TNE in China

by Cheryl Yu

(image from the Wix)

As we know, TNE comes in different sizes and shapes, franchise, validation, joint degree, dual degrees or international branch campuses, with this scale of individual students under a joint PhD project, to hundreds of students on a validated or franchise collaboration, to thousands of students on an international branch campus.

China is the largest host country for UK TNE, nearly all UK universities have some level of TNE engagement in China, through smaller-scale joint programmes or larger-scale joint institutes or independent legal representation of overseas campuses.

For instance, there are the well-established University of Nottingham -Ningbo, and Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University with their own legal representatives; for joint institutes without own legal representatives, the University of Glasgow has three joint institutes, plus some joint programmes; Queen Mary University of London Engineering School- Northwestern Polytechnical University, Lancaster University College at Beijing Jiaotong University, University of Surrey with Dongbei University Finance and Economics, University for the Creative Arts with Xiamen University and the list go on.

Obviously, a joint university is the best way to reach the local impact where nearly everyone in higher education in China would have heard about Xi Jiao Liverpool, despite being a relatively new initiative and collaboration since its launch in 2006. Now it has over 20,000 full-time students in its degree programmes from UG, PG to PhD on its campus, and globally ranked between 600-800 based on the TIMES ranking. The growth exceeds the majority of universities globally.

Followed by this large-scale collaboration, the Joint Institute is another model to deliver the students number and impact. While a joint university creates a national or global reputation, a joint institute possibly generates provincial impact whereas a joint programme will stay within the institutions.

The previously allowed collaborative model of 3+1 or 2+2 functioning as a recruitment pipeline for UK universities has been replaced by 4+0 for the last few years, as the ‘encouraged’ model of the Ministry of Education (MoE) in China. Of course, within the MoE-governed model of 4+0, leaves the flexibility and possibility for the two partner universities to offer 2+2 or 3+1 routes and options to its students.

Motivation of Chinese universities

Here it is necessary to examine the motivation of Chinese universities in engaging with overseas partners in TNE. TNE has long been recognised as a route to learn from advanced Western institutions to enhance its offerings in the country. This ‘learning attitude’ sometimes sets the Chinese university at a less confident partnership relation. One of the criteria to gain approval from the MoE is to import high-quality education from abroad, often quantified by QS or THE ranking. When a UK university does not have the prestige of global ranking, the national ranking or subject ranking also comes to the rescue.

It is worth noting that since COVID-19, the publicity of joint institutes also started to see new rhetoric about offering high-quality international education at home. This espouses the post-Covid-19 trend of Chinese students staying in China or Asia. The tough job market in China blames the 'quality' and 'quantity' of higher educational provisions, whereas high-quality international education, manifested through QS or THE ranking, is still favoured by Chinese employers, both state-run and private organisations.

Motivation of UK universities

The motivation of UK universities in establishing TNE varies. One laudable motivating factor is the desire to create new models and new experiences of plurilingual and pluricultural higher education with high levels of quality long before world rankings reflect the realities of such provision by a new transnational provider. In this ambitious context, the foundations of educational hybridity are exceptionally strong and consist of a combination of many aspects including Chinese philosophical traditions and excellence in mathematical sciences and scientific innovation delivered in English by Asian educators; Anglophone and so Western thought and practices from across a broad spectrum of disciplines delivered by international staff trained in and contributing to long-established centres of research-led excellence. Significant financial power arises from high fees and student numbers as well as Chinese state investment.

There has been criticism of the financial motivation in TNE, where the UK universities charge franchise or validation fees per student, or utilise TNE as its recruitment channel. Of course, for some research-intensive universities, the drive could be to explore research collaborative opportunities, knowledge exchange, reputational building or widening participation at a global scale. For some others, it could be simply seizing the seemingly golden opportunity by following what others are doing so they do not feel left behind.

Of course, the high mobility of staff at UK universities also means that certain projects initiated and driven by individual senior staff face a lack of expertise and support when the relevant staff leave the university. This equally applies to the partner universities in China when a TNE project is driven by individuals rather than a committee or buy-in from wider stakeholders.

Speaking with Gordon Leonard, Head of Partnership at the University of Stirling,

“There are still huge opportunities for establishing more TNE there, appetite still seems strong, and parts of the country also seem to be moving ahead to open up more such as Hainan. The pandemic also taught Unis that having on-the-ground delivery there is important to further the internationalisation agenda even when border restrictions mean other forms were challenging e.g. direct recruitment.”

In the sector, we often celebrate the milestone in successfully setting up a new project; but less on navigating the complexity by overcoming the multifaceted challenges in the delivery of TNE in China.

Financial Viability

TNE in China is certainly not a quick win for financial return. Typically, UK universities even operate at a loss for the first few years. At the early stage of the collaboration, it is common practice for the UK university to invest in the project without being able to balance the book, such as staffing, teaching resources, LMS and sometimes infrastructure. Most of the time, the bet is on the student's recruitment opportunities through 2+2 or 3+1 within the model of 4+0, or UG graduates progressing to the UK partner for PG studies.

The MoE requires the UK partner to contribute to a minimum of 1/3 of the teaching and curriculum. So, this leaves the two partner universities to negotiate and agree on the teaching percentage (even more than 1/3 delivered by the UK partner) the contribution of the recourses (physical and online library, LMS, labs) and the subsequent financial split of the tuition fees.

However, the underlining principle of TNE in China, as a public service, non-profit nature, often contradicts the financial motivation of partner universities. This also means that the two parties need to reach an agreement on the level of tuition fee that is within the local financial regulation but also attractive enough to ensure the full enrolment of the allocated quota with high-quality students. Quite often we might hear some UK universities enter a collaboration without really understanding what they are committing to until later when they have to enter the scenario of re-negotiation the deal. A sustainable financial model serves as the key to ensuring a successful long-term collaboration delivering high-quality education.

Cultural challenges

Hofstede's dimensions of cultural communications place the two countries almost at the two extreme ends of each framework, including power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and short vs. long-term orientation. This, in the work setting, translates into the invisible social and work norms and expectations, such as dinner table etiquette, running a meeting, negotiation, decision-making, staff recruitment, and perceived high quality of teaching and learning.

For instance, it is not unusual to learn that meetings are mostly for the purpose of announcing news or decisions in China rather than a platform for discussions, in particular, with regard to critical matters in the running of TNE. When it comes to staff appointment in the Chinese context, there are also system-dominating or relationship-influencing factors or variables that play a big part in the process, instead of the person's capability or prior experience or knowledge.

Speaking with Stephane Waller, who worked on TNE in China for over 10 years, he commented that

"power distance plays a major role in the effectiveness of running an institute. In the Chinese context, staff are 'expected' not to question the decisions made by the senior staff, whereas this might not always work with international staff who are used to a participative approach in raising their voices. "

Curriculum Development

The MoE requires that the foreign partner needs to contribute to 1/3 of the curriculum and actual teaching delivery. In practice, there are various models, a hybrid of 1/3 from the UK +2/3 from the university in China; or minor modification based on the Chinese existing curriculum, or franchise of the same content from the UK, or a jointly developed curriculum. Daguo Li and Elisabeth Wilding also argue that the institutional and structural differences, eg. local system/procedures/QA also represent challenges in TNE in China.

According to Professor Chris Harris, University of Lancaster, of the associated challenges, perhaps one that is relatively new and less obvious is strategic divergence expressed through curriculum development. Ambitious TNE arrangements that are joint-venture can witness the rapid coming to intellectual and organisational maturity of the new provider – in metaphorical terms the Chinese-born child of two parents who are from China and the UK respectively. The ‘child’ who is now ‘adult’ seeks to do things that the parents cannot both support equally.

For example, what happens when the new transnational provider in China wants to deliver research-led programmes in a particular area which is a priority for a critical mass of the institution's Chinese researchers, and for China's MOE, but is not simultaneously a research and teaching strength of the UK-based partner or international staff? Is there then a need for a third party in the Anglophone world to join the transnational project and validate the new programmes, maybe even to award the degrees? The complexities and rivalries of international re-organisationsation, and the array of new pathways forward, may well be self-evident. The ‘right’ choices are certainly not.

Academic delivery by the UK partner

The minimum of 1/3 teaching delivery by UK universities presents its own complexity, either through flying faculty, locally based full-time staff seconded from the UK, or locally based permanent staff recruited through a third party.

To have international staff working in China, comes with its challenges of course, starting from staff recruitment to identifying suitable staff who understand the opportunities and challenges of working in China, the extremely lengthy visa application process, medical insurance in China, suitable accommodation and cost, safeguarding, staff induction, development and retention. What happens when an international staff is hospitalised? What kind of support should a university provide?

The 'Flying faculty' model means possible disruption to teaching and learning in the UK, the cost of the flights and hotels, and the lack of continuity of student support locally. Now we also have to bear in mind the environmental sustainability in regularly flying staff to China if an alternative option is available.

When a third party is involved in the establishment and running of a TNE project, there are also cases where the international staff, the responsibility of the UK university, are channelled through the 3rd party, typically a local business or educational agency. Naturally, it makes the operation process a lot easier from the UK university's perspective, but it also represents potential threats to the quality of staff and quality of teaching delivery, as well as the overall nurturing of the partnership and staff upskilling of the two universities.

The MoE stipulates that a minimum of 1/3 of teaching (including the teaching hours) needs to be delivered by staff employed by the UK university. But fortunately, it allows the flexibility of two partners to determine the calculation of the 1/3, being lectures, tutorials, or guided independent study or through different years. But this flexibility sometimes also presents complexity and tension to the relationship if parties cannot easily reach an agreement.

The collaboration between UK university-employed staff and Chinese staff, the partnership between the subject study and English, always come with various challenges but also successful stories. The success of TNE is greatly based on the measurement of high-quality student experience and by whose criteria and standards. It can be argued that the collaborative attitude and open-mindedness from both sides function as an imperative factor in making it or breaking it, from the senior management level to the academic staff.

Of course, the firewall of China signifies that most students and staff in China encounter challenges in accessing the LMS popularly used in the UK. It also diminishes the possibility of sharing teaching resources and academic collaboration between international staff based in China and staff running the equivalent course in the UK; the same applies to student collaboration across borders. While we still choose to go to the library to borrow books, online resources have now become the primary source of gathering data or research. The complexity of licences of learning resources means that this is another almost insurmountable challenge for some small institutes as a result of the associated cost (staffing, legal) and complexity in negotiating contracts with different providers.

Conclusion

Successfully setting up a TNE in China is not easy. It takes time, commitment, knowledge and experience. It takes typically 1-2 years to learn about a new partner and to create a trusting relationship in committing to such a significant project. Subsequently, it takes another1-3 year to prepare for the MoE application and launch of the project.

But to run a TNE effectively in China requires a lot more to navigate the complexity of educational and cultural differences and expectations, and the power hierarchy of two partners, not to mention the evolving geopolitics between the UK and China. The unwritten rules are the most challenging ones to make sense of.

Nothing remains static, and TNE in China is constantly changing, and becoming ontologically! It is always good practice to pause, reflect, review, reassess then take action.