Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Foreign market entry mode choices in the internationalization
of higher education institutions
Dr. Harald Dolles
Visiting Professor in International Business
University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law
Gothenburg, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]
Professor of Management & International Business
German Graduate School of Management and Law
Heilbronn, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
Page 1 of 26 ANZAM 2009
1
Foreign market entry mode choices in the internationalization
of higher education institutions
ABSTRACT
Internationalization is a major concern for higher education institutions (HEIs). Current research
investigates the drivers for internationalization by applying a macro perspective, but do not analyze
how HEI respond to those effects of globalization. Based on cases collected in the HE sector we
develop a framework of foreign market entry modes by HEIs. Those are discussed on the basis of
resource commitment, relational friction and control. By comparing our analysis with entry mode
strategies applied in the service industry we recognize that those are not generalizable to the HE
sector. We therefore conclude that the choices for HEIs are unique that further research efforts should
be devoted to analyze foreign market entry choices for HEIs.
KEYWORDS
Higher education institutions; internationalization strategies; entry mode choices; service industry
INTRODUCTION1
Internationalization is a major concern for the management of higher education institutions (HEIs).
The results of the 2005 International Association of Universities’ (IAU) study show that 73 per cent
of HEIs consider internationalization at institutional level of their universities with high priority (23
per cent with medium priority)(Knight, 2005: 13). Australia and New Zealand since long are highly
active in the export of higher education (HE) services (Oettli, 1999). During the 1990s also European
HEIs increasingly started to establish off-shore institutions and to recruit foreign students. INSEAD
e.g. opened his campus in Singapore in 2000 and established thereafter centers to promote its
programs in Abu Dhabi, UAE, India and China (http://www.insead.edu/discover_insead/who_we_are/
history.cfm, last accessed 20 January 2009). In another case, with a clear European vision towards
1 I acknowledge the support by Denise Steckstor (GGS-Heilbronn) to a previous version of this paper.
Page 2 of 26ANZAM 2009
2
Easter Europe the European University Viadrina in Germany was founded 1991 in Frankfurt (Oder)
close to the German-Polish border operating faculty buildings in Germany as well as in Poland
(http://www.euv-frankfurt-o.de/en/ueber_uns/index.html, last accessed 20 January 2009).
Globalization, technology innovations, massification and new competition from private institutions in
HE are the main factors that increased the pressure for HEIs to internationalize their curriculum,
student body, faculty, staff and institutional structures. These developments and the decline in public
funding increasingly aggravate the pressure for HEIs to act entrepreneurially at a corporate level to
enter foreign markets. The benefits associated with internationalization are summarized in Figure 1.
Internationalization of the student body and faculty as well as improved academic quality are ranked
most important followed by strengthen research, curriculum innovation and international solidarity.
------------------------------------------
Place Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------------------
This research aims to contribute to a knowledge base for HEIs when making decisions on their
internationalization strategy. Thus we build on the findings by Hardy, Langley, Mintzberg and Rose
(1983, 1984) that HEIs are inundated with strategies as consistent patterns of actions: within study
programs and department developments, about research funding and approaches to tenure, concerning
teaching etc. (Mintzberg & Rose, 2003). We just do not know how strategies evolve in the HEI
setting, how they interrelate and how HEI weight tradeoffs especially in their internationalization
strategy to achieve the highest benefits to the institution. The impact of entry modes on the success of
an internationalization strategy in manufacturing was recognized as essential already by Wind and
Perlmutter (1977), followed by a stream of research on the topic, reviewed and synthesized e.g. by
Sarkar and Cavusgil (1996). As an outcome of the growing research interest in the internationalization
of the service industry (e.g. Bouquet, Hébert & Delios, 2004; Aharoni & Nachum, 2000; Clark,
Rajaratnam & Smith, 1996; Aharoni, 1993; Andersen, 1993; Vandermerwe & Chadwick 1989;
Boddewyn, Halbrich & Perry 1987) research on entry mode strategies in services emerged as central
Page 3 of 26 ANZAM 2009
3
topics (e.g. the overview provided by Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006; Ekeledo & Sivakumar,
1998; Erramilli, 1990). A study of the literature, however, raises the question, whether research
findings on entry mode strategies taken from manufacturing or other service industries are
generalizable to the HE sector.
Manufacturing firms and service firms may enter foreign markets using a variety of entry modes, for
example, exports, licensing, joint ventures or wholly-owned subsidiaries. The choice of a foreign
market entry mode is usually related with the commitment of resources and the level of control
(Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006). Control, understood as the ability to influence systems,
methods and decisions (Anderson & Gatignon, 1986), is crucial as it applied to ensure achievement of
the ultimate business purpose of the investment (Dolles, 2003). In addition, resource commitment and
control appears to be significant factors determining both risks and returns especially in co-operative
agreements, the amount of relational friction between business partners, and finally the performance
of the overseas investment (Dolles & Wilmking, 2005; Barkema & Vermeulen, 1998; Barkema, Bell
& Pennings, 1996; Wurche 1994a, 1994b). Controlling the face to the customer even when entering
foreign markets only allows HEIs to provide good quality services to their students, thus protecting
their reputation and increase their international brand value. Therefore this research concerning entry
mode choices of HEIs and the implications towards commitment of resources, relational friction and
to control is important.
After briefly introducing the methodology applied and defining important terms, we develop the
drivers for internationalization in the HE sector. Further a distinction between different levels of
foreign entry mode choices for HEIs, based on resource commitment, the danger of relational friction
and the possibility to exert control is made. Then we investigate whether research results on the
internationalization obtained from service industries might generalize to the HE sector. Finally
managerial and theoretical implications of this research are addressed.
METHODOLOGY
Page 4 of 26ANZAM 2009
4
The focus of this study is laid upon the institutional level of HEI and analyzes the most fundamental
decision when targeting foreign markets, i.e. foreign market entry mode choices. The following points
need to be made to capture this global development in the HE sector in research: First, international
studies on the HE sector must emphasize the political, economic, cultural and social patterns that
contour and shape modern HEIs. The second point concerns the concept of internationalization itself.
This concept refers to the growing interconnectedness, with multitude of transnational or global
economic and technological exchanges, communication networks and migratory patterns that
characterize this interconnected world pattern in HE.
The chosen methodology reflects the exploratory nature of our research and is based on the
suggestions to a systematic review by Lipsey and Wilson (2001). We searched the websites of
government and supranational institutions as well as top universities (taken from the Financial Times
Ranking) in order to gain information about drivers in the internationalization of HEI and about their
ways to access the international market. These searches yielded a number of documents, articles, and
reports that were placed in the literature pool. We applied next a qualitative content analysis in order
to identify internationalization drivers as well as different foreign market entry modes based on the
method suggested by Mayring (2000a, 2000b, 1994). This structural approach consisted of the
following steps: (1) Formulating structural categories for interpretation extracted from the literature
pool; (2) extracting definitions, examples, and rules for codification of the structural categories; (3)
compiling the data by attaching sequences out of the documents collected in the literature pool; and
(4) performing a qualitative analysis of the assembled data.
An academic literature review followed in order to provide scientifically-based evidence available to
support the preliminary composition of different foreign market entry choices for HEIs. Those articles
were added to the literature pool, too. In cases where strong scientifically-based research did not exist,
we decided to produce syntheses of research summarizing the evidence taken from practice.
Thereafter we reviewed the internationalization literature for service firms aiming to improve our
understanding of the foreign entry mode decision by service firms in different types of service
Page 5 of 26 ANZAM 2009
5
industries. The purpose was to explore, whether general research findings from the service industry
can be transferred to the HE sector, or whether the internationalization process of HEIs is so unique,
that there is a need to develop a separate theory to explain the foreign market entry strategies of HEIs.
Because of this step-wise development of our research topic we provide a more thorough,
comprehensive, and precise analysis that might also serve as a basis for future research on HEIs’
internationalization processes.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR
Internationalization has dominated HEI agendas and political discussions since the early 1990s
(Teichler, 2007; Kondakci, van den Broeck & Devos, 2006; Scott 1998; Knight & de Wit, 1995;
Davis, 1992), thus leading to a growing interest in research on this topic (refer to Table 1 on the main
streams of research). Existing studies focus on the developments from supranational or national
perspectives but mainly ignore the strategic implications of HE internationalization strategies at
institutional level. Altbach (2004) and Douglass (2005) focus on the general impact of globalization
on HE systems, whereas Bourke (2000), Larsen and Vincent-Lancrin (2002), Sadlak (1998) or
Teichler (2007) emphasize international student mobility flows and corresponding political programs
such as ERASMUS / ERASMUS MUNDUS / SOCRATES in Europe. International ranking processes
make HEIs generally, and business schools in particular, sensitive to issues of reputation, status or
legitimation (McKee, Mills & Weatherbee, 2005). HEIs therefore become increasingly sensitized to
how they were evaluated in the rankings and seek to brand themselves for compete for both students
and resources nationally and internationally. International accreditation is perceived as an esteemed
stamp of program approval and the process is recognized in research as having improved the quality
of business education (Hayward, 2001; Eaton, 2000; Mayes, Heide & Smith, 1993). Only a few case
studies examined internationalization at the institutional level of HEIs, thus looking at the
establishment and enhancement of a presence overseas (van der Wende, et al., 2005; McBurnie,
2000). The 2005 IAU Global Survey Report is the only large scale survey on the internationalization
of HEIs worldwide, providing data on the rationales for internationalization and examples on the
implementation of international measures. Nevertheless of this research efforts, there is still a gap to
Page 6 of 26ANZAM 2009
6
close concerning the institutional strategies of HEIs and the reasons why they opt for certain
internationalizations forms, in which sequence in time and whether they can achieve their goals
towards internationalization.
------------------------------------------
Place Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------------
DRIVERS FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION
According to Knight (1997: 6) “globalization is the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people,
values, ideas […] across borders. Globalization affects each country in a different way due to a
nation’s individual history, traditions, culture and priorities.” Beerkens (2004) adds a dynamic
perspective, when defining the globalization of HEIs, in which basic social arrangements within and
around the university to become disembedded from their national context due to the intensification of
transnational flows of people, information and resources. To integrate the two levels of aggregation,
the impact of globalization on nations as well as the increasing institutional internationalization of
HEI, we apply the following definition for our research: Globalization in the context of HE is the flow
of technology, knowledge, economy, peoples and their values across national borders, affecting each
nation in a different way. This leads to the dissociation of basic social arrangements within and
around HEIs from their national context. Internationalization strategies are considered as the way
HEIs respond to, or actively exploit, those effects of globalization.
At the same time internationalization is a driver for globalization and shapes the process through the
internationalization activities. Knight and de Wit (1995: 17) consider internationalization of HE as
“the process of integrating the international dimension into the teaching, research and service
functions of an institution of HE.” The terms ‘transnational education’ or ‘multinationalization’
(Altbach, 2004; Teichler, 2007) are often utilized in the context of international education.
Transnational education is a key element of a possible internationalization strategy of a HEI, where
international education markets are targeted by the institution. It can be defined as HE services,
Page 7 of 26 ANZAM 2009
7
including programs, sets of courses or distance learning, where the student is located in a different
country than the awarding HEI (dos Santos, 2000; Teichler, 2007).
Key drivers pushing the internationalization process of HE are discussed below. These can be
distinguished into the four groups of political, economic, academic and cultural/social/technological
factors as described in Figure 2.
------------------------------------------
Place Figure 2 about here
-------------------------------------------
MARKET ENTRY MODES OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
There are several different options to target the international market in HE as illustrated in Figure 4.
The decision of the market entry mode is fundamental since it effects the institution as a whole and
needs to be undertaken carefully at the beginning of the internationalization strategy (Aharoni, 1966;
Erramilli & Rao, 1993, 1990; Terpstra & Sarathy, 1994). 70 per cent of HEIs find the implementation
of internationalization activities fraught with risks (refer to figure 3), which underpins once again the
critical importance of choosing a suitable entry mode strategy for HEIs.
------------------------------------------
Place Figure 4 about here
-------------------------------------------
The most common forms of HE internationalization are the mobility of students and scholars. Large
numbers of students study abroad for a certain period of time or a complete program including a
degree abroad. In order to cope with the increasing international demand the number of international
distance learning programs is increasing. Delivered online, they do not require the physical presence
of the students, who could even be located on a different continent. Among the contractual forms of
internationalization the partial credit recognition between two or HEIs, called ‘articulation’, is most
common. The concept of ‘franchising’ in HE involves the use more resources to enter a foreign
Page 8 of 26ANZAM 2009
8
education market than articulation. One HEI (franchiser) authorizes another HEI (franchisee) in the
target country to offer the programs developed by the franchiser and to award the degree of the
franchiser. This concept is also referred to as ‘McDonaldisation’ of HEIs (Altbach, 2004; dos Santos,
2000). ‘Twinning’ is a kind of co-production agreement between two HEIs to offer joint programs
(double degree programs) where students attend parts of their studies at both institutions. These
agreements are known as double or multiple agreements between HEIs, where students are able to
obtain two or three final degrees as a result of these agreements. The establishment of ‘joint ventures’
is another option to enter a foreign education market that requires direct investment and the
commitment of resources but allows a higher level of control than contractual entry modes. Another
form of direct investment would be the establishment of a ‘branch or satellite campus’, where the new
campus offers the programs of the mother institution (Jones, 2001). An ‘off-shore institution’ is
similar to a branch, but is autonomous and does offer its own degrees (Teichler, 2007).
APPLYING EXPERIENCES FROM SERVICE INDUSTRIES FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION
In comparison to research on the HE sector foreign entry mode strategies have been studied
extensively in service industries. Blomstermo, Sharma and Sallis (2006) state, that especially during
the last decade, research on how service firms enter foreign markets has accelerated. Contractor, Kudu
and Hsu (2003) argue that there are substantial differences among different types of services.
Research on the internationalization of services therefore focus specific service industries like hotels
(Gannon & Johnson, 1997; Littlejohn & Roper 1991), retailing (Burt, Dawson & Sparks, 2003;
Andersson, 2002; Dawson, 2001), financial services (Grosse, 1997) or tourism (Björkman & Kock,
1997). Ekeledo and Sivakumar (1998: 278) suggest to use the distinction between hard and soft
services “to reduce the large diversity of the service sector and uncovers useful insights about
international entry modes that extend beyond individual service industries.” This typology is
frequently applied in the research on the internationalization of service firms (e.g. by Blomstermo,
Sharma & Sallis, 2006; Ekeledo, & Sivakumar, 2003; Majkgard & Sharma, 1998; Hellmann, 1996;
Erramilli & Rao, 1993).
Page 9 of 26 ANZAM 2009
9
For soft services, production and consumption happen simultaneously, as it is the case with HE. In
contrast to this, hard services are those where production and consumption can be decoupled. Thus
hard services can be stored in a tangible form such as software or R&D services (Erramilli, 1990),
which can be transferred in a document or some other tangible media. They might be standardized,
thus making mass production feasible. This is only important for a few distance learning types in the
HE sector. With soft services, where production and consumption occur simultaneously, decoupling is
not viable (Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006). For the purpose of our research we therefore assume
“educational services” might classify as soft services, whereby the key characteristic is that the
customer, in the HE case the student, is the co-producer of the service. We propose further that it
might be possible for HEIs to opt for similar internationalization strategies as soft services firms.
Sanchez-Peinado, Pla-Barber and Hérbert (2007) state that knowledge intensive HE services are
difficult to transfer on a contractual basis. Accordingly, we assume HEIs would prefer fully owned
subsidiaries in their internationalization strategies, such as branch campuses or off-shore institutions.
This would guarantee the highest level of control over program delivery, reduce relational friction and
allow the best service quality management. At the same time, a high control level demands stronger
resource commitment, especially into HR capacities, but it allows direct control over quality standards
and to correspondingly build up reputation, which is extremely important in the highly competitive
HE markets. We might therefore assume, the important assets of a HE institution’s brand value and
reputation can be transported best to the foreign students by establishing an overseas facility. Only the
strong local presence facilitates to build up personal relationships which are necessary for this type of
service (Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006). To differentiate through the personalization of the
service, the interaction with the consumers is a major success factor for service companies, as it is for
HEIs. By establishing local branches or off-shore institutions HEIs can gain insight into the local
demands of the market and are able to adjust services accordingly. Still, the choosing of a high control
entry mode bares a high commitment of resources due to the necessary capital investment.
Universities from New Zealand explained that when they established satellite campuses abroad they
Page 10 of 26ANZAM 2009
10
were faced with problems of scale. The adjustment to local laws and employment conditions caused
as well difficulties for the HEIs (http://www.minedu.govt.nz/, accessed 20 February 2008).
The criteria of the service typology of knowledge intensity, used by Sanchez-Peinado, Pla-Barber and
Hérbert (2007) and other scholars (Contractor, Kundu, & Hsu, 2003; Hertog, 2000; Windrum &
Tomlinson, 1999) might also be applied to educational services. Human capital is the most important
factor for knowledge intensive services as it is the case with education. Furthermore, Vandermerwe
and Chadwick (1989) systemize services on the basis of consumer/producer interaction and the
relative involvement of products during the service delivery. Knowledge (primarily in the form of
information provided to consumers) is a key factor in Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) service-centered
perspective on marketing. They defined service as “the application of specialized competences
(knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or
the entity itself” (ibid.: 2). According to their model, knowledge can be extended to the entire service-
provision chain, and in that chain the primary flow is information to a consumer who desires it. From
their perspective, primary marketing activities include interactivity, integration, customization and co-
production. Applying this to HE services where value is defined and co-created with the student rather
than embedded in output, the goal of HE is to customize offerings for international markets and to
recognize that the student is always a co-producer, and to strive to maximize involvement in the
customization.
We might therefore claim that HEIs with the characteristics of high knowledge intensity, where value
is defined and co-created in high interaction with the student, and low involvement of products would
opt for an entry mode with high control and investment, such as fully or partly owned direct
investment options. They would less likely choose to enter a market through exporting (students,
faculty, distance learning) since this is the entry mode with the lowest level of control over the
delivery of the services abroad. However as the number of student and faculty exchange programs is
growing and a growing number of contractual agreements between HEIs is recorded (Knight, 2007)
the arguments by Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006; Erramilli & Rao, 1993; Erramilli, 1991 are not
Page 11 of 26 ANZAM 2009
11
supported in the HE sector, that soft service firms are more likely to choose high control entry modes.
In addition the Ministry of Education NZ came to the conclusion when striving towards transnational
education activities, that “perhaps the best approach, both in terms of mode of delivery and financial
risk, is seen to be twinning programmes or joint ventures with local, established partners that involve
an arrangement to offer curriculum and/or teaching without direct offshore capital investment”
(http://www.minedu.govt.nz, accessed 20 February 2008). This finding is also a clear distinction from
findings of the manufacturing industry where firms follow the different stages from exporting to
foreign direct investment (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). It addresses the purpose of our paper that
research findings from manufacturing or other service industries are not always generalizable to the
HE sector. The entry mode of a contractual agreement, such as franchising, lies in the middle of the
two ends of this axis. Figure 5 shows the different possible entry modes for HEIs and the
corresponding level of control, commitment and relational friction.
------------------------------------------
Place Figure 5 about here
-------------------------------------------
In a call for marketing practitioners and scholars to change their theoretical approach to marketing,
Gummesson (2002), recommended a reduction in the distinction between producer and consumer and
conceptualized the consumer as an “active co-producer, user, and value creator” (ibid.: 587). He
presented two “new economy” marketing theory perspectives; the first of which includes three
factors: goods, services, and information technology. “In services, customer-supplier interaction and
relationships in the service encounter stands out as the most distinctive feature separating them from
goods” (ibid.: 586). The second perspective included two sub-economies - value and networks. The
value economy focuses on the desired output and the network economy focuses on the character of
the input. Similar to the view of Vargo and Lusch (2004), Gummesson (2002) contends that in the
new economy, “suppliers both produce and consume value and exist in networks, and customers do
the same. Value is not present until an offering is used for something and experienced as satisfying a
need for somebody” (ibid.: 587). In HE this requests to develop reflection on how HEIs can provide
Page 12 of 26ANZAM 2009
12
the right mix of skills and competencies for the labor market, which e.g. was one of the objectives
mapped out in the European Bologna Qualifications Framework (http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/
hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/QF-EHEA-May2005.pdf, last accessed 20 February 2008).
CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Globalization in the context of HE is the flow of technology, knowledge, economy, peoples and their
values across national borders, affecting each nation in a different way. This leads to the dissociation
of basic social arrangements within and around HEIs from their national context. Internationalization
strategies are considered as the way HEIs respond to, or actively exploit, those effects of
globalization. Compared to foreign market entry modes found in manufacturing or other service
industries we developed a framework of entry modes by HEI with four distinct categories: Export
(student/scholar mobility/teaching assignments/distance education), contractual modes (articulation,
twinning, franchising), co-operative modes (joint ventures) and wholly owned forms (branch
campus/satellite campus/off-shore institution).
Knowledge intensive HE services are difficult to transfer on a contractual basis. Accordingly, we
assume HEIs would prefer fully owned subsidiaries in their internationalization strategies, such as
branch campuses or off-shore institutions. This would guarantee the highest level of control over
program delivery, reduce relational friction and allow the best service quality management. At the
same time, a high control level demands stronger resource commitment but it allows direct control
over quality standards and to correspondingly build up reputation, which is extremely important in the
highly competitive HE market. We therefore propose, the important assets of a HE institution’s brand
value and reputation can be transported best abroad by establishing a branch or satellite campus.
Empirical evidence from the 2005 International Association of Universities’ study however show, that
most HEIs prefer ‘export’ as the most common form of internationalization. Various cases describing
contractual forms of internationalization could be found through our own survey, whereas joint-
ventures are mentioned only seldom. Wholly owned branch campuses or off-shore institutions where
faced with problems of scale. The adjustment to local laws and employment conditions caused as well
Page 13 of 26 ANZAM 2009
13
difficulties for the HEIs. We therefore might conclude that research findings taken from
internationalization strategies found in the service industry are not always generalizable to the HE
sector. The choices of foreign entry modes and the steps taken in the internationalization process of
HEIs are pretty much unique. This issue needs more research. Furthermore, we do not know how
successful different entry mode strategies are and which obstacles the institutions face during their
internationalization measures. However, it seems to be clear from the empirical data that HEIs will
continue to internationalize, targeting new markets, thus creating even more demand for research.
Our analysis also has important managerial implications for HEIs. First, this research shows that there
are differences between the HE sector and the service industry with regard to the selection of foreign
market entry mode. Specifically, HEIs are much more likely to choose an export or contractual mode
than the soft-service industry would opt for. Second, as it is important for HEIs to co-create value
with the students the goal of HE marketing should be is to customize offerings, to recognize that the
consumer is always a co-producer, and to strive to maximize consumer involvement in the
customization. Nevertheless, the pursuit of profit goals can lead to the loss of essential values within
the culture of the HEI, as soon as only these dominate the organization. HEIs should interrogate
themselves whether they want risk this loss. Therefore, a careful balancing of the traditional HE
values and entrepreneurial objectives is desirable.
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. (Ed.) 1993. Coalitions and competition: globalization of professional business services.
London: Routledge.
Aharoni, Y. 1966. The foreign investment decision process. Boston: MA Graduate School of Business
Administration, Harvard University.
Aharoni, Y. & Nachum, L. (Eds.) 2000. Globalization of services: some implications for theory and
practice. London: Routledge.
Altbach, P.G. 2004. Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world.
Tertiary Education and Management, (10)1: 3-25.
Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. 2006. The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and
realities. The NEA 2006 almanac of higher education, 1-11.
Page 14 of 26ANZAM 2009
14
Andersen, O. 1993. On the internationalization process of firms: a critical analysis. Journal of
International Business Studies, 24(2): 209-231.
Anderson, E. & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: a transaction cost analysis and
propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 1-26
Andersson, P. 2002. Connected internationalisation processes: the case of internationalising channel
intermediaries. International Business Review, 11(3): 365-383.
Austin, B. (Ed.) 2000. Capitalizing knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Barkema, H.G. & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: a
learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 7-27.
Barkema, H.G.; Bell, J.H.J. & Pennings, J.M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(2): 151-166.
Beerkens H.J.J.G. 2004. Global opportunities and institutional embeddedness: Higher education
consortia in Europe and southeast Asia. Enschede: CHEPS.
Björkman, I. & Kock, S. 1997. Inward international activities in service firms – illustrated by three
cases from the tourism industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(5):
362-376.
Blomstermo, A.; Sharma, D. D. & Sallis, J. 2006. Choice of foreign market entry mode in service
firms. International Marketing Review, 23(2): 211-229.
Boddewyn, J.J.; Halbrich, M.B. & Perry, A.C. 1987. Service multinationals: conceptualization,
mearsurement, and theory. International Executive, 29(1): 41-57.
Bouquet, C.; Hébert, L. & Delios, A. 2004. Foreign expansion in service industries: separability and
human capital intensity. Journal of Business Research, 57(1): 35-46.
Bourke, A. 2000. A model of determinants of international trade in higher education. The Service
Industries Journal, 20(1): 110-138.
Burt, S.; Dawson, J. & Sparks, L. 2003. Failure in international retailing: research propositions.
International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 13(4): 1
Clark, T.; Rajaratnam, D. & Smith, T. 1996. Toward a theory of international service: marketing
intangibles in a world of nations. Journal of International Marketing, 4(2): 9-28.
Contractor, F.; Kundu, S. K. & Hsu, C. 2003. A three-stage theory of international expansion: The
link between multinationality and performance in the service sector. Journal of International
Business Studies, 34(1): 48-60.
Currie, J. 2003. Australian universities as entrepreneurial universities: Transformed player on global
stage. In G. Breton & M. Lambert (Eds.), Universities and globalization: Private linkages,
public trust: 179-194. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
da Silva, B.D.; Gomes, M.J.; Oliveira, L.R. & Blanco, E. 2009. The use of ICT in higher education:
Work in Progress at the University of Minho. http://www.uoc.edu/dt/20137/index.html, last
accessed 25 February 2009.
Page 15 of 26 ANZAM 2009
15
Davies, J. L. 1992. Developing a strategy for internationalization in universities: Towards a
conceptual framework. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for
internationalizing higher education: 177-190. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Dawson, J. (2001). Strategy and opportunism in European retail internationlization, British Journal of
Management. 12(4): 253-266.
Dolles, H. (2003). Trust in Intercultural Co-operative Ventures between Japanese and German Small
and Medium-sized Companies. In H. Kopp (Ed.), Area Studies, Business and Culture: 372-382.
Hamburg: LIT.
Dolles, H. & Wilmking, N. (2005). Trust or distrust? China’s accession to the World Trade
Organization and its strategic implications for Chinese-foreign joint ventures. In A. Giroud; D.
Yang & A. Mohr (Eds.), Multinationals and Asia: Organizational and Institutional
Relationships: 87-109. Abington/New York: Routledge/Curzon.
dos Santos, S.M. 2000. Introduction to the theme of transnational education. In Proceedings of the
conference of the directors general for higher education and the heads of the rectors’
conferences of the European Union. Aveiro.
Douglass, J.A. 2005. All globalization is local: Countervailing forces and the influence on higher
education markets. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California:
1-26.
Eaton, J.S. 2000. Accreditation: on higher education in the United States. Santa Barbara CA: ABC-
CLIO /CHEA.
Ekeledo, I. & Sivakumar, K. 2003. International market entry mode strategies of manufacturing firms
and service firms: A resource-based perspective. International Marketing Review, 21(1): 68-
101.
Ekeledo, I. & Sivakumar, K. 1998. Foreign market entry mode choices of service firms: a contingency
perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4): 274-292.
Engberg, D. & Green, M.F. 2002. Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive
internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education
Erramilli, M.K. 1991. The experience factor in foreign market entry behavior of service firms.
Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3): 479-501.
Erramilli, M.K. 1990. Entry mode choice in service industries. International Marketing Review,
7(5/6): 50-62.
Erramilli, M.K. & Rao, C.P. 1993. Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: A modified
transaction-cost analysis approach. Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 19-38.
Erramilli, M.K. & Rao, C.P. 1990. Choice of foreign market entry modes by service firms: role of
market knowledge. Management International Review, 30(2): 135-151.
Gannon, J. & Johnson, K. 1997. Socialization control and market entry modes in the international
hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(5/6): 193-
198.
Grosse, R. 1997. The future of the global financial services industry. International Executive, 39(5)
599-617.
Page 16 of 26ANZAM 2009
16
Gummesson, E. 2002. Relationship marketing and a new economy: it’s time for de-programming.
Journal of Services Marketing, 16(7), 585-589.
Hardy, C.; Langley, A.; Mintzberg, H. & Rose, J. 1984. Strategy formation in the university setting.
Review of Higher Education, 6(4): 407-433.
Hardy, C.; Langley, A.; Mintzberg, H. & Rose, J. 1983. Strategy formation in the university setting.
In J.L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization: 169-210. New York: New York
University Press.
Hayward, F.M. 2001. Finding a common voice for accreditation internationally. International Quality
Review, http://www.chea.org/international/common-voice.html, last accessed 28 February
2009.
Hellmann, P. 1996. The internationalization of Finnish financial service companies. International
Business Review, 5(2): 191-208.
Hertog, P. 2000. Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4): 491-528.
Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J.E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge
development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business
Studies, 8(1): 23-32.
Jones, G.R. 2001. Bridging the challenges of transnational education and accreditation. Higher
Education in Europe, 26(1): 107-116.
Kehm, B.M. 1999. Strategic management of internationalisation processes: problems and options.
Tertiary Education and Management, 5(4): 371-382.
Knight, J. & de Wit, H. 1995. Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: historical and
conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for the internationalisation of higher
education. A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of
America: 5-32. Amsterdam: EAIE Secretariat.
Knight, J. 2005. Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges: 2005 IAU
Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities.
Knight, J. 1997. Internationalization of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H.
de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries: 5-19.
Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.
Kondakci, Y.; van den Broeck, H. & Devos, G. 2006. More management concepts in the academy:
Internationalization as an organizational change process. Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper
Series 2006/28, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
Larsen, K. & Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2002. International trade in educational services: good or bad?
Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(3): 9-45.
Larsen, K.; Martin, J. & Morris, R. 2002. Trade in higher education services: trends and emerging
issues. The World Economy, 25(6): 849-868.
Lipsey, M.N. & Wilson, D.B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage.
Page 17 of 26 ANZAM 2009
17
Littlejohn, D. & Roper, A. 1991. Changes in international hotel company’s strategies. In R. Teare &
A. Boer (Eds.), Strategic hospitality management: theory and practice for the 1990s: 194-212.
London: Cassell.
Mayes, B.T.; Heide, D. & Smith, E. 1993. Anticipated changes in the business school curriculum: a
survey of deans in AACSB-accredited and non-accredited schools. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 6(1): 54-63.
McAllister, M.P. & Turow, J. 2002. New media and the commercial sphere: two intersecting trends,
five categories of concern. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(4): 510-515.
McBurnie, G. & Pollock, A. 2000. Decision making for offshore activities: a case study on Monash
University. In D. Davis; A. Olsen & A. Bohm (Eds.), Transnational Education Providers,
Partners and Policy: Challenges for Australian Institutions Offshore: 53-66. Canberra: IDP
Education Australia.
McKee, M.C.; Mills, A.J. & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Institutional field of dreams: exploring the AACSB
and the new legitimacy of Canadian business schools. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 22(4): 288-301.
Majkgard, A. & Sharma, D.D. 1998. Client-following and market-seeking strategies in the
internationalization of service firms. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 4(3): 1-41.
Mayring, P. 2000a. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 1(2): Article 20, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-
fqs0002204, last accesed 2009-02-04.
Mayring, P. 2000b. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundfragen und Techniken (7th
ed.). Weinheim:
Deutscher Studienverlag.
Mayring, P. 1994. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In A. Böhm; A. Mengel & T. Muhr (Eds.), Texte
verstehen: Konzepte, Methoden, Werkzeuge: 159-176. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.
McBurnie, G. 2000. Pursuing internationalization as a means to advance the academic mission of the
university: an Australian case study. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1): 63-73.
Mintzberg, H. & Rose, J. 2003. Strategic management upside down: tracking strategies at McGill
University from 1829 to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(4): 270-290.
Oettli, P. 1999. The marketing of higher education in New Zealand and Australia. In Wächter, B.
(Ed.) Internationalization in higher education - A paper and seven essays in the tertiary sector:
165-172. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags- und Mediengesellschaft mbH & ACA Papers on
International Cooperation in Education.
Sadlak, J. 1998. Globalization and concurrent challenges for higher education. In P. Scott (Ed.), The
globalization of higher education: 100-107. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Sanchez-Peinado, E.; Pla-Barber, J. & Hérbert, L. 2007. Strategic variables that influence entry mode
choice in service firms. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1): 67-91.
Sarkar, M. & Cavusgil, S.T. 1996. Trends in international business thought and literature: a review of
international market entry research: integration and synthesis. The International Executive,
38(6): 825-847.
Page 18 of 26ANZAM 2009
18
Scott, P. 1998. Massification, internationalization and globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The
globalization of higher education: 108-129. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Teichler, U. 2007. Die Internationalisierung der Hochschulen. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Terpstra, V. & Sarathy, R. 1994. International marketing (6th ed.). Fort Worth: Dryden Press.
Vandermerwe, S. & Chadwick, M. 1989. The internationalization of services. The Service Industries
Journal, 9(1): 79-93.
van der Wende, M.; Coate, K.; Kontigiannopoulou-Polydorides, G.; Liujten-Lub, A.; Stamelos, G.;
Papadiamantaki, Y. & Williams, G. 2005. International comparative analyis. In J. Huismann &
M. van der Wende (Eds.), On cooperation and competition II: Institutional responses to
internationalisation, europeanisation and globalisation: 201-234. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags-
und Mediengesellschaft mbH.
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1-17
Wächter, B. 1999. The internationalization in higher education: A paper and seven essays in the
tertiary sector. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags- und Mediengesellschaft mbH.
Wind, Y. & Perlmutter, H. 1977. On the identification of frontier issues in international marketing,
Columbia Journal of World Business. 12(4): 131-139.
Windrum, P. & Tomlinson, M. 1999. Knowledge-intensive services and international
competitiveness: A four country comparison. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
11(3): 1-22.
Wurche, S. 1994. Vertrauen und ökonomische Rationalität in kooperativen Interorganisations-
beziehungen. In J. Sydow & A. Windeler (Eds.) Management interorganisationaler
Beziehungen: 142-159. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag und Gabler.
Wurche, S. (1994). Strategische Kooperation für mittelständische Unternehmen. Entscheidungshilfen
zur Auswahl und Gestaltung zwischenbetrieblicher Kooperationen. Köln: Deutscher
Wirtschaftsdienst.
Yelland, R. 2000. Supranational organizations and transnational education. Higher Education in
Europe, 25(3): 297-303.
Page 19 of 26 ANZAM 2009
19
TABLE 1
Summary of Main Research Streams on Internationalization of Higher Education
Internationalization Form Author, Year Focus of Analysis Main Findings
Curriculum development Branch campus Franchise Twinning
Altbach, 2004
− Focus on the effects of globalization on HE
systems in the developing countries
− explorative analysis
− Powerful HEIs in developed countries dominate the
production and distribution of knowledge, although few
HEIs from Asia are approaching
− Staff and student mobility flows are largely directed from
South to North
− Central goal of multinational activities is to earn profit
Student mobility Bourke, 2000
− Focus on undergraduate medical education
− host country Ireland, sending country Malaysia
− In depth interviews with key personnel and
students
− Development of a model of determinants of trade in HE
(only student mobility)
Student mobility Staff mobility Distance learning Branch campus
Douglass, 2005 − general analysis of the effects of globalization
on the American HE market
− Globalization remains a potent force, but strong
countervailing forces do also have their impact on the US
HE market
Curriculum development Articulation/cooperation
Kehm, 1999
− Focus on the SOCRATES program
− Analysis of for the applications for SOCRATES
funding necessary HEIs’ European Policy
Statements (EPS)
− Interviews and workshops with key personnel
− most HEIs showed a targeted approach to
internationalization
Page 20 of 26ANZAM 2009
20
Internationalization Form Author, Year Focus of Analysis Main Findings
Student mobility Collaborations Curriculum development transnational education
Knight, 2005
− IAU global survey report questioning HEIs and
university associations at national and regional
levels
− Data collection from 95 countries with a sample
size of 526 HEIs
− Largest internationalization survey until now
− 73% of HEIs rank internationalization as a high priority
− Especially HEIs in developed countries compared to
developing countries ranked international profile and
income generation as important rationales for
internationalization
− 82% of HEIs have an internationalization strategy in
place
− The 3 most common internationalization forms were
institutional networks, student mobility, research
collaborations
− Recruitment of fee-paying students was ranked fourth
place as priority for growth
Organization and management of HEIs
Kondakci, van
den Broeck,
Devos, 2006
− managerial approach transferring organizational
change process literature to HEIs
− explorative analysis
− Development of guidelines to internationalize the HEIs
according to organizational change literature (strategy,
leadership, organizational culture, structure, management
practices, systems, climate etc.)
Student/scholar mobility Distance learning Foreign investment
Larsen, Vincent-
Lancrin, 2002
− Analysis of challenges and opportunities
through trade in HE services for HE systems in
high income and developing countries
− Macro economic perspective on the basis of
OECD data
− international market for HE services is expected to
continue to grow
− major problems will be the recognition of foreign
qualifications and quality regulation
Student mobility Branch Campuses Curriculum development
McBurnie,
Pollock, 2000
− case study on the Australian Monash University
and its individual internationalization strategy
− 3 perspectives: entrepreneurial, academic,
quality
− internationalization strategy is central to the future of the
university
− the university successfully set up locations abroad,
increased the number of international students,
established quality reviews and achieved a positive
student performance and financial situation
Student mobility Sadlak, 1998 − Focus on global student mobility flows
− Based on UESCO data
− ¾ of all foreign study takes place in only 10 OECD
countries
Page 21 of 26 ANZAM 2009
21
Internationalization Form Author, Year Focus of Analysis Main Findings
Student mobility HEI collaborations transnational education
Teichler, 2007
− Analysis drawing from several studies with
European and especially German focus
− Main focus on student mobility
− Supranational and national perspectives
− Internationalization of the HEIs is no longer limited to
elite universities and seen as an systematic and integral
part of the whole strategy
− Greece is the country with the highest presence of foreign
HE suppliers mainly from UK, France and the USA
Student/staff mobility Curriculum development Research collaboration
van der Wende
et al., 2005
− Case study analysis from 36 German,
Norwegian, English, Dutch, Greek, Portuguese
and Austrian HEIs
− most of HEIs participate in ERASMUS-Programme
− staff mobility is encouraged at faculty level and not
managed centrally
− all interviewed HEIs internationalized the curriculum of
their institutions including joint or double degree
programs
− all HEIs considered internationalization activities as
necessary for their institution
No specific form Yelland, 2000 − supranational perspective
− OECD data
− Most HEIs realized the importance of internationalization,
but still have to actively take more measures
− HEIs need to act more entrepreneurial
Page 22 of 26ANZAM 2009
22
FIGURE 1
Ranking of the most important benefits of internationalization by HEIs
Source: Knight, 2006: 14 (on basis of 526 HEIs participating in the 2005 IAU survey)
Page 23 of 26 ANZAM 2009
23
FIGURE 2
Drivers for the internationalization of Higher Education Institutions
Political � Peace & mutual understanding
� Nation building & identity
� Trade Framework GATS
� Harmonization of academic
systems in Europe (Bologna)
� Quality assurance
� Decline of public funding
� Human capital development
Academic
� Knowledge production &
publication strategies
� Professional networks and
conferences
� Research collaborations
� Research funding access
� Faculty profile and status
� Quality enhancement
� Standardization of
instructional materials
Internationalization Drivers
Economic/Competitive
� Labor market demand
� Client following
� Income generation
� Research & innovation
� Brand value and profile generation
� Foreign market entry by renowed
HEIs
� New entrants & competition by
private HEIs
� International standards &
accreditation
Social/Cultural/Technological
� Knowledge-based society
� Student/staff development
� Massification of HE
� Information access
� English as common language
� New media
� Advances in information and
communication technologies
Page 24 of 26ANZAM 2009
24
FIGURE 3
Ranking of the most important risks of internationalization by HEIs
Source: Knight, 2006: 15 (on basis of 526 HEIs participating in the 2005 IAU survey)
Page 25 of 26 ANZAM 2009
25
FIGURE 4
Forms of foreign market entry modes of Higher Education Institutions
− Student mobility
− Scholar mobility/
international teaching
assignments
− Distance education
− Articulation
− Twinning
− Franchising
− Joint venture
− Branch campus/
satellite campus
− Off-shore institution
FIGURE 5
Characteristics of foreign maket entry modes by Higher Education Institutions
1. Export 2. Contractual 3. Co-operative 4. Wholly owned
− Student mobility
− Scholar mobility/
international
teaching assign-
ments
− Distance education
− Articulation
− Twinning
− Franchising
− Joint venture
− Branch campus /
satellite campus
− Off-shore institution
low shared shared high
CONTROL
low low moderate high
RESSOURCE
COMMITMENT
low moderate high low
RELATIONAL
FRICTION
Page 26 of 26ANZAM 2009