A literature review on International Collaboration on Higher

Education

Key words: International collaboration, Internationalization,

International students, Globalization, transnational higher

education, Higher Education, graduate research, knowledge

transfer.

Schmidt, Robbins, Combs, Freeburg, Jespersen, Rogers, Sheldon

and Wheat, (2012),observe that the scope of environmental

challenges are global and requires solutions that incorporate

knowledge across disciplines, organisations and cultures. In

addition, most individual institutions are often incapable of

solving complex problems on their own which calls for

collaborations among various groups or organisations. These

authors also posit that working across interdisciplinary,

organisation and cultural borders entails, team work, clear

communication, collaboration among people with different

knowledge, values, and approaches, networking, teaching and

learning about complex topics and a willingness to apply

diverse methods (Schmidt et al., (2012:297). In other words,

international collaborations entail learning to anticipate

uncertainties and teachable skills.

Internalization is basically a conscious action while in

contrast globalization is comparatively an “”uncontrolled

process, determined mainly by fierce economic competition on a

global scale, and by rapid advances in information and

communication technology” (Witt, 2010:38). To exemplify,

internationalization of the university is often depicted as a

response to the numerous challenges of globalization. In other

words, globalization is seen as an accumulation of forces that

influence higher education, while internationalization is a

deliberate, skilfully, controlled action, taken in reaction to

globalization. Globalization, has given an immeasurable

impetus for internationalization. Therefore“as new

technologies, ease of travel, economic integration and

environmental interdependence diminishsome types of barriers

among nation-states, the imperative to know other societies

and cultures increases (Witt, 2010).Tsuruta (2013:143)

presents a clear argument regarding these two concept by

postulating that internationalization is etymologically

different from globalisation. According to Tsuruta (2013)

Internationalization is a means to an end while globalization

is an end product in the internationalisation of education.

In a review by Alemu (2014), the internalization of higher

education started from the 18th and 19th centuries and involved

the “export of higher education systems, dissemination of

research and individual mobility of students and

scholars”(Alemu, 2014:73. According to him the export first

started from Europe to other parts of the world (the Americas,

Asia and Africa) through colonial bonds. In the modern era,

internalization of higher education underwent two phases. The

first phase saw countries like Japan and Africa develop a kind

of Euro-American merger of teaching and research in higher

institutions which was referred to as “academic colonialism”

and “academic imperialism” (Alemu 2014: ) The second phase

consists of research and dissemination through seminars,

publications and conferences. Internalization has since

shifted especially from the 1990’s towards more international

cooperation and exchange in higher education and of a

particular increase in concern for scholars and researchers

(Alemu2014).

Alemu (2014) distinguishes six important approaches through

which the internalization of higher education can be

understood. They are:-

1 The activity approach which includes inconspicuous

activities,

2 The competency approach which includes the development

of skills, knowledge, attitudes and values,

3 The ethos approach that encompasses fostering campus

based culture of internalization,

4 The process approach which encompasses the

incorporation of an international dimension into

teaching, research, and services,

5 The business approach which lays emphasis on students’

fees for income, and

6 The market approach that puts pressure on competition,

marketing and deregulation.

Alemu(2014) based his definition of the internalization of

higher education on the above mentioned approaches and posits

that it is “the process of integrating an international, inter

cultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or

delivery of post-secondary education” (Alemu 2014:74).

Furthermore he postulates that people however, perceive the

internalization of higher education from different

perspectives due to the dynamic nature of its actors and their

motivation which could be economic, social, political or

cultural, in addition to the traditional effects of local and

national traditions. These forces have changed the nature of

internalization of higher education in many areas such as the

context, rationales, strategies,purposes and meanings,

benefits, prospects and challenges (Alemu 2014:74).

In addition, the internalization of higher education also

benefited inadvertently from “collaborative projects of cross

border educational exchanges”(Alemu 2014:74)which has helped

to develop individuals, institutions countries and the global

world.

However, he observed that the internalization of higher

education is gradually losing its grips on its objectives

which is “to build capacity through international cooperation

projects” (Alemu2014:74) and has now favoured status building

initiatives and intensification of profits. The consequences

of internalization of higher education are numerous ranging

from the “destruction of cultural heritage, diminished

language diversity , reduced variety in academic cultures and

structures, compromised quality, and has even supported

imperialist takeover” (Alemu 2014:74). Other adverse

consequences are the disproportionate flow of academics and

students which caused the brain drain from the South to the

North and policy infiltrations to the South (Alemu 2014). In

support of the above statements Enders (2007) revealed:

“The vast majority of international students are from low and middle income

countries, and their destinations are in the richer parts of the world with the

USA as a major host country followed by Australia, Canada the United

Kingdom, and Western Europe. The increasing flow of academics around the

world is also dominated by a South-to-North pattern, while there is significant

movement between the industrialised countries and some South-to-South

movements as well(Enders,2007:16).

Datew 2014 also reiterated the fact that even though

developing and new nations participate in internalization, it

has actually marginalised them through omissions from the

initiatives. For instance, according to Alemu(2014), the

funding of most universities in Africa are undertaken by

governments and external agencies which the world bank (2007)

puts at 70-90% while these agencies also collaborate with

scholars to publish most of their scientific papers. In this

vein, countries such as UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy,

Spain, china, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, have

purportedly formed collaborative initiatives with most African

scholars by producing their research papers.The research

issues are thus chosen by the external collaborators, examples

of which are those in Uganda where the UK has a long term

agricultural research into tropical diseases and that of Kenya

and Malawi where the Wellcome foundation has invested on a

major research (Alemu 2014).

In a related development, Ogachi (2011) observes that the

intention of internalization of higher education in Africa was

to “increase the visibility of African universities in areas

such as research and development, and increase the

contribution that the institutions are making to the

development of Africa, and open channels for Africa to benefit

from the global stock of scientific knowledge” (Alemu

2011:74). This development as reiterated by Alemu (2014) was

to include research networking, founding of partnerships and

capacity building. As for most African Universities, the

indigenisation of research and locally produced innovations is

not an option. African Universities are therefore faced with a

challenge to explore how they can align their academic

programs to support their economic development, poverty

eradication, and the promotion of sustainable utilization of

their natural resource both locally and regionally. He

concludes by advocating for an internalization which will

address the research needs and priorities of Africa which in

his view may not happen in the nearest future.

In another dimension, Bennelle and Pearce (2002) affirm that

there has been a surge in the internalization of higher

education since the 1980s in Universities from industrialized

and developed countries particularly in faculty and exchange

programmes, but that these Universities also face the

challenge of internalising their curricula. This is evident in

the existence of differences in higher education policies in

developing countries of the world where the World Bank

prescribed a global policy. Furthermore, Universities in the

North are looking to attract foreign students and equally form

collaborative partnerships with institutions from developed,

developing and upcoming economies which encourage foreign

qualifications for its citizens. The host University benefits

immensely from these forms of education as it makes unexpected

income and foreign exchange as well as exporting their bulk of

education into the affected countries. To this end many

educational institutions and governments have come to realize

the possible benefit of overseas markets for many educational

and training services

Witt (2010) in her review observes that evidences abound which

indicate that there are collaborations between higher

institutions all over the world but that the nature of the

interconnectivity is being underestimated. Strategies should

be in placefor a re-examination of the rationales, prospective

and barriers that are involved during the planning process of

collaborations which is contrary to the purported neo liberal

perspectives of globalization. This is due to the fact that

strong local and national governments, culture and social

relationships play a major role in the negotiations and

outcomes of such collaborations. Witt (2010) also remarks that

globally, higher education networks has given in to a one

sided partnership which allow agencies with powerful driven

agendas to flourish and at the same time finance and

infiltrate their policies into their “overburdened,

bureaucratized, locally governed education system” (Witt,

2010:ii). This process according to her does not fit into the

purpose and objectives of international cooperation.

Edelson, (2003) identifies problems that hinder the success of

collaborations among institutions of higher education in the

US and UK and that of foreign institutions to include aspects

of administration, regulatory environment, the financial

situation and cultural and political issues. In resolving

these problems some strategies were put in place such as

developing staff expertise, structural adjustment, tackling

the economic inequalities between nations and expanding

commitments to globalization. Furthermore, Edelson, (2003)

explains that planning international collaboration engagement

in programs that work well and fall within the normal range of

events at the institution, time and logistics management and

the program must be aimed at addressing the target

institution’s needs. In addition, there must be incentives for

motivation and improvement, trust among contributors, and

ability to detect possible problematic areas of the

collaboration.

Huang, (2007) and Naidoo(2009), refer to transnational higher

education as ‘franchised provision’, ‘offshore education’,

international collaborative provision’, or ‘cross border

education’, which according to them play significant role in

modern-day higher education(Huang, Naidoo in Smith, 2010:

793). Many ideologies drive and shape transnational higher

education and the quality of its policies such as the need to

integrate more international principles into teaching and

research (Doorbar& Bateman in Smith 2010) so as to enable

contributors to fully engage in a globalised knowledge

economy. Smith (2010) posits that practically many higher

education systems facenumerous challenges from the ever-

changing face of global higher education settings which

include “new model of funding, mass participation and

increased demand, technological advances and mobility of

persons and expertise” (Smith, 2010:793). In resolving these

challenges such as reduced government funding most higher

institution for example in the UK pursue partnerships from

international collaborations especially from outside Europe

from where uncontrollable streams of students drift in

( Smith, 2010).

Pyvis and Chapman (2007) in their report on students’

motivation for international education, reveal that students

seek international education in Australian Universities for

two major reasons. Firstly, for a Malaysian student,

international education is valued as a passport to

international employment especially with multinational

corporations based in Malaysia. Secondly for non-Malaysian

students it is a way of fashioning a new identity for

themselves with the purpose of doing away with their local or

provincial outlooks. Their main objective is to perceive the

world in new ways and embrace new skills and approaches. In

other words, they want to metamorphosiseinto their new world

and in turn commit themselves into investments by transforming

into their new expectations in international education.

Mc Burnie in Smith(2010) notes that the geographical distance

ofthe home campus of transnational higher education programs

at times give room to tensions between academic and commercial

priorities and a chance for shoddy academic standard. Importer

countries should therefore engage in high quality educational

experiences which will fulfil their main objectives of “nation

building”( Smith, 2010: 794) and also that of the yearnings of

the students.

In a related development, Mello (2013) remarks that South

Africa has become a major role player in international higher

education within the African continent and her higher

education institutions has influenced and is being influenced

by other countries. For instance, there has been an influx of

exchange students and academics but unfortunately South Africa

has not opened its border to international students as many

are being repatriated after their studies. He further

explained that due to the persistent needs of some

Universities, they internationalized as a means of survival.

In addition most universities are run as business units with

little or no declared profit and may have to look across South

African borders if they are to meet their recruitment needs

even though South Africa has never struggled in this regard.

On the other hand, higher institutions either public or

private in other countries of the world, recruit foreign

students as a critical means of survival. This argument was

corroborated by Chen and Loo (2013);Mello, (2013) who posit

that some countries attract foreign students to increase their

national revenue particularly when the host country lacks

enough students. Although Tsurutain Mello, (2013) disagrees

with this argument by giving the example of Japan where the

phenomenon was due to decreased enrolment and income

capabilities of the country’s higher institutions. Mello

(2013) concludes that addressing the issue of internalization

from the perspectives of human resources is a search for

excellence and a need for qualified academics in specialised

areas like engineering and science.

In the opinion of King (1990:48) the aid agencies from the

North-South educational research environment has influenced

funding and consumed the bulk of educational research and

assessment since the 1980’s. This trend has witnessed a

tremendous increase in scale and development as the South has

faced a collapse of their capacity to fund its own research.

Thedonor aidededucational research and evaluation influence

the cost effectiveness of the donor’s investments in the

educational systems of the developing countries, for instance

when the countries need foreign exchange to equip their

libraries, oversees training, science and technology

equipment. The major influence is evident in the reinforcement

and confirmation of their investment strategies which

consequently results in sponsors enforcing a ‘policy research’

(King, 1990:48). Such policy oriented researches end up in a

long row of educational issues which are neither unresolved

nor unaddressed.

Altbach and Knight (2007) affirm that globalization (which is

a 21st century reality) is not the same thing as

internalization. Globalization involves the context of

economic and academic development while internalisation is

inclined towards policies and practices undertake by academic

systems and institutions or individuals which are aimed at

coping with the global academic environment. Internalization

motives involve knowledge and acquisition, commercial

advantage andenhancing the curriculum with international

content. Internalisation has therefore brought about such

initiatives as “branch campuses, cross border collaborative

arrangements, programs for international students,

establishment of English medium programs and degrees”

(Altbach& Knight, 2007: 290). Efforts are also intensified to

monitor these initiatives and guarantee quality in

international higher education.

Li-Hua, (2007) notes that knowledgehas been acknowledged as a

crucial factor “in creating and sustaining superior

organizational performance” (Li-Hua, 2007:174) in the 21st

century and its effectiveness is largely dependent upon

knowledge transfer, sharing, and organisational wisdom.

Furthermore, universities form an essential aspect of higher

education and are recognised as embodiments of knowledge and

its transfer. Universities are also important tools for

government in the dissemination of its modernisation and

economic drives and agendas, its sustainability in the

competitive market and in the improvement of the quality of

life of its people. Knowledge is acknowledged at all level as

a path to development and innovation. Higher education

therefore is a boundless widely unidentified and definitely

“under-exploited resource” that contributes to “wealth and

economic competitiveness” (Li-Hua 2007:172).

According to LI-Hua (2007) globalization has offered more

opportunities for both developed and developing countries. It

has opened avenues for developed countries to acquire

extensive marketplace for their products which are in form of

goods, technology transfer, and setting up of collaborative

ventures. The developing countries are the recipients of these

advanced technologies and new knowledge. They in turn benefit

by providing the human resources, raw materials and open

numerous new markets. International collaboration is therefore

like ‘an open secret’ in the transfer and sharing of knowledge

and technology. In other word knowledge transfer and sharing

is generally acknowledged as strategically important for

international collaboration andcapacity building of any

organisation. However Li-Hua (2007) remarks that the education

sectors of both developed and developing countries have

witnessed major challenges in their internalisation of higher

education motives.

Li-Hua, (2007:173) posits that the core principle of

internalisation of higher education is aimed at respecting the

public laws of education though preserving the cultures of the

individuals involved as education is simply to transfer

knowledge, develop skills, take over the culture and also

boost personality. Li-Hua (2007) indicates that UNESCO (1993)

define high education as embracing all sorts of studies,

training or training for research at the post – secondary

level, obtainable by universities or other educational

institutions that are approved by a state or nation’s

authority experts as institutions of high education. He

further states that UNESCO acknowledges not only the

importance of “knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing in

high education between developed and developing countries in

other to reduce the gap” but also the difficulty in monitoring

the outcome across borders and continents due to culture,

politics, social, economic and financial constraints(Li-Hua,

2007:177).The new information and technologies is expected to

remove critical inequalities that exits within the global

world so as to change the way knowledge is developed, acquired

and delivered.

Five elements which include research, employment of graduates,

international postgraduate recruitment and media’s view were

highlighted as steps that could address the concepts of world

class high education or what a world a world class University

should pursue (Li-Hua, 2007:175). Furthermorethe theory of the

four wheels which denotes “teaching, research, training and

consultancy as well as international collaboration” (Li-Hua,

2007:175) was identified as crucial for the optimal operation

of the University.International collaboration is therefore

perceived as an instrument for capacity building,

discoveringeffective high education management techniques and

for putting new or conventional practices to test in the areas

of teaching and research.

Li-Hua (2007), remarks that knowledge transfer is commonly

recognised in literatureby scholars from all disciplines

especially in terms of the human dimension of knowledge

management. Also distinctions were habitually made between

formal and informal procedures of knowledge transfer. He

argues that knowledge transfer is not about collection but

connection which eventually depends on the individual’s

choice. Li-Hua (2007), further notes here that the confusion

has not only been attributed to the misconstrued concept but

in understanding the complex formulation of programs by the

transferee that suits its needs. This tendency is attributed

to the fact that people normally attempt to transfer their

home culture into new cultures. The transfer of these “tried”

and “tested still” often results in culture shock, disruption

and xenophobia(Li-Hua, 2007:176). Understanding the basic

principles of ‘good cross-cultural relationships’ according to

Li-Hua (2007) is very important as confusion may set in and

the situation worsened through obstacles to communication. Li-

Hua (2007) stresses the importance of the transferee’s

absorbing capacity as knowledge transfer cannot take place if

the gap between the transferor and the transferee is too wide

particularly in relationship to economic development. Li-Hua

(2007) advocates a more integrated approach in order to

resolve these issue and in particular the dearth of managerial

skills.

Healey, (2008) in her own review submits that it is now a

common axiom that higher education is globalising. This is due

to the fact that for many nations of the world higher

education is like an export division as universities entice

international student around the globe, engage in production

licensing otherwise known as franchise degree programs which

are set up in as campuses in foreign countries. This

development can be likened to globalization of businesses with

the trend on a high increase as companies move from one step

to the other. Healey (2008: 335-341) enumerates the four steps

that were developed after a research which was conducted on

Scandinavian countries as follows:-

1. Exporting: -This takes place when higher education export

education services to foreign countries in form of

distance and online courses while the students enrol for

these courses in their home countries.

2. Licencing production: - This is commonly referred to as

‘franchising’ where a local provider in a foreign country

is given a sub-contract to offer part or all degree

programs. This trend is common between UK and Australian

universities where a student offers one year in his home

and the rest in the home country of the university

offering the course or in some cases 2+1 years for a

bachelor’s degree.

3. Joint venture: - This type of internalization entails

establishing offshore production facilities in the higher

education sector. The local providers obtain national

licence to operate in form of a joint venture with

western universities who establish branch campuses to

attract international fee-paying students. This is aimed

to develop the host country’s higher education sector to

meet domestic demands. Malaysia and Singapore has been in

the vanguard of this trend.

4. Sole ventures: - This refers to private or wholly-owned

campuses around the globe particularly in London and

Paris. These campuses in most cases only serves as

international study centres for visiting foreign students

(mostly from US). There are also private profit making

colleges and universities which admit students to

accredited degree programmes. An example is the case of

the United Kingdom who through the ‘British Accreditation

Council’ (a non-governmental for profit agency)

accredited 78 private universities and colleges to offer

higher education. However, these institutions are not

eligible to give government loans or students study

support and thereby accommodate small numbers of

international students.

A good example of internalization of higher education is the

implementation of the Erasmus programme among EU states which

was to promote the mobility of students and strengthen the

European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (de Oude, 2014:7). The

Bologna process was also embraced by all member states

whenever they review their national law on higher education.

It states thus:

“Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees with the aim of

promoting European citizens employability and the international competitiveness of

the European higher education system is among the core action line of the Bologna

declaration itself” (European Commission, 2012:29 in de Oude 2014).

REFERENCES

Alemu, S.A. (2014). An Appraisal of the Internationalisation of Higher Education

in Sub-Saharan Africa.Faculty of Education, University of

Ljubljana, Slovenia; C E P S Journal | Vol.4 | No2 |

2014.

Altbach, P.G; Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher

Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in

International Education 2007 11: 290.DOI:

10.1177/1028315307303542.

Benelle, P; Pearce, T. (2002). The Internationalisation of Higher

Education: Exporting Education to Developing and Transitional

Economies.Independent Consultant, 60 Rugby Road, Brighton

Bn1 6ed, U.K.

Chen, D.I., and Lo, W.Y.W. 2013. Internationalisation or commodification?

A case study of internationalization practices in Taiwan’s higher education.

Asia Pacific Education Review. 14: 33-41.

Damtew, T. (2014). The “Soft Power” Proof the pudding-not in the branding.

University World News,(308, 21 February 2014).

De Oude, C. (2014).The added value of international student

mobility in the recruitment and selection process of

young academics in the labour market. Centre for Higher

Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) University of Twente.

Faculty: Management and Governance Study programme:

Bachelor European Public Administration – European

Studies programme Academic.

Edelson, P. Jay. (2003). International Collaboration in Higher Education:

An Overview of Critical Issues. Paper presented at the Virtual

Education Conference (Miami, FL, June 18-20, 2003).

Enders, J. (2007). The Academic Profession. In J. Forest & P. G.

Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher

Education (Pp. 5-21). Springer.

Healey,N.M. (2007) . Is Higher Education in Really ‘Internationalising’?

Received: 3 September 2006 / Accepted: 26 February 2007 /

Published Online: 21 April 2007.High Educ. (2008) 55:333–

355. International Journal of Educational Development.

www.Elsevier.com/Locate/Ijedudev

Knight, K. (1990).The New Politics of International Collaboration in

Educational Development: Northern and Southern Research in Education.

Centre of African Studies, Edinburgh University.

International Journal of Educational Development, Vol.

10, No. 1, Pp. 47757,1990w.Pergamon Press. Great Britain.

Li-Hua, R. (2007). Knowledge Transfer in International

Educational Collaboration: The China Perspective. 5th

International CALIBER.2007. Punjab University:

Chandigard. INFLIBNET Centre. Ahmedabad.

richard.lihua@unn.ac.uk

Mello, D. M. (2013). Internationalisation of Higher Education In South Africa.

Department of Public Administration. Journal of Public

Administration.North-West University, South Africa.

Ogachi, O. I. (2011). 21st Century ‘Academic Imperialism’,

Internationalisation of Higher Education and Threats to Indigenization of

Research and Innovation for Development in African universities. A

paperpresented on the 13th Codesria General Assembly: 5-9

December 2011, Rabat, Morocco.

Pyvis, D; Chapman, A. (2007).Why University Students Choose an

International Education: A Case Study In Malaysia.Department of Media and

Information.International Journal of Educational

Development 27 (2007) 235–246.Curtin University of

Technology, G.P.O Box U 1987, Perth, Western Australia

6845, Australia. Elsevier.

Schmidt, A.H; Robbins, A.S.T; Combs, J.K; Freeburg, A;

Jesperson, R.G; Rogers, H.S; Sheldon, K.S AND Wheat, E.

(2012). A New Model for Training Graduate Students to Conduct

Interdisciplinary, Interorganizational, and International Research. Bio

Science 62:296-304. ISSN 1525-324. American Institute of

Biological Sciences. University of California Press.

Smith, K. (2010) Assuring Quality in Transnational Higher Education: A Matter

of

Collaboration or Control? Institute Of Development Studies,

Sussex University, Brighton Bn1 9re, UK. Studies in

Higher Education.Vol. 35, No. 7,November 2010, 793–806.

Tsuruta, Y. 2013. The knowledge society and the internationalisation of

Japanese higher education.Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 33(2): 140-

155.

Witt, M.A. (2010). Planning for International Collaboration in Higher

Education: A Case Study of a Multi-institutional Degree Program.

Dissertation. University of Illinois. By

ProquestLlc.United States.