property theft, financial risk including investment risk and currency fluctua-
tions. Universities 1, 2 and 4 actively avoided holding equity in transnational operations.
Only University 3 pursued wholly-owned offshore campuses.
For University 1, the risk that an offshore campus may lose money was too high in view
of the source of funds:
It costs a lot of money to set up campuses and we’re a government organisation and we don’t
risk government funds. (Transnational Manager, University 1)
A respondent at University 1 concluded that universities prefer partnerships because they
are the most risk-averse strategies. Respondents at Universities 3 and 4 suggested that there
is a shared knowledge of mediocre offshore campus financial performance and even mar-
ket withdrawals. A University 4 respondent illustrated this shared knowledge of ‘unhappy
The history of people like Monash in South Africa and University of New South Wales in
Singapore’s mostly a kind of unhappy story where you take investment and invest in
buildings and large, it’s a large scale investment. (Chancellery, University 4)
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
160 M. Tayar and R. Jack
For University 3, the managers only pursued wholly-owned subsidiaries if the risks were
low. They also established small-scale research centres to reduce the extent of investment
at risk or hedged risks by purchasing saleable assets such as a commercial land bank sur-
rounding one branch. A relevant factor is that the international activities of University 3 are
managed through a wholly-owned company providing services on a contractual basis. This
structure created a more entrepreneurial approach to university internationalisation. This
may explain why University 3 is the outlier with regard to entry mode choice.
Proposition 2 is supported by the observed risk aversion of three of four cases. A revised
proposition may be useful to address cases like University 3’s wholly-owned offshore
campus and centres.
Revised Proposition 2. Public universities prefer low risk entry modes with a zero-
or low-equity stake but may select full-equity modes if accompanied with risk-reducing
P3 – Host governments influence decisions
Although support for proposition three was found across all four cases, the impact on mar-
ket selection was more a question of whether a market has the optimal regulations and
incentives for foreign universities. In some markets, such as in China, legislative barri-
ers inhibit market entry despite the desire of all the case institutions to establish offshore
campuses in this market:
It’s been, for a long time, particularly hard to set-up operations in places like China because the
government is wanting to grow its own universities and its own education industry, so there’s
a lot of barriers to entry. (Transnational Manager, University 1)
In each of the four cases the respondents acknowledged host government constraints and
incentives as important for shaping entry decisions. Given unfavourable host government
conditions, the case universities would avoid a market. These conditions were also seen to
shape entry mode and ownership structures:
How the model can actually roll out in the country, always depends on government regulations.
(Transnational Manager, University 2)
Universities 1, 2 and 4 all operate in Singapore – therefore, this is a useful market for
comparing the impact of government incentives and constraints on each institution. In this
market, the host government is seen to limit or prohibit full control entry modes. These
universities work with local partners because of difficulties gaining accreditation from the
Singapore Government. The legislation created a dependence on local partners and was
seen by managers at Universities 3 and 4 as the host government’s reaction to the mar-
ket withdrawal made by the University of New South Wales (UNSW). University 3 had
the opportunity to establish a wholly-owned offshore campus in Singapore before this
legislation was conceived, but considered the case for this entry mode unconvincing:
We were deeply involved with the economic development board over about eighteen months
looking at whether we could establish a branch there but it was never going to work on the
basis of what Singapore was expecting and prepared to give. (Chancellery, University 3)
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 161
P4 – Incremental internationalisation
Each university commenced internationalising by attracting international students to
courses in Australia. For University 3 entering a large Asian market with a partner was
a logical next step in the process of internationalisation because it was the largest source
of international students for their home campus. Universities 1 and 2 looked towards
Singapore and Malaysia for offshore campuses because they were traditional sources
for foreign students. Both these markets were attractive from the prospective of their
Commonwealth connection and the dominance of English as a spoken and written lan-
guage. Building on the international experience gained from operating in these markets,
University 2 later expanded to a more psychically and geographically-distant market.
At Universities 1–3 the experience with early offshore campuses directly informed and
shaped the development of subsequent campuses. There were also instances where an entry
mode was incrementally modified and built upon,
We were with a partner... [and] started off with twenty students. We probably after about two
years said we’ve got to change the way we do this to build and grow, build the profile. They
agreed and signed a new contract. (Chancellery, University 2)
Respondents from Universities 2 and 4 highlighted a process-oriented approach which they
described as ‘evolving’:
The models that emerge typically are a reflection of the historic evolution of where you are
in terms of some knowledge and long-term history and internationalisation of your programs.
(Chancellery, University 4)
This involves a process of increasing accumulation of experiential knowledge about busi-
ness partners (Blomstermo, Sharma, & Sallis, 2006). University 1 gradually increased their
involvement with a private sector partner, Universities 2 and 3 turned alliances into branch
partnerships and University 4 experienced success in Singapore and then worked actively
to replicate the model in Hong Kong. Thus, the experience of the case institutions suggest
that it is pertinent to study market entry of universities historically and longitudinally rather
than treating each stage in isolation. University 4 was the only case institution not to pursue
offshore campuses, although they have promoted online courses abroad. Some strategies
have evolved with each wave out of the same networks and within the same markets.
Therefore, Proposition 4 is supported in that there are noticeable phases of interna-
tionalisation for universities over a long period of time. These stages may not involve
incremental increases in scale of international involvement or risk but do resemble an
experience and learning process with past phases influencing future phases.
Although the case institutions all exhibited market-seeking motives the rationale for
these motives varied. Utilising Knight and De Witt’s (1995) aforementioned categories
of motives, these are summarised in Table 3.
The case study institutions did not illustrate a shift from a public service to a profit-
centric model highlighted by researchers such as by Barnett (2005), Giroux (2001) and
Stilwell (2003). In terms of academic prestige, all case studies expressed international
research goals usually tied to reputational impact. Even so, the offshore campuses and
partnerships were not necessarily productive at strengthening university reputation through
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
162 M. Tayar and R. Jack
Table 3. Cases applied to Knight and De Wit (1995) motive categories.
Academic grounds
related to prestige
Economic and
financial motives
Cultural, social,
political, and
Fear of appearing
outmoded by a
University 1 Aim for
Desire to repatriate
University 2 Concern for
Desire to repatriate
Mobility Fear of ‘Suburban
University 3 Desire to create
own ne twork
Concerns for
Mobility and
University 4 Concern for
Concerns for
Teaching, mobility
and humanitarian
Fear of
research and only one interviewee viewed their offshore operations as research-active. This
finding is consistent with Sidhu (2009) conclusion that the major offshore operations of
Australian universities are viewed as teaching, not research, oriented.
Economic and financial motives were evident but were downplayed. Humanitarian
goals and mobility were common and fit in the broad category of ‘cultural, social, polit-
ical and diplomatic’ motives. This category may also include University 4’s goal of aiming
to reflect the patterns of internationalisation that students will experience in the workplace.
The political and diplomatic dimensions described by the literature as national prestige did
not surface in the interviews. For the final category of motives – fear of appearing out-
moded or being outperformed by a competitor – both Universities 2 and 4 described a fear
of being relegated to a less prestigious tier of universities.
Chipman (2002) describes public universities as risk-averse by culture rather than by
legality. The respondents did not attribute risk aversion to state government concerns about
financial risk (Harman, 2004), or Commonwealth/Federal legislation that prohibits invest-
ment in offshore commercial activities (Chipman, 2002). Instead, a culture of risk-aversion
was evident. In each case, there were significant risks perceived by managers related to
partnerships. In each offshore campus involving partnerships, the local partner was contrac-
tually obliged to conform to strict teaching and marketing standards. Universities 1–3 were
all concerned that partners may harm the University’s brand and reputation. University
3 also expressed concern that partners may reverse-engineer teaching, assessment and
quality systems and then abandon the partnership. Thus, offshore partnerships are not with-
out risks but these were perceived by respondents to be less problematic than the risks
associated with equity entry modes.
Host governments have impacted on each case institution through incentives and con-
straints. The host government controls educational, taxation, accreditation and cultural
requirements for the university (Adams, 1998). The potential benefits of higher education
to host governments and their constituents include enhancement of the national economy
and promotion of non-market social benefits (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2001). It is these eco-
nomic and social benefits that lead to the creation of ‘education hubs’ that offer favourable
regulatory conditions and incentives for foreign universities (see Alberts, 2007; Asteris,
2006; Harman, 2004; Mazzarol et al., 2003; Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007). These shaped
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 163
Table 4. ‘Waves’ of internationalisation.
First wave:
Second wave:
alliances or coalitions
Third wave:
branches and
online delivery
University 1 Agent-centred student
recruitment to
Twinning programs
and institutional
Branches through
University 2 Agent-centred student
recruitment to
Institutional alliances Branches through
University 3 Agent-centred student
recruitment to
Twinning programs
and institutional
branches and
University 4 Agent-centred student
recruitment to
Institutional alliances Transnational
online delivery
but no branches
entry decisions in terms of both entry mode and international market selection. Some gov-
ernments prohibited these educational institutions from using full control modes. In the
example of Singapore, the active role of the government has impacted the entry mode and
market selection decisions of every case institution. Through ‘education hubs’, universities
are encouraged to gravitate towards those countries with the best incentives – conse-
quently, government incentives have a positive impact on market selection and influence
the judgement of university decision makers.
Our conceptual model proposes that the risk aversion of the case institutions is a pre-
condition for incremental internationalisation. This resulting market selection and entry
mode decisions were seen as a product of both intra-organisational factors shaped by this
gradual learning process and external market conditions (Alexander, Rhodes, & Myers,
2007). In this learning process, market entry for our case study institutions has been
As can be seen in Table 4, there is a sequence of entry modes in these cases that con-
forms to Mazzarol et al. (2003) ‘three waves’ model from domestically-located exporting,
to alliances or coalitions, then branches or online delivery.
This theme of gradual internationalisation is perhaps too broad to adequately predict
stages of university internationalisation and no consistent catalysts for transitions between
stages were apparent. Even so, the cases suggest that the experiences gained and mistakes
made in past market entry projects inform and shape university decision-making processes
and resulting in a new phase of interdependent market selection and entry mode decisions.
Conclusion, limitations and future research
The case institutions have been found to be risk-averse by a matter of culture. The motives
that are compelling enough to overcome this risk-aversion are primarily related to prestige,
reputation and international mobility of the university community. The case institutions
conform to Marginson and Considine’s findings (2000, p. 5) that ‘money is a key objective,
but it is also the means to a more fundamental mission: to advance the prestige and
competitiveness of the university as an end in itself’. These motivations are rarely com-
pelling enough to warrant any form of ownership in a foreign subsidiary except if the risks
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
164 M. Tayar and R. Jack
are carefully hedged. The internationalisation goals of each university may favour a partic-
ular market or entry mode but if the host government is not supportive of this orientation,
market entry may not occur or may lead to later entry mode changes.
The value of our approach is the enrichment of academic knowledge and international-
isation literature and also for practitioners and policy-makers. University managers, partic-
ularly those developing offshore campus campuses, can benefit from an understanding of
factors influencing entry decision-making. Through awareness and understanding of these
influences, university managers will be better prepared to enter new markets.
As a qualitative study of four Australian institutions, this study cannot be safely gen-
eralised to other universities in Australia or abroad. It will benefit both practitioners and
researchers to empirically test the proposed conceptual model on a larger and more rep-
resentative sample of universities so the findings can be generalised. Interviews with a
broader cross-section of university management and offshore campus staff will be useful in
future studies to highlight alternate perspectives on motivations for internationalisation and
market entry decision-making. Though the current model briefly discussed performance of
offshore campuses from the perspectives of the managers interviewed, a more compre-
hensive empirical study should be conducted to establish causal relationships between the
factors portrayed in the model and offshore campus performance in terms of financial and
reputational goals. It may also be beneficial for future studies to better define the stages
of internationalisation and to explain when, why and how institutions transition from one
stage to the next. Finally, studies that further explore the comparative benefits and risks of
each type of entry mode will benefit the higher education industry and should help validate
and improve entry decision models.
Adams, T. (1998). The operation of transnational degree and diploma programs. Journal of Studies
in International Education,2(1), 3–22.
Agarwal, S., & Ramaswami, S. (1992). Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership,
location and internalization factors. Journal of International Business Studies,23(1), 1–27.
Alberts, H. (2007). Beyond the headlines: Changing patterns in international student enrollment in
the United States. GeoJournal,68, 141–153.
Alexander, N., Rhodes, M., & Myers, H. (2007). International market selection: Measuring actions
instead of intentions. Journal of Services Marketing,21(6), 424–434.
Asteris, M. (2006). British universities: The “coal exporters” of the 21st century. Journal of Studies
in International Education,10(3), 224–240.
Bantock, G.H. (1967). Culture and the university. In G.H. Bantock (Ed.), Education, culture and the
emotions (pp. 178–194). London: Faber and Faber.
Barnett, R. (2005). Convergence in higher education: The strange case of “entrepreneurialism”.
Higher Education Management and Policy,17(3), 51–64.
Blomstermo, A., Sharma, D., & Sallis, J. (2006). Choice of foreign market entry mode in service
firms. International Marketing Review,23(2), 211–229.
Bolsmann, C., & Miller, H. (2008). International student recruitment to universities in England:
Discourse, rationales and globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education,6(1), 75–88.
Brewer, D., Gates, H., & Goldman, C. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in US
higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Brewer, P. (2001). International market selection: Developing a model from Australian case studies.
International Business Review,10(2), 155–174.
Carlson, P., & Fleisher, M. (2002). Shifting realities in higher education: Today’s business model
threatens our academic excellence. International Journal of Public Administration,25(9–10),
Chipman, L. (2002). Affording universal higher education. Higher Education Quarterly,56(2),
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 165
Clark, B.R. (2004). Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education
Policy,17(4), 355–370.
Contractor, F. (1985). A generalized theorem for joint-venture and licensing negotiations. Journal of
International Business Studies,16(2), 23–50.
Cumberland, F. (2006). Theory development within international market entry mode-an assessment.
The Marketing Review,6(4), 349–373.
Czinkota, M., Grossman, D., Javalgi, R., & Nugent, N. (2009). Foreign market entry mode of service
firms: The case of US MBA programs. Journal of World Business,44(3), 274–286.
Decker, R., & Zhao, X. (2004). SMEs’ choice of foreign market entry mode: A normative approach.
International Journal of Business and Economics,3(3), 181–200.
Dill, D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education
Quarterly,57(2), 136–157.
Edwards, R., & Edwards, J. (2001). Internationalisation of education: A business perspective.
Australian Journal of Education,45(1), 76–89.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review,14(4), 532–550.
Eliot, T.S. (1965). The conflict between aims. In T.S. Eliot (Eds.), To criticize the critic. London:
Faber and Faber.
Erramilli, M. (1991). The experience factor in foreign market entry behaviour of service firms.
Journal of International Business Studies,22(3), 479–501.
Fagre, N., & Wells, L. (1982). Bargaining power of multinationals and host governments. Journal of
International Business Studies,13(2), 9–23.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Flint, D., & Mentzer, J. (1997). Validity in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics,18(1),
Garvin, D.A. (1980). The economics of university behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Geiger, R. (2004). Knowledge and money, research universities and the paradox of the marketplace.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giroux, H. (2001). Introduction. In H. Giroux & K. Myrsiades (Eds.), Beyond the corporate uni-
versity: Culture and pedagogy in the new millennium (pp. 1–12). Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Gomes-Casseres, B. (1990). Firm ownership preferences and host government restrictions: An
integrated approach. Journal of International Business Studies,21(1), 1–22.
Harman, G. (2004). New directions in internationalizing higher education. Higher Education Policy,
17(1), 101–120.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1990). The mechanisms of internationalization. International Marketing
Review,7(4), 11–24.
Jones, G.R. (2001). Bridging the challenges of transnational education and accreditation. Higher
Education in Europe,26(1), 107–116.
King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organizations, regulation and rankings.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Knight, J. (1999). Internationalization of higher education. In H. de Wit & J. Knight (Eds.), Quality
and internationalisation in higher education (pp. 13–28). Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Secretary-General, Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education.
Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Historical and
conceptual perspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation: A comparative
study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5–32). Amsterdam:
European Association of International Education.
Koch, A. (2001). Selecting overseas markets and entry modes: Two decision processes or one?
Marketing Intelligence and Planning,19(1), 65–75.
Kwon, Y., & Konopa, L. (1993). Impact of host country market characteristics on the choice of foreign
market entry mode. International Marketing Review,10(2), 60–76.
Lecraw, D. (1984). Bargaining power, ownership, and profitability of transnational corporations in
developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies,15(1), 27–44.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance, and reinven-
tion in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., & Seng, M. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in international education.
International Journal of Educational Management,17(3), 90–99.
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
166 M. Tayar and R. Jack
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, J. (2008). Australian educational institutions’ international markets: A
correspondence analysis. International Journal of Educational Management,22(3), 229–238.
McBurnie, G., & Pollock, A. (2000). Opportunity and risk in transnational education – issues in
planning for international campus development: An Australian perspective. Higher Education in
Europe,25(3), 333–343.
McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education in southeast
Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education,42(1), 85–105.
McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher
education. New York, NY: Routledge.
McNaughton, R. (1999). Transaction cost analysis and foreign-market entry. Environment and
Planning,31(4), 575–506.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London:
Sage Publications.
Mok, K. (2008). Singapore’s global education hub ambitions: University governance change
and transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management,22(6),
Naidoo, V. (2009). Transnational higher education: A stock take of current activity. Journal of Studies
in International Education,13(3), 310–330.
Oakeshott, M. (1972). Education: The engagement and its frustration. In R.F. Dearden, P.H. Hirst, &
R.S. Peters (Eds.), Education and the development of reason (pp. 19–49). London: Routledge.
Poole, D. (2001). Moving towards professionalism: The strategic management of international educa-
tion activities at Australian universities and their faculties of business. Higher Education,42(4),
Roberts, J. (1999). The internationalisation of business service firms: A stages approach. The Service
Industries Journal,19(4), 68–88.
Sanchez-Peinado, E., Pla-Barber, J., & Hébert, L. (2007). Strategic variables that influence entry
mode choice in service firms. Journal of International Marketing,15(1), 67–91.
Sidhu, R. (2009). The ‘brand name’ research university goes global. Higher Education,57(2),
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial
university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stilwell, F. (2003). Higher education, commercial criteria and economic incentives. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management,25(1), 51–61.
van Vught, F. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy,
21(2), 151–174.
Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. Wo r l d
Education News and Reviews,20(10), 1–16.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Ziguras, C. (2003). The impact of the GATS on transnational tertiary education: Comparing experi-
ences of New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. Australian Educational Researcher,
30(3), 89–110.
Downloaded by [Macquarie University] at 16:59 16 May 2013
... As a result, we emphasize that especially when analyzing their internationalization processes, business schools must be seen as (strategic) organizations rather than institutions. We also suggest that combining seminal and recent research on the different forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1971(Bourdieu, , 1986Gioia & Corley, 2002;Vidaver-Cohen, 2007) with strategic management (Brewer et al., 2002;Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991;Howard, 2007;Howard & Cornuel, 2012;Mintzberg, 1978;Mintzberg & Rose, 2003;Mintzberg & Waters, 1985;Ramanantsoa, 2007) and management education (Grey, 2002;Tayar & Jack, 2013;Wedlin, 2006) can help scholars and practitioners better understand the diversity of the business schools' strategic responses in their highly institutionalized field. ...
... Prestige acquisition is a sociological "mechanism of selfreinforcement and distributional patterns of extreme inequality and high mobility" (van de Rijt et al., 2013, p. 268). Whereas prestige was identified as one of the reasons for universities to internationalize in the 1990s (Knight & de Wit, 1995), it has only recently become the main reason for it, ahead of economic and financial gains, cultural/social/political/diplomatic reasons, and the fear of being outperformed by a competitor (Tayar & Jack, 2013). ...
... In the 1990s, prestige was identified as one of the reasons for universities to internationalize (Knight & de Wit, 1995). Today, it is the main reason, ahead of others, such as economic and financial gains and the fear of being outperformed by a competitor (Tayar & Jack, 2013). Prestige includes practices that perpetuate it (van de Rijt et al., ...
... The factors indicated in the table above have been discussed in the context of higher education by various scholars (Jiang, Carpenter, 2011;Li, Roberts, 2012;Naidoo, 2010;Tayar, Jack, 2013). ...
... Sources in Business Sources in HE Uppsala model (Buckley et al., 1979;Johanson & Vahlne, 1977, 2017Rhee & Cheng, 2002) (R. Edwards & J. Edwards, 2001;Girdzijauskaitė & Radzevičienė, 2014;Healey, 2008;Tayar, Jack, 2013;Li, Roberts, 2012) Eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1980(Dunning, , 1988(Dunning, , 1997(Dunning, , 2015a(Dunning, , 2015bRoot, 1994;Twomey, 2000) ( Girdzijauskaitė & Radzevičienė, 2014;Healey, 2008;Shams and Huisman, 2012) LLL model (Liefner, Wang, 2013;Mathews, 2002Mathews, , 2006) (Radzevičienė & Girdzijauskaitė, 2012). Resource based view (Alexy et al., 2018;Barney, 1991;Barney et al., 2001Barney et al., , 2011Hitt et al., 2016) (Beerkens, 2004;Radzevičienė & Girdzijauskaitė, 2012) Transaction cost analysis (Anderson & Coughlan, 1987;Anderson & Gatignon, 1986;Brouthers & Hennart, 2007;Cheung, 2016;Eriksson, 2015;Klein, 1989;Laufs & Schwens, 2014) NIA Industrial network approach (Axelsson & Easton, 2016;Håkansson, 2015;Håkansson & Ford, 2002;Håkansson & Johanson, 2002;Johanson & Mattsson, 2015;Johanson & Vahlne, 2009;Turnbull & Ellwood, 1986) (Beerkens, 2004;Girdzijauskaitė & Radzevičienė, 2012Waechter, 2000) It is evident from Table 1.4 that classic internationalisation approaches are much more analysed in business context than in higher education and there is a need for contribution to the theoretical knowledge in HEIs internationalisation in order to fill the discovered gaps. ...
... It is discussed in literature, that HEIs following this step by step Uppsala model are cautious and very controlling of their risks in the internationalization process (Tayar & Jack, 2013). However, the more entrepreneurial universities with more extensive international experience might jump the stages and try riskier moves of international expansion (R. Edwards & J. Edwards, 2001). ...
... Authors (Tayar & Jack, 2013) also conclude that universities are naturally risk averse, in a study investigating the marketing behaviors and perspectives of Australian university managers making decisions about entering international markets. Universities were motivated by simultaneously pursuing increasing income and raising reputation (Tayar & Jack, 2013). ...
... Authors (Tayar & Jack, 2013) also conclude that universities are naturally risk averse, in a study investigating the marketing behaviors and perspectives of Australian university managers making decisions about entering international markets. Universities were motivated by simultaneously pursuing increasing income and raising reputation (Tayar & Jack, 2013). ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this review is to identify key research themes in the field of higher education (HE) supply-side marketing through a systematic search of journal article databases of papers published between 2005 and 2019; to report on current issues and themes; and ascertain research gaps in the literature for exploitation in future research. Based on an analysis of 105 papers from the field of HE marketing, five major themes characterizing the research on HE marketing are presented in the paper: the marketization of HE; marketing communications; branding, image and reputation; marketing strategy; and recruitment, alumni and gift-giving. Some thoughts about the nature of the knowledgebase in this field and recommended topics for research conclude the paper.
... TNE is now increasingly seen through a business lens, and one frequently comes across terms such as "export", "industry", and "market" in this context. Although there is plenty of research on the financial implications and risks of running a TNE program (Wilkins and Huisman, 2012;Tayar and Jack, 2013), studies on the risks involved in the delivery of education in such programs are non-existent. Therefore, with the background experience and knowledge of the management team, it was felt appropriate to apply scenario planning and crisis management to manage the unforeseen circumstances and rapidly worsening situation with the aim of ensuring successful continuation of student learning activities. ...
Full-text available
This paper takes a retrospective view of the year 2020, with a focus on how Higher Education policy development was undertaken on a Transnational Education (TNE) program between the University of Glasgow (UofG) and the University of Electronics, Science and Technology in Chengdu (UESTC), China in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It explores the approach to policy development under normal circumstances, contrasting this with the approach taken during the emergence of the epidemic and how the unfolding situation impacted on those policies. It demonstrates how the application of management tools for scenario planning and crisis management can be used effectively to develop a clear and prescriptive policy for staff. It also demonstrates how the use of such tools, combined with careful analysis and planning, can minimize disruption to student learning, teaching, and assessment. The paper then goes on to explain the creation and implementation of policies addressing three main areas: learning and teaching, Final Year Projects, and assessment. Finally, it reflects on the student and staff perspectives on the policies, considering how this information might be used to enhance the policy development process in future.
... In context of the markets that are within the scope of this dissertation, QAA (QAA, 2014) has designated only two campuses in the UAE as full-fledged providers as many others although existing, cannot be classified as beyond a few courses operating out of a classroom or two. An organisation must make careful assessment of its strategy and the entry conditions, the levels of bureaucracy that can be a hindrance seamless operations in those countries (Tayar and Jack, 2013). ...
Full-text available
Transnational Higher Education is on the rise in the last two decades, but we still have limited knowledge of the strategy making underlying the establishment of these ventures. This dissertation aims to understand the international strategy of Transnational Higher Education (TNHE) providers, how internationalisation is achieved, and transnational higher education. Literature including journals, regulator and think tank reports, and interviews with practitioners employed in both academia has been analysed to obtain information to the attractiveness to this mode of development. It was found that quality of courses, staffing and knowledge transfer were issues that can be explained by concepts of business model, risk-mitigation, and the desire for capacity enhancement and revenue generation. This dissertation argue that global strategies nor educational borrowing sufficiently explain this phenomenon and there is need for further inquiry in impending issues to understand the future trend. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people that have supported me during the period of my dissertation.
... Whereas prestige was identified as one of the reasons for universities to internationalize in the 1990's (Knight & de Wit, 1995), it has only recently become the main reason for it, ahead of economic and financial gains, cultural/social/political/diplomatic reasons, and the fear of being outperformed by a competitor (Tayar & Jack, 2013They must invest heavily in their reputation to be trusted since the society does not know them or their notable alumni. " The reputation of a higher education institution can be defined as the image (of quality, influence, trustworthiness) it has in the eyes of others (Van Vught, 2008, pp. ...
The highly institutionalized field of management education has been in turmoil. Most business schools are experiencing a legitimacy crisis and have been seeking social approval since the epic 2001 Enron debacle and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Many scholars and policymakers have held business school leaders and their alumni responsible for these historic scandals. As a result, the (over)reliance on two main kinds of trust-building mechanisms: accreditations and rankings, as sources of legitimacy, has been insufficient to protect business schools from public distrust. Additionally, this reliance has led to mass-imitation on the international scene and shown its limitations. How can business schools remain legitimate in a global context? Using six business schools in Europe and in the US as case studies, we analyze their search for legitimacy in terms of prestige and reputation-seeking strategies. We show the risks and limitations of these strategies and present authenticity as an alternative source of legitimacy and trust-building. The legitimacy of business schools and the power of authenticity are discussed.
... Quality TNEPs offer benefits for both the university and the student. Universities that provide these quality programmes contribute to the global knowledge economy enhancing both reputation and profile in a foreign country (Tayar and Jack, 2013) leading to greater business opportunities and prospects for collaboration (Alam et al., 2013). For the nursing student, TNEPs offer opportunities for them to increase skills and advance their practice (Baumann and Blythe, 2008). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In recent decades several Australian universities have opened international branch campuses (IBCs) overseas (C-BERT, 2017). IBCs export international education to students in their home countries, offering an attractive alternative to studying abroad (Wilkins & Huisman, 2011). IBCs depend upon student enrollments for viability, making effective marketing crucial (Lipka, 2012). IBC lecturers are often engaged to support marketing efforts. However, lecturers’ perspectives on their marketing involvement is largely unknown. This paper presents extracts from interviews with six IBC lecturers about their roles in IBC marketing activities. Our research found that IBC lecturers are generally willing to support IBC marketing activities, but may be more comfortable doing so if they can retain their academic identity and limit their “selling” behavior during this process. (NOTE: Published conference paper available below. Full proceedings at
We apply the gravity model of international trade to country-level panel data on branch campus establishments and closures from 2007–2016. Accordingly, we arrive at the first elasticity estimates of the determinants of international trade in branch campuses, contributing to research in higher education and international trade in services. Our results suggest that, along with several gravity model control variables to trade in branch campuses the exporting country’s university rankings, the host country’s regulatory regime, and the presence of an education hub are particularly significant factors. Furthermore, we show that country development classifications affect the salience of some determinants. Finally, we demonstrate the robustness of our benchmark model with a variety of alternative model specifications. In addition to supporting academic endeavors, higher education institutions and host country governments will benefit from the insight our study provides when crafting programs and policies designed to improve their position in the higher education market.
Recent statements from Australia’s education minister and prime minister signal—potentially—a new era in Australian university autonomy. Claims that Australian public universities will be given greater organizational autonomy suggests there will be less dependence on governments to direct strategies but also less government funding and thus greater financial autonomy. Should Australian public universities be given more freedom “to formulate strategies for their future development” (Bleiklie 2007: 397), they may also formulate new trajectories of internationalization. Governments encourage “export” of higher education to encourage alternative revenue sources from overseas student fees (Parker 2013), leading to greater financial autonomy and eventually to an enlarged and more diversified financial base.
Prima facie, in the context of higher education, "entrepreneurialism" offers an example of globalisation: the idea presages a sense of systems of higher education converging across the world. However, entrepreneurialism is not undifferentiated but is to be found in different modes. Various axes identified in the paper offer spectra of entrepreneurialism and two are picked out for close inspection: these are, on the one hand, hard-soft forms of entrepreneurialism; and, on the other hand, forms of entrepreneurialism that are set in the context of strong states or strong markets. Set against each other, these two axes produce a grid that depicts four forms of entrepreneurialism: civic; hesitant; unbridled; and curtailed. These forms of entrepreneurialism can be understood as making possible or limiting alternative modes of knowledge travel. Accordingly, it may be judged that, far from heralding convergence, entrepreneurialism turns out to be a metaphor for differences of academic identity and even of academic being. These differences are so profound that they point to value choices as to the desirable forms of academic life itself.
- This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research.
'Governing Universities Globally provides a comprehensive account of higher education in the world today and successfully demonstrates how the study of universities now needs to acknowledge to the global environment.' - Andrew Steven Gunn, Political Studies.
There are increasing calls in the UK and other countries for deregulating universities so that they can better compete in the global market for higher education. Frequent allusions are made to the superiority of the US market-oriented system. But is market competition for first degrees in the US efficient for the larger society? Do the constantly increasing social expenditures for higher education in the US benefit the public interest or do they advantage certain students and faculty members? Two recent economic studies provide greater insight into the impacts of market competition on US higher education. The results of these studies are discussed and their possible implications for higher education policy making in other countries are explored.
Market forces have profoundly affected the contemporary research university's fundamental tasks of creating and disseminating knowledge. They arguably have provided American universities access to greater wealth, better students, and stronger links with the economy. Yet they also have exaggerated inequalities, diminished the university's control over its own activities, and weakened the university's mission of serving the public. Incorporating twenty years of research and new data covering 99 research universities, Knowledge and Money explains this paradox by assessing how market forces have affected universities in four key spheres of activity: finance, undergraduate education, primary research, and participation in regional and national economic development. The book begins by chronicling how universities have enlarged revenues by optimizing tuitions, and how they have managed these funds. It reveals why competition for the best students through selective undergraduate admissions has led to increased student consumerism and weakened university control over learning. The book also explains why research has become an increasingly autonomous activity within the university, expanding faster than class instruction or faculty resources. Finally, it shows how the linkage of research to economic development has engendered closer ties with industry and encouraged the commercialization of knowledge.