International Branch Campuses:
Overview of Trends & Issue

JASON E. LANE, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Cross-Border Education Research Team (www.cbert.org)
Professor & Chair, Educational Policy & Leadership, SUNY-Albany
Presented at the 2018 University Quality Assurance Forum
National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education

DEFINITION“an entity that is owned, at least in part, by aforeign higher education provider; operated in
the name of the foreign education provider;and provides an entire academic program,substantially on site, leading to a degree
awarded by the foreign education provider.”Other Types of CBHE
Distance learning sites: Locations where instruction is not conducted
onsiteSubsidiary locations: Locations founded or owned by a foreign entity thatis not a degree granting institution
Partnership Operation: Campus is co-founded/established by local andforeign universities, with joint design/delivery of programs and services
Multi-state institutions: campuses in different countries with no home
campusNew Institution: Foreign backed but controlled/operated in name of new
institution, with the degree awarded by the new institution

Parsons goes to Paris (1920s)

Johns Hopkins opens in ItalyFlorida State heads to Panama

TodayNot just a US phenomenon

Quick Facts• 263 IBCs known to be in operation in 2017
• 33 Countries exporting IBCs to 76 Countries• Flow of campuses in Multi-Directional• 42 IBCs are known to have been closed• 22 New IBCs are reported to be in development• 180,000 Students Enrolled in IBCs

International Branch Campuses,
2000-2017*

International Branch CampusOpenings, 1996-2015
80
70

67

66

2006-20102011-2015

60
4650
40

35

30
20
100
1996-2000

2001-2005

Home Countries••

IBCs come from 33 different home countries
18% increase from 28 home countries at the end of 2010.

•The top five home countries, in terms of number of IBCs, are the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Australia.

•Together, they account for 181 branch campuses, or 73% of total IBCs.

•Around half of IBCs in development are planned by institutions based inthe US and UK.

Global IBC provision(Home Countries), 2015

Global IBC provision(Home Countries), 2015

Ratio of IBCs to Higher Education
Institutions by country
Country
Australia
UKFranceRussia
USChina

Nationally recognized HEIs*IBCs

Ratio of IBCs to HEIs

17015

8.8%451398.6%

449

286.2%

777212.7%

c.4,200

781.9%

2,529

60.2%

Host Countries••

IBCs are hosted by 76 countries
10% increase from 69 countries at the end of 2010•

The top five host countries are China (32), the United Arab Emirates (31),Singapore (12), Malaysia (12), and Qatar (11)•Together they host 98 IBCs, or 39% of the world’s total••

China has overtaken UAE as the top host country
The number of IBCs continues to increase, with concentrated growth inChina, Malaysia, Mauritius and South Korea from 2011-2015 and slowed
growth in UAE

Global IBC provision(Host Countries), 2015

Global IBC provision(Host Countries), 2015

Ratio of IBCs to Higher Education
Institutions by country
Country
United ArabEmirates
Singapore
Malaysia
Qatar
China

Nationally recognized HEIs*

IBCs

Ratio of IBCs to HEIs

77

3242%

28

1243%

118

1210%

15

1173%

2,529

320.1%

Institutional Reasons for Having an IBC• Internationalization• Revenue• Status Enhancement• Existing Connections

Why They Don’t Do It• Does not fit with the mission of the institution.
• Too expensive / Too risky• There is not a clear and financially sustainable business model.
• Lack of buy-in from the home institution.
• Concern that failure could damage the institution’s reputation.
• Uncertainty about how to operate in a foreign country.
• Do not want to dilute the institution’s brand.
• Academic freedom concerns.
• Champion leaves the institution or loses interest.

Types of IBCs, withProgram Number as a Marker
Type of IBC

Number of IBCs

Percentage

Type 1 (1-5 programs)

136

54.6%

Type 2 (6-19 programs)

94

37.8%

Type 3 (20+ programs)

19

7.6%

Total

249

100%

Number of academic programs per IBC varies, though most have 5 or fewer.
Masters programs in professional areas are the most common.

IBC student enrollments & foundation year
7,000

Liverpool – China

6,000

We do not see any clear
linkages between age ofan institution and thenumber of students.

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

Johns Hopkins –Bolongna
1,0000
1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Research Productivity of IBCs (93 institutions)
Majority of IBCs engage in little
research, though that is changing.
IBCs are effective ways toincrease international researchcollaborations.

Top 4 IBC Host Countries (Share of nationalpublication volume)

Research Quality – Citation Impact

International Collaborations (Nottingham)

Traditional Accountability is Premised on:• Sovereignty of nations• Immobility of Institutions• National responsibility for quality assurance• Shared sense of what is quality• Single relationship between institution and nation/accreditor

This “relationship” influences:• Governance preferences• Access• Public subsidy,• Research output,• Cost to students,• Hiring practices,• Level of academic freedom guiding institutional development.

As we consider CBHE, a number of questions
arise:• What happens when a university designed to serve the needs of one
country decides to start providing educational opportunities inanother country?
• How does one regulate a joint degree program offered by universities
in two different countries?
• When does a foreign institution need permission to offer its
educational programming in a different country, and who should
grant it?

This “new” relationship looks like:This “new” relationship looks like:This “new” relationship looks like:Option 1: No Accountability

Option 2: One-Sided Accountability

Option 2: One-Sided Accountability

Option 3: Dual(duelling) Accountability

CBHE Quality Assurance Matrix
Host Country

Home CountryNoYesNoYes
Quadrant 1
Quadrant 2
IBCs in this quadrant
IBCs in this quadrant arelargely exist outside of any subject to accountability by theexisting government
host country, but not the homeaccountability framework. country.
Quadrant 3
Quadrant 4
IBCs in this quadrant
IBCs in the quadrant mustare subject tobalance the accountability
accountability by theexpectations of both the home
home country, but not the and host countries.
host country.

Tensions Develop• What programs will be offered at the IBC?
• What does the governance of the IBC look like?
• How is quality assessed – input, output, throughput?
• Is the curriculum localized (or not)?
• How are students selected? Who determines admissions?
• To what extent is academic freedom recognized?

The Third Dimension: Institutions
Selecting the correct academic programs••

Difference between what employers and students want

Understanding the local culture••

Language is used in different ways in different countries•

Global brand recognition does not translate in local brand recognition•

Over charging in the marketplace (compete locally, not globally)•

Aged “bureaucracy” does not understand the young “start up”

The Third Dimension: Institutions
Selecting the correct academic programs••

Difference between what employers and students want

Understanding the local culture••

Language is used in different ways in different countries•

Global brand recognition does not translate in local brand recognition•

Over charging in the marketplace (compete locally, not globally)•

Aged “bureaucracy” does not understand the young “start up”

Key Considerations•Quality means different things to different people (competing frameworks)•IBCs tend to move developed to developing – what risks are their to thedeveloping systems that should be considered?

•Local QA may have requirements that are contradictory to the foreign QA.

•

IBCs tend to be market driven; but QA can interfere with this.

•While home campuses tend to be permanent, IBCs can be temporary andmoveable.

Conclusions•

IBCs are a growing and diverse set of institutions•

CBHE Quality Assurance is more complex than Traditional Quality Assurance•Governments need to decided their involvement in CBHE QA•

Decide how CBHE “fits” within the nation’s educational strategy.

•QA is a responsibility of both the government and the institution.

Resources• Lane, J.E. Kinser, K., & Zhang, Li. (2018). Cross-Border Educational Accountability: Navigating Accountability Expectations
when Education Crosses Borders. In Hazelkorn, E., Coates, H., and McCormick, A. (Eds.). Research Handbook on Quality,Performance and Accountability in Higher Education. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Press.
• Kinser, K. & Lane, J.E. (2017). Authorization and Quality Assurance of Higher Education Institutions: A global overview.
Commissioned Paper. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002595/259561e.pdf• Kinser, K. & Lane, J.E. (2013). Five Reasons (Other Than Poor Quality) Quality Assurance in Cross Border Higher Educationis Problematic. International Higher Education.
• Lane, J.E. (2010). Higher Education, Free Zones, and Quality Assurance in Dubai. Policy Paper. Dubai School ofGovernment: Dubai. (published in English & Arabic).
http://www.academia.edu/1338169/Higher_Education_Free_Zones_and_Quality_Assurance_in_Dubai• Lane, J.E. & Kinser, K. (2016). Internationalization, Rankings, and National Strategies: trade-offs, policy levers, and(un)intended outcomes. In Hazelkorn, E. (Ed.). Global rankings and the geo-politics of higher education: Understanding theinfluence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. London: Routledge. pp. 258-274.
• Lane, J.E. Owens, T.L, & Kinser, K. (2015). Cross Border Higher Education, International Trade, and Economic
Competitiveness: A review of policy dynamics when education crosses borders'. Toronto, Geneva and Brighton: ILEAP,
CUTS International Geneva and CARIS.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287853997_Cross_Border_Higher_Education_International_Trade_and_Econo
mic_Competitiveness_A_Review_of_Policy_Dynamics_when_Education_Crosses_Borders)