Managing International Branch Campuses: What Do We Know?

Abstract

Over the last decade, the growth of the international branch campus (IBC) has been one of the most striking developments in the internationalisation of higher education. There are now over 200 IBCs across the world, mostly in the Middle East and East and South‐east Asia. Despite the growing numbers of IBCs and the considerable financial and reputational risk they pose to their home universities, relatively little is known about the challenges of managing these foreign outposts. This paper reviews the growing, but still fragmented, literature in this increasingly important sector of higher education. It finds that managers of IBCs are faced with a range of challenges, which primarily stem from dealing with key stakeholder groups: students, staff, home and host country quality regulators, the home university and the host government, as well as the IBC's local joint venture partners. It concludes that further work is required to better understand the factors which influence and constrain IBC managers in balancing the competing interests of stakeholders.

Internationalization as Investment for Higher Education Institutions: Introducing a Framework to Enhance Investment in Internalization Practices

“…Australia's Monash University have campuses in Malaysia that attract both local and international students (Ball, 2012). The same with the Heriot-Watt University from the UK that has a sub-campus in Putrajaya, Malaysia (Healey, 2015).…”

Stakeholder influence on branding strategy at an international branch campus

“…Literature related to the growth and development of cross-border education and international branch campuses, in particular the opportunities and challenges and local and global influences higher education institutions (HEIs) and IBCs encounter when establishing and operating campuses across borders, provides background for this study. Current research confirms that IBCs are complex organizations that operate in an environment that is simultaneously local and global and are influenced by many different stakeholders with diverse and often conflicting needs (Healey, 2015;Shams & Huisman, 2016;Wilkins, 2016). This review considers literature related to stakeholder influence on reputation and brand for both the home and the host partners and, in particular, how IBC leaders and managers understand, engage with, and meet the needs of stakeholders both locally and globally.…”

“…Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology closed a campus in Malaysia due to the financing partner going bankrupt, and Sylvan was not allowed to operate in India because they did not receive accreditation from the Indian government (Lane, 2011b). These and other high profile cases have raised questions about the reasons behind IBC successes and failures (Owens & Lane, 2014) and scholars have begun to investigate how these entities, most of which lack experience operating internationally, can succeed in meeting diverse and often conflicting expectations in an environment that is simultaneously local and global (Healey, 2015;Shams & Huisman, 2016;Wilkins, 2016).…”

“…For those operating IBCs, these challenges are exacerbated by multiple levels of influence that are both local and global and are tied to financial, academic, and reputational goals, as well as operational considerations, in both the home and host countries (Healey, 2015;McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007;Shams & Huisman, 2016;Wilkins, 2016). They are influenced by unique and sometimes conflicting structures, cultures, perspectives, and motivations of administrators, faculty, and staff at both the home and host campuses (Tierney & Lanford, 2015).…”

“…Managers and leaders operating IBCs must understand and balance conflicting needs of multiple stakeholders in order to effectively accommodate local needs while operating as part of a larger global network (Altbach, 2015;Healey, 2015;Owens & Lane, 2014;Shams & Huisman, 2016;Tierney & Lanford, 2015). IBCs face ongoing realities of conflicting demands and resources issues, often relying on resources and support from the home and host government, philanthropic support from local, regional, and global constituents, and the support of the local and global community and economy (Alves, Mainardes, & Raposo, 2010).…”