By Grant McBurnie and Christopher Ziguras (IIE Network 2007)

A relatively novel feature of the internationalization of higher education is the recent emergence of the ‘international branch campus.’ In this article we use the term to refer to the transnational delivery of courses from one country (the provider, or home country) to another country (the host country) in a campus setting. In North America the term ‘branch campus’ is sometimes loosely used to denote an overseas location—or enclave—where North American students go to have a study abroad experience under the supervision of the home institution. We are interested, however, in the growth of new substantial campuses that offer a range of full programs rather than short study abroad experiences. While some of the students in international branch campuses may be home campus students, the majority of students are either residents of the host country or a third country.

The full service branch campus is a bricks and mortar presence, wholly or jointly owned and operated by the awarding institution, providing degrees taught face-to-face, supported by traditional physical infrastructure including library, laboratories, classrooms, and faculty and staff offices. Ideally research and community engagement should be part of the profile, as well as teaching. It should be noted that the reality does not always match the rhetoric – for marketing purposes, the term ‘branch campus’ is sometimes used to designate something much less substantial, such as online courses with a local post office drop-off address, or a local shop front for course enquiries.

There is no central registry, but the spread of international branch campuses can be gleaned from press reports, promotional materials and industry sources. The Observatory for Borderless Higher Education suggests there are approximately 100 branch campuses that fit the definition of ‘an entity trading directly as a branch of the parent institution, recruiting primarily local students, and attempting to replicate breadth of function of the parent institution (e.g. research as well as teaching)’. The vast majority of these have been established since the mid-1990s and they are concentrated in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, with growth currently occurring in India, China and Central Asia (‘Jewel in the Crown’, Observatory for Borderless Higher Education Breaking News, June 17, 2005). U.S. and Australian universities have the largest number of branch campuses, with smaller numbers operated by institutions based in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and Singapore. Most are branches of universities but some are polytechnics or vocational training colleges. Singapore’s Ngee Ann Polytechnic, for example, is establishing a campus in Shenyang (China), primarily for Chinese students, but also for their Singaporean students to gain international experience. The Malaysian-based University College of Technology & Innovation has embarked on an Indian Ocean strategy, with overseas campuses in Colombo (Sri Lanka), Karachi (Pakistan), Panipat (India) and Perth (Australia).

There are numerous benefits for the host country. These include: building local capacity and education infrastructure; reducing the outflow of domestic students, and the associated financial and brain drain; attracting foreign students who can contribute to intellectual richness as well as revenue, and may in turn stay on as skilled immigrants; and unquantifiable spin-offs such as technology transfer and the demonstration effects of foreign models of research, teaching and administration that can be adapted locally to build good practice. A major driver is the prestige that accrues to a country that hosts world-class education providers such as those of the American Ivy League and other top-tier institutions. This is an increasingly important motivation for countries that are seeking to recruit more foreign students, several of which have announced plans to use international campuses to establish regional or global “education hubs”, aiming to attract international students and leading academics. For example, Singapore has declared its intention to attract 150,000 international students by the year 2012, and has an articulated series of plans in place to achieve the target. To date Singapore has attracted campus presences of France’s INSEAD, the USA’s Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Australia’s University of New South Wales. In the United Arab Emirates, Dubai has established a “Knowledge Village,” offering favorable regulatory conditions for foreign providers, and has attracted institutions from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, India and Australia.

The benefits for the provider institution include attracting students unable or unwilling to attend the home campus (with the associated benefit of additional export revenue and expanded alumni numbers) and providing enhanced opportunities for student and staff mobility within the campus network. More broadly there is the prestige benefit of having an international “footprint.” Universities that have strong experience in the recruitment of international students to their home campuses and in partner-supported delivery abroad, like to think of themselves as ‘international’ universities, and one way to demonstrate this identity is to establish an international branch campus. A campus provides a tangible sign of the institution’s international self-image and ambitions, and signals that it will not be constrained by the geography or history of the home campus.

For the host country student, there is the opportunity to obtain a foreign degree at home; course fees are frequently lower than those charged for study at the provider institution’s home campus; substantial savings are made by not having to pay for living expenses (such as rent, food, transport, etc.) in a foreign country; one can work full-time, whereas visa restrictions normally limit the hours a foreign student can work; one can study part-time, whereas visa restrictions normally require foreign students to study full-time; and there is little or no disruption to family and work life, compared to studying abroad.

It is, of course, not all smooth sailing. In addition to grappling with critics’ concerns about foreign education constituting “cultural imperialism,” the host country must develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure consumer protection and promote quality assurance. There are concerns that the presence of foreign providers could reduce the ability of the government to control the local system, including public good and nation building goals, and can exacerbate inequities of access to education, as transnational education is generally geared to meeting the demand of those who can pay, although some providers do offer equity scholarships.

The balance of disciplines within a system could be skewed (for example, favoring business studies rather than arts). Foreign providers may “cherry-pick,” offering only the more popular and profitable courses. This can reduce the ability of local institutions to cross-subsidize expensive courses (such as engineering, which requires laboratories and materials) with courses that are cheaper to run (such as business and other predominantly text-based disciplines). Local academic jobs created by the foreign branch campus may be hollowed out (with no research or role in curriculum design), or capped at junior levels such as tutor, with little or no opportunity for progression. Further, as countries find themselves in competition with each other in seeking to attract prestigious foreign providers, they may need to offer costly inducements and concessions. Indeed, host countries run the risk of being rebuffed. For example, the UK’s University of Warwick in 2005 declined Singapore’s invitation to establish a branch campus, reportedly concerned about finances, staffing and other issues.

In addition to the challenges of governance and quality assurance, there are numerous pitfalls for the provider, including financial, legal, sovereign and physical risks involved in operating in a foreign jurisdiction. Students must consider the risk of the course being closed or the provider withdrawing from the country. The transnational program is inherently more likely to collapse than a course at a local public institution or at the home campus of the provider institution. If effective contingency arrangements are not in place, the student can lose both the money and effort invested in their studies. Recent well-publicized calamities include the closure of the University of La Verne’s Athens campus, and the withdrawal from Dubai of Australia’s University of Southern Queensland.

Despite the best efforts of all concerned to look after the students, there is bound to be some disruption to their studies. There are numerous other questions for the student to consider. Will the curriculum be appropriate? Will the course be recognized for purposes of employment/professional registration/further study? Will there be appropriate quality assurance of the course or will it fall between jurisdictions and escape proper scrutiny? Will the home institution apply quality measures suitable for transnational education?

Institutional mobility is potentially a profound means of internationalization, which complements the more traditional forms of internationalization through student mobility and curricular enhancement. In quantitative terms, however, it is a limited form of internationalization. In comparison with large multinational corporations, even those universities with the largest transnational operations remain overwhelmingly based in their country of origin. One way of quantifying the degree of internationalization of a company is to use the transnationality index of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. This measures the share of an entity’s operations that are located outside its home country. The index is determined by averaging the following three ratios: foreign assets/total assets, foreign sales/total sales and foreign employment/total employment. Compared to mainstream transnational companies, university levels of transnationality are low but can nonetheless have a major impact on the institution financially, and in terms of the rationale for universities to operate abroad.

Finally, it cannot be assumed that an international branch campus automatically provides its graduates with an international outlook. To be successful in this regard, the branch campus – like any other education institution – must be creatively committed to promoting student and staff mobility, an internationalized curriculum and strategies for internationalization at home, wherever home may be.

Grant McBurnie is executive officer international at Monash University, Australia. Christopher Ziguras is senior research fellow at the Globalism Institute at RMIT University, Australia.