The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education

Abstract

The international branch campus is a phenomenon on the rise, but we still have limited knowledge of the strategic choices underlying the start of these ventures. The objective of this paper is to shed light on the motivations and decisions of universities to engage (or not) with the establishment of international branch campuses. As a point of departure, institutional theory has been selected to frame the potential motives for starting an international branch campus. Secondary literature, including professional journals and university reports and websites, has been analysed to obtain information that alludes to the motivations of universities for adopting particular strategies. It was found that university managements' considerations can be explained by the concepts of legitimacy, status, institutional distance, risk-taking, risk-avoidance and the desire to secure new sources of revenue. We argue that universities should avoid decisions that are based largely on a single dimension, such as legitimacy, but rather consider a broad spectrum of motivations and considerations

Setting-up an international science partnership program: A case study between Portuguese and US research universities

“…In an increasingly global competitive environment, universities are diversifying and expanding international collaborations to strengthen the scope and quality of their research and teaching activities (Wilkins and Huisman, 2012). Governments that understand the benefits of having national universities embedded in global knowledge networks usually support this process and take an active role in promoting international collaboration between universities.…”

“…Yet, not all of these collaboration models have been wholly successful and there are several known cases of failures (see Ross, 2008;Healey, 2008). In this framework, policy choices for internationalization matter because expectations, risks and uncertainty are high (Wilkins and Huisman, 2012). For governments of developing/intermediate countries, public resources, i.e., taxpayers' money, need to be allocated carefully and it is often politically problematic to explain their allocation to foreign and already affluent universities.…”

“…Collaborations provide privileged access to new pools of student recruitment and give faculty greater access to international exchanges, including opportunities for long-term collaboration prospects (Ayoubi and Al-Habaibeh, 2006). These represent benefits for many universities but inevitably the faculty needs to support these initiatives (Wilkins and Huisman, 2012). Other selection criteria include training skilled labor and access to national, regional and local markets.…”

Withstand or succumb : Christian universities and the implications of Obergefell v. Hodges

“…This section examines the development of the theory and the role of institutional isomorphism within the organizational field of higher education with special attention to its three mechanismscoercive, mimetic, and normative forces-and their interactions. A dominant debate within institutional theory is whether external forces or organizational agency drive organizational behavior and decision making (Heugens & Lander, 2009;Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). The strand therefore concludes with the role of agency relative to institutional isomorphism.…”

“…Although institutional isomorphism leads to increased legitimacy as institutions conform to norms (Covaleski & Dirsmith, 1988;Heugens & Lander, 2009), these external pressures can also create limits on an organization's available choices (Rusch & Wilbur, 2007;Zha, 2009). Despite these limits, there is widespread agreement that strategic response to isomorphic pressure differs from institution to institution (Delmas & Toffel, 2008;Oliver, 1991;Scott & Biag, 2016;Taylor, 2015;Taylor & Cantwell, 2014;Vaira, 2004;Wilkins & Huisman, 2012;Wilson & McKiernan, 2011;Zha, 2009), emphasizing the impact of human agency.…”