'Excellence' and exclusion:the individual costs of institutional competitiveness

A performance-based funding system like the United Kingdom’s ‘Research Excellence Framework’ (REF) symbolizes the re-rationalization of higher education according to neoliberal ideology and New Public Management technologies. The REF is also significant for disclosing the kinds of behaviour that characterize universities’ response to government demands for research auditability. In this paper, we consider the casualties of what Henry Giroux (2014) calls “neoliberalism’s war on higher education” or more precisely the deleterious consequences of non-participation in the REF. We also discuss the ways with which higher education’s competition fetish, embodied within the REF, affects the instrumentalization of academic research and the diminution of academic freedom, autonomy and criticality

The Quality-Profit Assumption

The profit motive is typically linked to lower quality in higher education. But there are several routes to profitability that do not presume a decline in quality, but rather take advantage of price and service strategies that generate revenue without significant impact on the academic program. Quality, therefore, is not determined by the profit status of the institution

Deciphering "Educational Hubs" Strategies: Rhetoric and Reality

Many governments in the Middle East and Southeast Asia have repositioned them as "education hub." Four realities of education hub strategies are described. First, institutions in education hubs are not always in close proximity. Second, there are education hubs that are primarily lead by the nongovernmental entities as sponsors though with the support of the government. Third, all education cities are designed to be education hubs, but not vice versa. Fourth, educational hubs are driven by the supply-side, rather than domestic demand

Foreign Outposts of Colleges and Universities

Understanding the phenomenon of international branch campuses requires expanding our understanding of the various ways universities operate foreign educational outposts. A wide variety of transnational activity exists that represents intriguing variations on the typical branch campus form

How Much Autonomy Do International Branch Campuses Really Have?

The governments of several developing nations have used public funds to support International Branch Campuses (IBCs). These countries often have specific requirements and regulations that the IBCs must meet. As a result, some of the IBC’s most fundamental financial, academic and governance decisions are determined or heavily influenced by the host nation. These practices compromise the financial autonomy and academic autonomy of IBCs and threaten their sustainability and quality.

The Problems with Cross-Border Quality Assurance

Quality assurance for cross-border higher education often focuses on concerns about academic standards. But the challenge of evaluating international branch campuses and other foreign education outposts goes beyond enforcing basic standards of quality. We identify five issues that that make quality assurance in the cross-border context problematic

Microsoft Word - 0129.doc

International Branch Campuses: Decoupling the University from its Geopolitical Base (0129) Programme number: L9 Research Domain: Higher Education Policy In the last fifteen years, the growth in the number of international branch campuses has increased at least seven fold, with approximately 100 now in operation -mostly in nations with developing economies. This paper analyzes how mature organizations linked to a specific geopolitical region (e.g., University of Nottingham, Monash University, and Michigan State University) plan and implement an emergent organization in an unfamiliar environment (e.g, Malaysia or Dubai). The purpose of this paper is to use empirical evidence to develop a new theoretical concept: non-endemic organizations, that is organizations that operate outside of their geo-political home

International Branch Campuses: Evolution of a Phenomenon

International branch campuses have evolved over the last decade in terms of their numbers and diversity, their relationship with the host government, and the strategies employed for quality assurance. We review the trends in these areas and suggest several implications for the way the phenomenon should be viewed