Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Education and Development Working Paper 10
India’s confrontation with foreign higher education providers
Kim Weerts IS Academe-Quality Education alumni
University of Amsterdam [email protected]
20091
1Thisworkingpaperhasbeenbasedonamaster’sthesis,whichiswrittenaspartofthemasterprogrammeInternationalDevelopmentStudiesattheUniversityofAmsterdam,andhasledtotheattainmentofthedegreeasMasterofScienceinInternationalDevelopmentStudies.
2
AbstractThis working paper focuses on the partnerships between Indian and foreigninstitutions in offering higher education, in light of the Indian government’swillingness toaddhighereducation to theGATSnegotiation rounds.Byportrayingten case studies of Indian education providers in Delhi, India, an exploration hasbeen made to describe the different types of cooperation that occur betweeneducation providers across borders. It becomes clear that, though the number offoreigneducationprovidersisrelativelylowatthemoment,thereisanurgentneedforasuitableregulatoryframeworkregardingthepresenceandactivitiesofforeigneducationprovidersinIndia.Furthermore,thedifferencesbetweenIndianeducationproviders and their foreign partners vary in areas such as quality and source ofinitiation,whichcan influencetheequalitybetweenpartnersandcanbeworrying.ThepartnershipsoffergreatopportunitiesforbothIndianandforeignpartners,andfurthermorefortheIndianhighereducationsystem,butitisimportanttobeawareofthedownfallsaswell.§1.Introduction
AftertheUruguayRoundnegotiationsin1995theGeneralAgreementonTradeand
Services (GATS), a treaty of theWorld Trade Organization, has been entered into
force.FollowingtheGeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade(GATT),theGATSwas
createdtoextendthemultilateraltradingsystemstoservices.Theagreementcovers
four modes of supply: cross‐border supply, consumption abroad, commercial
presenceandpresenceofanaturalperson.
Thesigningofthisagreementhashadimportantimplicationsfornationsand
their service delivery. The list of sectors addressed is vast and includes the sector
education. When focusing on commercial presence, this means for example that
foreignprovidersmayofferhighereducationinemergingnationssuchasIndia.This
immediately raises several interesting questions such as:What is the meaning of
foreign providers of higher education in emerging nations?Why do these foreign
providers start suchbranches?Do theywant to contribute to thedevelopmentof
thereceivingcountryordotheywanttoextractthehighereducatedpopulationto
theirownnations(braingainvs.braindrain)orisitsimplyawaytomakeprofitinan
educationmarket that cannot fulfill demands?What are possible advantages and
disadvantages of this trend? How does the receiving country view this? Does the
receivingcounty’sgovernmenthaveachoiceinbanningorinfluencingtheactionsof
theforeignproviders?
3
A short scan of the current situation in India shows that this topic has
receivedwideattentioninthepublicdebate.Thoughthenationalsystemofhigher
education in many countries has difficulties in providing education to a growing
student population and improving the quality of higher education, the general
attitudetowardsforeignprovidersofhighereducationseemsnegativeforafearof
losinginfluenceand‘Indianoriented’education.Policiesseemtobecautiousandup
torecentlyhavenotshownafirmpositioninthismatter.Incontrasttothiscautious
position is the fact that foreign qualifications are very popular with (prospective)
students, whether obtained abroad or in India itself, and there seems to be a
growinginterestinthesequalifications.
The Indian government is willing to add higher education in the GATS
negotiation rounds, where it before refused to talk about it. The Indian higher
education system seems to be at a crossroad, as well as the higher education
systemsinothercountries.Theabsenceofalongtermpolicyperspectiveonhigher
educationwhichshouldbecoherentandclear,seemstobelackinginamultitudeof
developing countries (Tilak 2005: 164). Though the attitude towards higher
educationand(for‐profit)privateinstitutionsseemstobechanging,theintroduction
ofamarketphilosophyintheeducationsectorhasleadtoacultureshockformost
peopleindevelopingcountries(Tilak2004:3,13),andIndiadoesnotseemtobean
exceptioninthis.
Aclearmappingof thisphenomenonseemsnot tobepublished inpublicly
available documents. At least tomy knowledge, the only known research on this
subjecthasbeenconductedbyBhushanin2004/2005,inwhichanattempthasbeen
madetocapturealldomesticprivateinstitutionscollaboratingwithforeignpartners
inIndia(Bhushan2006).Thisresearchconcludesthatthereisarelativelysmallbut
growing trend towards foreign institutional partnerships in India. A total of 131
institutions (while there are over 19,000 institutions active in India’s higher
educationsystem)werefoundthathaveestablishedpartnershiparrangementswith
foreign institutions in offering mostly professional programmes in areas, such as
business administration and hospitality management. The arrangements seem to
exist most often in the form of twinning programmes and programmatic
4
collaboration. Nevertheless, the number and perhaps innovative forms of new
cooperationremainunclearafter2004/2005.
This researchwillmakeanattempt tomapup thesenewdevelopments to
2008andmorespecificallywillgoindetailintotheconstructionofthepartnerships
between Indian and foreign education providers. The researchwill partly build on
theresearchperformedbyBhushanbutwillextenttheareaofknowledgebytaking
in an important new research area,which are the complex relationships between
Indianandforeigneducationproviders.Thiswillbedonebyansweringthefollowing
researchquestion:
InwhichwaysdoforeigneducationprovidersofferhighereducationinIndiaand,in
particular,inwhichwaydotheycooperatewithnationaleducationproviderswithin
India’shighereducationsystem?
Inordertoanswerthisrathercomplexresearchquestion,anin‐depthinquirywillbe
outlined which discusses the characteristics of education providers, their
involvementinpartnershipsandtheroleofcooperationbetweenthem.
§2.Theoreticalframework
Therecentfocusontheknowledgeeconomyasasolutiontotheunderdevelopment
ofthedevelopingworldhasgivenhighereducationextraordinaryimportance(Tilak
2005: 162‐163). Furthermore within the line of reasoning of the GATS, treating
knowledgeasacommoditythatshouldbefreelytraded,hastransformedtheideaof
educationfromapublicgoodtoaserviceofwhichprofitcanbemade.Thisshiftto
profit making and market‐drive has lead to a new era of power and influence.
Politics,andextra‐educationaleventsandprocessesallhaveanimpactoneducation
(Verger2008:3).
5
§2.1.Altbach’scentre‐peripheryhypothesis
AhypothesisthatcanbeappliedtothisphenomenonisAltbach’s“centre‐periphery
hypothesis”with regard to higher education and globalization (2004). Though the
centre‐peripheryhypothesis isnotnew,Altbachhasapplieditspecificallytohigher
education in a globalizing world. Recent developments have lead to the
reinforcementofexistinginequalitiesbetweendifferentinstitutions,mainlybetween
institutions in the North (e.g. developed nations) and the South (e.g. emerging
nations).Thecenterswhicharefoundedmainlyinlargerandwealthiernationslead
while other in the peripheries can only follow. Though there are also periphery
institutions in the North and center institutions in the South, the general division
betweencentersandperipheries ismuchdistorted.Therefore, it isnotpossible to
statethatthereisadistinctgapbetweentwoclearlydefinedworlds.
Reasonsforadivisionbetweennationscanbethedifficultiesinstitutionsface
inobtainingthesameorhigherqualityasinstitutionsinthecenters,forinstancedue
to high resources, investment and social capital needed. This can lead to a
dependence on the centre institutions, which makes most institutions teaching
oriented instead of research oriented. It is yet important to state that concrete
dependency does not exist, though dependency on knowledge can occur. This
dependencycan lead toa lossof intellectualandculturalautonomy,whichcanbe
evenmorelostinthelightofGATS,inwhichautonomyforacountrycanbedifficult
to achieve. Regulation or control over new developments in this field can also be
difficult to achieve. But in times of financial scarcity and inability tomeet student
demands, it can be difficult to decline assistance. Nevertheless, seeing India as a
peripheryinsteadofacentrewillbevieweduponbymanyasoldfashionandnotup
todate,particularlywhenlookingatafutureinwhichIndiawillbeoneoftheleading
forces in the world in their opinion. It is also questionable if there are multiple
relationshipsbetweenallinstitutionsintheworld,becausethisseemsnottobethe
caseinreality.
§2.2.Dale’smechanismsofexternaleffects
Important for this discussion is the distinction that can be made between the
CommonWorld Educational Culture approach (CWEC) and theGlobally Structured
6
Agenda for Education approach (GSAE) (Dale 2000). Though both approaches are
very complexandhavebeendevelopedand reshapedbymany scientistsover the
years,anattemptwillbemadetodiscussthesimilaritiesanddifferencesshortly in
thefollowingsection.Bothapproachesgiveimportancetosupranationalforcesand
claim that policy goals and policy processes are influenced by external forces.
Furthermore, national frames are believed to be shaped at both a national and
supranationallevel.Buttheydifferinthenatureofandeffectsonglobalizationand
understanding education in relation to globalization and education. For the CWEC
approach‘(…)theworldpolityisareflectionoftheWesternculturalaccount,based
aroundaparticularsetofvaluesthatpenetrateeveryregionofmodernlife’.Forthe
GSAEapproach‘(…)globalizationisasetofpolitical‐economicarrangementsforthe
organization of the global economy, driven by the need tomaintain the capitalist
systemrather thanbyanysetofvalues’ (Dale2000:436).Furthermore, theCWEC
approachseeseducationasaresourcewhiletheGSAEapproachsees itasatopic.
AccordingtoDale,theGSAEapproachcanexplainandtakeintoaccounttheCWEC
approach for its adoption of the idea that capitalism is flexible in determining its
institutional arrangements through which it operates and the affinity between
capitalism and the characteristics of the hypothesized world culture. The CWEC
cannotexplainandtakeintoaccounttheGSAEapproachviceversa(Dale2000:448).
Regardlesswhichapproachhasmorevalidity,itisclearthateducationevents
haveaclearlinktoglobalstructuresorstructuralfactors.Anexplanationforthis is
thateducationeventsandchangesaretheconsequenceofcertainmechanismsthat
possesscausalityandareactivatedbydifferentactorsatall layersof thestructure
(Verger 2008: 4). The GSAE approach specifically identifies a set of external
mechanisms which influence national education policies worldwide (Dale 1999).
Thoughtherehavealwaysbeenmoretraditionalmechanismsofexternal influence
suchas‘policyborrowing’and‘policy learning’,thesenewmechanismsseemmore
adapted to aworld influenced by globalization. Thesemechanisms can be divided
intocategoriesbydifferentcharacteristicssuchasthenatureoftherelationshipand
explicitness of process, and entail borrowing, learning, harmonization,
dissemination, standardization, installing interdependence and imposition.
Harmonizationoccurswhenasetofcountriesmutuallyagreeontheimplementation
7
of universal policies, such as the European Space for Higher Education by which
European university studies have been homogenized, sponsored by the European
Union. Dissemination is a mechanism in which an international agent uses
persuasion and technical knowledge to convince countries of certain policies. It is
important tomention thatDale’sdefinitionofdissemination is somewhatstronger
than one might expect when looking up the meaning in a random dictionary.
Standardization implies an international community defining and promoting a
certainsetofpolicyprinciplesandstandards that framethebehaviorofcountries.
Thenextmechanismisinstallinginterdependence,inwhichcountriesagreetotackle
shared problems together, such as ‘Education for All’. Nevertheless,
interdependence can both work positive and negative in different circumstances.
Finally, imposition occurs when external actors compel a country to decide on a
certain policy direction. TheWorld Bank is a classical example of thismechanism.
However,itisquestionableifthiswillactuallyoccurwhenwithinacontextinwhich
two education providers work together. It can nevertheless say something about
equality,whichisanimportantdimensiontokeepinmind.These‘deliverysystems’
haveanindependentinfluenceonthemessagetheyaresending(Dale1999:2).The
fullcomplexityofthesemechanismsisexplainedinfigure1.
Figure1:Mechanismsofexternaleffects(Dale1999:6).
8
When discussing these mechanisms of external effect on education, Dale only
mentionstheeffectsonamacro level,namelythe influenceonnationaleducation
policies.Forthepurposeofthisresearch, Iwouldliketoinvestigatewhetherthese
mechanismscanalsobeimpliedtoamicrolevel,inthiscasetocooperationbetween
nationalandforeigneducationprovidersinIndia.Thiswillbeclarifiedfurtheralong
inthispaper,butfirstanoverviewofliteraturewhichdiscussesthecurrentsituation
andresearchsettinginthisareainIndiawillbegiven.
§3.Introductiontoresearchsetting
Though in India the number of students has expandedmassively the last decades
and its higher education system is the largest in the world, funding by the
government has not increased in line with this expansion. This has important
implicationsforthehighereducationsysteminmanyways,suchasthepossibilities
forprospectivestudentstoentertheeducationmarket.Thislackoffundinghaslead
to a very fragmented higher education system with extreme variation in quality
levels, consisting of government institutions (publicly owned and financed),
government unaided institutions (publicly owned but privately financed), private
aided institutions (privately owned but partially publicly financed) and private
institutions(privatelyownedandfinanced),thoughthedistinctionbetweenprivately
andpublicly funded isgenerallyvague.Private institutionsarerunbycharitiesand
religiousgroups,aswellasbypowerful families.Thoughby lawofferingeducation
has to be not for profit, especially the powerful families run their institutions as
businesses, chargingexorbitant feesandapplying strict, sometimesdiscriminatory,
application procedures. These powerful families are often also involved in politics
and have large influence in policy making. The distribution of capacity and fields
between public and private institutions is uneven: the public system offers
programmesparticularly focusing on knowledge in fields such as arts and science,
which do not sufficiently prepare students for the jobmarket. The private sector
offers professional programmes in engineering, technology, management and
teaching,which increase thechancesof findingemploymentaftergraduation.This
combinedwith unmet demand and the (not always justified) better reputation of
qualitymakeprivateinstitutionsverypopular(Agarwal2007:4‐16).
9
A recent trend, influencedbyGATSandglobalization, is the interferenceof
foreign providers of higher education in India. Though the number of institutions
involved with foreign partners is relatively low when compared to the higher
educationsystemasawhole, itappears tobeanewtrendthatmightgrow in the
near future. There are different types of programmes being offered by foreign
educationprovidersbut thegeneral focus isonprofessionalorvocationalcourses,
mainly in the areas of Business Management and Hotel Management (Bhushan
2006: 11‐12). Due to declining government subsidies, public institutions are
searchingforcooperationwithforeignproviders,increasingtuitionfeesandstarting
self‐financingprogrammesaswell(Powar2005a:133‐138).
§3.1.Lackofregulatoryframework
Theseinitiativesandcooperationtakeplaceoutsidetheregulatorysystem,forthese
trends are not part of current legislation (Agarwal 2007: 15). The growth of
transnational higher education is unregulated, over‐hyped and under‐examined
(Bhushan2006:2),forinstanceduetothegenerallyweakoversightbytheUniversity
GrantsCommission (Agarwal 2007: 4). The governmenthas still not implemented
anylegislationinthisrespect,whichcreatesanuncertainspaceforforeignproviders
toinvestin.Thismightbeareason,besidesthehighcostsofinvestment,whythere
are no offshore campuses until so far (Bhushan 2006: 13). Public‐private‐
partnerships seem to become more common (Agarwal 2007: 5). Nevertheless,
whetherthestatecancounterbalancethepowerofthemarketandimplementation
of regulation is possible, is questionable to Tilak (2004: 18). Furthermore,
accreditation isproblematicandoftennotperformed, though this is thecasewith
mostprivateinstitutionsingeneral(Agarwal2007:8).
Becausethecooperationsbetweenprivateinstitutionsandforeignproviders
arenotpartofalegalframework,theinstitutionsarenotlegallyboundtomaximum
tuitionfeesandnon‐discriminatoryapplicationprocedures.Thismakesthisformof
highereducationbeyondthereachofpoorstudents,thoughduetothemarketvalue
offoreignprogrammesstudentloansarebecominganewtrend(Bhushan2006:2).
Furthermore,thismightmeanthatthistrendgoesagainstthenational interestsof
the country (Tilak 2004: 17). Even for students who have no choice but follow
10
programmesofferedbypublic institutions,theremightbedifficulties inthenearby
future.Thoughthegovernmentfavorsequityandaccessoverexcellence,andhasa
tradition in liberal education where a student learns for its own sake, this might
meanthathighereducationbecomesevenmoreelitist(Agarwal2007:8),where is
hasbecomelesselitistinthepastaccordingtosomeacademics(Tilak2004:18).
§3.2.Improvingquality
Itissaidthattheinterferenceofforeignprovidersmighthaveapositiveinfluenceon
theIndianeducationsystemingeneral(Powar2005a:146).Itisasolutiontomany
to solve the gap between demand and capacity, and meet the objected goal of
increasing the number of students in higher education set by the government
(Bhushan2006: 2). This gapbetweendemandand capacity couldbe attributed to
lackofresourcesofthegovernment,thoughitisimportanttonotethatinvolvement
of the market might not be the sole solution to this problem (Tilak 2004: 10).
Furthermore,theprivateeducationprovidersreachnichesinthemarket,whichthe
publicsystemdoesnotreachandcangivequalitylevelsaboost(Bhushan2006:5‐6).
The economy needs graduates from professional programmes, which are mostly
offeredbyprivate institutions (Agarwal2007:17). There is alsoaperceivedglobal
relevancetoprogrammesofferedbyforeigninstitutionsandtheyhaveareputation
of beingmore cost competitive (Bhushan2006: 13). Besides anunmet demand in
general, there is also a demand for foreign qualifications by students themselves.
Notevery student canaffordgoingabroad, so Indian institutionscooperatingwith
foreigninstitutionsmightgivethemaforeignqualification.Noteworthytomention
isthatmostforeigninstitutionsdonotofferofficialqualificationscomparabletothe
programmesintheirowncountry.Buttheseprogrammesmightbeawayofkeeping
students in, because many students who obtained their qualifications abroad
eventuallystayabroad,possiblyleadingtobraindrain(Bhushan2006:7,14).
Private institutions, especially when they work together with foreign
providers,havethereputationofcateringtotheneedsandexpectationsofthelabor
market. This can be an important motive for students to choose for certain
institutions.Thoughqualityassuranceat themomentseemstobe insufficient, the
reputationof private institutions in general is better than the reputationof public
11
institutions. Another reason for their popularity is the use of different didactic
methods. India’s higher education system is traditionally theory oriented and
teachercentered,whileforeignproviderstrytousedifferenttechniquestoenhance
thequalityof theirprogrammes(Bhushan2006:12,16‐17).Thepublicandprivate
institutions can learn from this and use this in their own export of education
(Agarwal2007:29). It is importanttomentionthat Indiahas immensepotential to
exporttheirknowledgeonsubjectssuchascomputerapplicationtoothernations.A
means of doing this could be virtual education, which has not grown into its full
potentialyet(Powar2005a:135).Indiahasthepotentialtonotjustbeanimporter
of education, but also an exporter to other nations. For example, the Mahatma
Gandhi University in Kerala has opened a franchise arrangement in the United
Emirates(TheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation2002:2).Inthismanner,
India can function as a semi‐periphery between the developed and emerging
nations.
Though quality and the possibilities of improving the quality of Indian
institutions is an important argument for accepting foreign providers in the
education system, in reality it becomes clear that the quality level is not always
higheratforeignuniversities(Tilak2004:16)andofexpectedstandardsinIndia.One
thirdofforeignprovidersarenotuniversities,whichisalsothecasefortheirIndian
collaborators.Whilesomemighthopethatonlythebestuniversitiesandinstitutions
seekcollaborationwithIndianinstitutions,thisisnotthecase.Thiscanperhapsbe
explainedbytheprofitmakinggoalbehindthesecollaboration,whichinsomecases
ismore important than offering good quality education (Powar 2005a: 133, 143).
Because there is no quality assurance mechanism active in this area, institutions
thrivelargelyonreputation.Foreigninstitutionshaveabetterreputationingeneral,
whethertheyliveuptothisreputationornot.
§3.3.Nationalinterests
Due to the high costs of education offered in partnership with foreign education
providers,the institutionsonlyseemtocatertoself‐financingstudentsfromupper
middle andupper class families. There ismuchdebate goingon about admissions
and tuition fees, areas freeofbinding laws for foreignprovidersbecause theyare
12
not part of any regulatory framework (Agarwal 2007: 22). Concerns are being
expressedthatnarrowselectivityoftheseinstitutionswillleadtoasupereliteclass
ofgraduates,whichmightencouragecaste‐basededucation(Kamat2007:102,129).
Itisquestionableifthecapacitygapwillbefillediftheinstitutionsarenotaccessible
toalargepartofthestudentpopulation(Powar2005a:146).Furthermore,thereisa
fear the public systemwill be left with non‐profitable subjects (Bhushan 2006: 7)
whichwillmaketheirfinancialpositionevenmoredifficult.Duetothisdevelopment
thepublichighereducationsystemmightbeforcedtoadapttomarketdemandsand
bythisforsakebroadernationalinterests(Kamat2007:123).
As mentioned earlier, it can be difficult to guard national interests when
foreign providers are operating in the education system. Besides lack of local or
national relevance of foreign curricula, there is a danger to the traditional
conceptionofeducationasa‘publicgood’(Bhushan2006:7).Thisisveryimportant
inIndiaandthecurrenttrendmightformadangertothesocialfabricofthenation
(Powar 2005a: 146). Cultural sensitivities should be taken into account, and it is
questionable if this isapriorityon theagendaof foreignproviders (Agarwal2007:
24).
Furthermore, the structural space at the moment is not stable (Bhushan
2006:2).Forthereisnoregulatoryframeworkforforeignprovidersandnoeffective
qualityassurancemechanisminplace,institutionscanorganizecooperationasthey
please (Bhushan 2006: 14; Agarwal 2007: 23). The fact that there is no effective
mechanism to control greed creates a poor image of foreign providers only filling
theirpocketsatIndia’ssake.Thisthreatenstheirabilitytobuildpublictrust.Though
some claim the Indian higher education system is overregulated and new, strict
regulationswillencouragecorruption, thecurrent situationwithoutany regulation
andcontrolisalsonotideal(Agarwal2007:26).
Asmentionedearlier,thetypesofinstitutionsthatworktogetherseemtobe
private institutions active in offering professional and vocational courses to their
students.However,itisimportantthataclearmappingofthetypesof institutions,
theiractivitiesandtheirpartnershipsbecomeapparent,whichistheobjectiveofthis
investigation.
13
§4.Researchmethodology
There are three major concepts important for this research, which are
education,educationprovidersandcooperation. It is importanttostatethatthese
particular operationalizations are chosen in the purpose of this research. Clearly
there are other operationalizations possible, but in my view these
operationalizationssuitthisresearchandspecificcontextthebest. The
first operationalization is education,which is higher education offered by national
andforeigneducationproviderstotheIndianstudentpopulation.Thiseducationcan
be offered in different manners, such as joint degree programmes and twinning
arrangements.Thenextoperationalizationiseducationproviders,whichconsistsof
bothnationalandforeignactors.Theproviderscanbeconsideredtobeuniversities
aswellascolleges.Someprovidersmighthave formalaccreditation, thoughthis is
not obliged within India’s higher education system. Furthermore, there are also
different forms possible such as privately‐owned or publicly‐owned. Finally,
cooperationinthisinvestigationwillbelimitedtothecooperationbetweennational
and foreign education providers. An investigation will be made into the different
types of cooperation and influence mechanisms, based on the earlier mentioned
externalinfluencemechanismsofDale,whichispartofthetheoreticalframeworkof
thisresearch.
The data collection of this research has been conducted in India’s capital
Delhi, for this is a region where the phenomenon is common and the targeted
stakeholdershavebeeninterviewed.ItisexpectedthatDelhigivesarepresentative
image of the situation in India as a whole, based on earlier research by Bhushan
(2006).Atthemoment,thereappeartobenooffshorecampusessetuponIndian
soil at the moment and because this research focuses on partnerships between
Indianandforeign institutions,thesubjectofoffshorecampuseswillbegiven less
attentioninthefollowingchapters.
The primary units of analysis are Indian and foreign education providers,
examinedwithintheIndianeducationsystem.Anattempthasbeenmadetomapup
the activities of theseproviders andportray their partnerships in detail by visiting
the Indian institutions, speaking to their representatives, taking a critical look at
provided documents and their websites. These institutions in Delhi have been
14
selectedon thebaseofadirectorycoming fromBhushan’s research (2006),which
listsall institutionsfoundin2004/2005inIndiathathavepartnershipswithforeign
institutions.Though thereare limitations to the representativenessof this sample,
becauseinfouryearsandinthelightofthisgrowingtrendthecurrentsituationcan
be different from Bhushan’s data collection, due to the limited amount of time
availablefordatacollectionthechoicehasbeenmadetosolelyusethisdirectoryfor
contacting institutions. Though this directory has been used as a basis for the
starting up of contacts, all results about the institutions and their partnerships
mentionedinthenextchapterarebasedonthedatacollectionforthisresearch.In
thiswaythisresearchextendsontheresearchconductedbyBhushanin2004/2005
andchangesthefocalpointfrommappingtheextentofforeigneducationproviders
present in India’shighereducationsystemtothepartnershipsbetween Indianand
foreigneducationproviders,whichisarelativelynewresearcharea.
Thedirectorymentionsatotalof22IndianinstitutionsinDelhi,whichwere
actively involved in partnershipswith foreign institutions in 2004/2005.Numerous
attemptshavebeenmadetocontactalloftheseinstitutionsand19attemptsprove
to be successful. Of these institutions, not all institutions were relevant at the
moment of data collection for some partnerships had ended since the initial
measurements in 2004/2005. It is interesting to discover why these partnerships
haveended,andshortinterviewswereheldwiththeseinstitutions.Itbecameclear
from these interviews that the reasons for ending partnerships were specific
reasons,suchasachangeindirectioninofferingprogrammesincertainareas,which
are not relevant for this research. After excluding the institutions with ended
partnerships and institutions not willing to be interviewed, the remaining ten
institutions were made into case studies by visiting the institutions, interviewing
their representatives and taking a critical look at their provided documents and
websites,aswellas thewebsitesof theirpartner institutions.The interviewswere
guidedbytheuseofastructuredquestionnaire,constructedonthebasisofrelevant
literature (Parvu & Ipate 2007; Martensen et al. 2000; Detch et al. 2001). These
interviewshavebeentranscribedandintenselyanalyzedshortlyaftereachinterview
andasecondanalysishasbeenexecutedaftervisitingallselectedinstitutions.
15
Beforediscussingthedataandresultsderivedfromthisdatacollection it is
importanttostatethatduetotherestrictedamountoftime,meansandexperience
oftheresearcherthisresearchmightbesomewhatlimited,aswellasduetothefact
thattheinterviewsconductedbytheresearchermightbesomewhatbiaseddueto
herbackgroundwhichhashadaninfluenceonthedatabybothherselfaswellasthe
respondents.However,theintentionhasbeentoentanglethiscomplexsituationby
a relatively short explorative investigation thatmight give rise to some new ideas
andviewpointstothecurrentresearchprojectsavailable.
§5.Dataanalysisandfindings
§5.1.ForeigneducationprovidersactiveinIndia’shighereducationsystem
The partner institutions of Indian institutions in the sample used for this research
seemtobe relatively large institutionsand in several caseswithgoodreputations.
Their country of origin is diverse, though there are no African, Asian or Latin
Americanpartnersinthesamplepresent.TheUnitedStatesandUnitedKingdomare
mostlyrepresented,aswellasFrance,GermanyandtheNetherlandsinafewcases.
AccordingtotheirIndianpartners,theseinstitutionsareofgoodqualityand
in most cases recognized in their own country. This recognition of their foreign
partner in their countryof origin is beingusedby some Indian institutions to give
theirownreputationaboostandperhapsmakeupforthefactthattheythemselves
do not have received recognition in India. According to some representatives, the
recognitionalsohelpsthemtoattractmorestudentstotheir institutionbecause it
portraitssomedegreeofquality intheeyesofprospectivestudents. It isalsoclear
thatthemerefactthatanIndianinstitutionworkstogetherwithaforeignpartneris
reasonenoughforsomestudentstochoosethatinstitution,forthereputationand
popularityofforeigndiplomasordegreesishigherthanmostotherIndiandiplomas
ordegrees.Whetherthisreputationandpopularityareaccuratewithrealityseems
to be of lesser importance. Understandably when, according to some
representativesofIndianinstitutionsspokentoforthisresearch,employersalsogive
highervalueto foreigndiplomasanddegrees. Inasociety inwhich it isdifficult to
obtain employment because of greater supply than demand on the jobmarket, it
16
might help to stand out from the group with a foreign or even merely foreign
influenceddiplomaordegree.
Thoughtheforeignpartnerinstitutionsseemtobeofrelativelylargesizeand
goodreputationtheyarenotthetopinstitutionsontheworldrankinglist,thoughit
hastobesaidthatthereareafewexceptions.However,theinstitutionsarealsonot
lowqualityinstitutionssimplypresenttomakeasmuchmoneyaspossibleinIndia’s
tight higher education market with all types of negative consequences, as some
peoplemight fear.Thisdoesnotmean that there isnot somemotivationofprofit
makingbehindtheirpresenceandactivitiesinIndia.Thoughitisnotmyimpression
thattheseforeign institutionsare just ‘in it forthemoney’anduseanopportunity
causedbythestrugglesof India’seducationmarketsolelytomeettheirownprofit
making demands, it is hard to believe that they are there for purely altruistic
reasons.Afterall,someprofithastobemadetosustainahealthyinstitution.Losing
money or breaking even just to help enhance India’s knowledge economy is not
realistic in thehardening tradeof services in higher education.And there is some
evidence that profit making is the objective behind partnerships, at least in the
opinionofseveralrepresentativesofinstitutionsinthesample.
§5.2.Qualityofforeigneducationproviders
Ascanbeunderstood,qualityingeneralisadifficultindicatortomeasure.Thesize
and means of this research do not attribute to the precise measurement of the
qualityoftheforeigneducationproviders.However,anattempthasbeenmadeto
giveageneraloverviewofthequalityoftheIndianinstitutionsbyvisitingthemand
speakingtorepresentatives.Inthecaseofforeigneducationproviders,visitingthese
institutionsandspeaking to representativeswasnotpossible in the timespanand
meansavailableforthisresearch.Therefore,assessingtheirqualityisbasedonthe
opinionsoftheirpartnerinstitutionsinIndiaandtheirwebsites.
IntheopinionoftherepresentativesoftheIndianinstitutions,theirpartners
are in general regarded as institutions of high quality and of importance to the
qualityof the Indian institution.These institutionsareoftenseenasexamplesand
seemtobetheultimategoaltobeachievedbytheIndianinstitutions.Interestingis
thatthewayqualityofthepartnerinstitutionisassessedandgivenimportance,has
17
an impacton theequalitybetween thepartners.Thoughmost institutionsarenot
mentioned on important ranking lists such as the Times Higher Education
Supplement, it can be cautiously stated that most foreign partner institutions of
Indianeducationprovidersareofgoodqualityandtheanxietyofsomecriticsofthis
trend that only lower quality institutions will enter the Indian higher education
marketseemstobeungrounded.
§5.3.Indianeducationprovidersinpartnershipwithforeigneducationproviders
Without exemption all Indian education providers involved in partnerships with
foreign institutions seem to be private and unaided. This means that they are
privately owned and do not receive any funding by the state or government.
Logicallyithasbecomeclearthatsomeinstitutionshavebeensetupandfundedby
wealthy business people,mostly Indian but in one caseAmerican,which invest in
several areas besides education. Especially the involvement of an American
businessman is very interesting and it can be expected that these types of
investmentwilloccurmoreofteninthefutureinlightoftheGATS,globalizationand
theemergingeconomyofIndia.
Besidesthefacttheinstitutionsinthissampleareprivateandunaided,most
ofthemarealsonotrecognizedbyanystateorgovernment.Theyhavenotreceived
accreditation, though some of them are actively trying to obtain recognition and
accreditation. Others claim they would prefer the situation in which they are
recognizedandhavereceivedaccreditationbecausetheyclaimitwouldattractmore
studentsbutarenotactivelypursuing thisat themoment.Though institutionsare
not recognized some do have affiliation with recognized and accredited Indian
universities.Thisoffers themthepossibilities tograntdegrees incooperationwith
theiraffiliateduniversities,whichisfavorableforstudents.
Though so far only similarities have been mentioned about the Indian
education providers, there are more differences between them. First, they vary
greatly insize,both instudentpopulationandthesizeof their facilities.Thereare
alsodifferencesintuitionfees,whichcanrangefrom80.000Rupees(approximately
1196 Euros at the current exchange rate) to 500.000 Rupees (approximately 7477
Eurosatthecurrentexchangerate).
18
Many proponents of the presence of foreign education providers within
India’s higher education system use the argument that foreign involvement and
activitieswillhelptomeetthegapbetweensupplyanddemand.Nevertheless,the
tuitionfeesareatalevelthatcannotbemetbymostIndianprospectivestudents.
§5.4.QualityofIndianeducationproviders
Asmentioned in the previous paragraphmost institutions are not recognized and
havenot received accreditation. There aremany reasonswhy this is the case and
thesedonothavetobeautomaticallylinkedtoquality.Thefollowingindicatorshave
beenused in this research in order tomake a statement about the quality of the
Indian institutions: number of teachers, number of fly‐in teachers (either from
partner institutions or from other areas), number of teaching hours per week,
number of preparation hours per week, academic level of teachers, training of
teachers (basic and extra training on the job), sort of teaching activities, use of
audiovisualaids, facilities suchas librariesandcomputer labswith internetaccess,
student teacher ratio, student computer ratio, teacher computer ratio,percentage
ofgraduatesandpercentageofgraduatesthatfindsemploymentintheirfieldafter
graduation. There has also been an attempt to look up these institutions on the
TimesHigher Education Supplementbutnoneof themarepresenton the current
list.
Whenlookingattheindicatorswhileexaminingthesampleofthisresearchit
becameclearthatall Indianinstitutionssufficetoabasiclevelofquality.Butthere
arelogicallydifferentlevelsinqualitybasedontheseindicators.Forinstance,inthe
opinionofoneinstitutiononesmallbookcasecansufficeasalibrarywhileanother
institutionstrivesandintheiropinionsucceedsinhavingthelargestlibraryintheir
fieldinIndia.Ofcoursethisisalsoinfluencedbytheareainwhichprogrammesare
beingoffered.
What has become clearwhile visiting the institutions and speaking to their
representatives inthissample isthat isverycommonfor institutionstobestrict in
attendanceratesandfocusonthegoaltomakeeverystudenteventuallygraduate.
Some even claim that almost 100 percent of their students eventually graduates
which seems to me portraying an unrealistic image because there are always
19
studentsdroppingout forvariousreasons,somenotrelatedtothe(qualityofthe)
institution. But the ‘hands on’ mentality of the institutions does not end here.
Almostallinstitutionsofferassistanceinobtainingplacementwithintheirownfield
aftergraduationinsomewayoranother.Someinstitutionshavecloselinkswiththe
businessmarketandcanofferdirectpositionsincooperationwithcompanieswhile
others refer their students to certain branches and companies. This leads to high
levels of placement after graduation which makes the institutions additionally
popularwithprospectivestudents.Perhapsthesetypesofinvolvementmakeupfor
the fact that students do not obtain a degree that has been recognized with all
institutions. There seems to be a difference between government recognition and
socialrecognitionofdiplomas.
§5.5.PartnershipsbetweenforeignandIndianeducationproviders
In this research a few institutions seem to appear to fall under the category of
offshorecampusthoughthedifferencesbetweenthemarepresentandwhentaking
a closer look they are not offshore campuses.When asking on in interviews and
takingagoodlookattheirwebsiteitbecameclearthattheestablishmentsinIndia
whoclaimtobeoffshorecampusesarelearningcentersforlongdistanceeducation,
which are also present in other countries such as China. It is interesting that
institutionsspeakwithmuchprideintermsofbeinganoffshorecampusorbranch,
though in reality they are not. Perhaps this is a way to catch the attention of
prospective Indian students and in this way enlarge their student population.
Distance education is in terms of domestic regulation less problematic than other
typesofpresenceofforeigneducationproviders.Thelegalstatusoflearningcenters
are difficult under current legislation. Therefore it is important that this type of
partnershipanditsstatusbecomepartoffurtherlegislationinthefuture.
Thedifferencebetweenalearningcentreandafranchiseeisperhapsdifficult
to observe but the difference is distinct. As a franchisee an Indian institution is
allowed to execute a programme in name of a foreign partner with the foreign
curriculum and evaluation methods. This is done under direct supervision of the
foreignpartner.
20
Of the interviewed Indian institutions only one meets the criteria of a
franchisee.Inthiscase,theforeignpartnerhasmanyauthorizedcentersalloverthe
world. Importanttomentionisthattheexaminationsarecheckedandassessedby
theforeignpartnerafterwhichadiplomaintheirnameissendtotheIndianpartner.
Theysignthediplomaaswellthoughthecertificateissolelyinnameoftheforeign
partner.ThiswayofworkingalsooccursinotherpartnershipswithIndianeducation
providerswhicharepartof thesampleused inthisresearch, thoughtheyfunction
mostly under the terms of programmatic collaboration instead of franchisee.
Nevertheless, as will become clear the distinctions between different types of
arrangementsarenotalwaysthateasytodistinguishforbotheducationprovidersas
researchers.
Twinning and link programmes differ from the previously mentioned
arrangementsbecausetheyallowIndianstudentstofollowpartoftheirprogramme
with the foreign partner institution abroad. With twinning programmes students
havetheoptiontofollowpartoftheirstudyattheforeigninstitutionwhiletheother
partisfollowedinIndia.Inthiswaystudentscanobtainaforeigndegreecombined
withinternationalexposurewiththeleastamountofcosts.Butthepartofthestudy
completedinIndiaisnotawardedwithaspecificdiplomaordegreeinIndia.Thisis
indeedthecasewithlinkprogrammes.Despitedifficultieswithdiplomaanddegree
recognition there are no difficultieswith current domestic regulation because the
foreign institution is not present in India’s higher education system. This type of
arrangementdoesnotoccurinthesampleofthisresearch.Inseveralcasesthereare
possibilities for student exchangewith foreignpartners and though this is popular
among students, strictly speaking it are no twinning or link programmes. In some
casescreditsareawardedbutnotdiplomasordegreesarepartofthearrangements.
Nonetheless,studentexchangewithoutdegreeordiplomaawardingisstillbeneficial
intheeyesofthestudentsforitispopularamongthem.
In the case of programmatic collaboration the study is completed in India
withtheIndianpartnerbutthestudentreceivesajointdegree,bothinnameofthe
Indianand the foreignpartner. This typeofprogramme is interesting for students
whodonothavethemeanstogoabroadfor(partoftheir)study.Therearevarious
possibilities for programmatic collaboration such as teacher exchange and joint
21
curriculumdevelopment.Mostof the institutions interviewed for the researchare
involved in programmatic collaboration. However, as mentioned earlier the
possibilities for programmatic collaboration are varied. There are for instance
differences in intensity of collaboration. In some cases the foreign curriculum is
completelytransferredtotheIndianpartner,mostofthetimeaftersomerevisionto
theIndiancontextandthedemandsoftheIndianmarket.InothercasestheIndian
institutionadaptstheirowncurriculumtothestandardsoftheforeignpartner.But
not only with the curriculum can differences be seen between partnerships; also
withvisitsandtrainingbytheforeignpartnersaredifferencespresent.Itoccursthat
theforeignpartnercomestotraintheIndianstafftoensuretheyareuptotheirown
standards,sometimesonaregularbasis.Thoughtheregularityvariesgreatly;some
comeonlyat thebeginningof thepartnership,others comeona regularbasis.Of
coursethesetypesofcollaborationcansaysomethingabouttheequalityperceived
bytheIndianpartnersinthepartnerships.
Besides the types of partnerships already mentioned the Indian education
providers also outlined other forms of exchange. Next to the already mentioned
student exchange in the case of several institutions there were also occasions in
whichfacultystaffvisitedthepartnerinstitutions. Inmostcasestheforeignfaculty
staff would visit the Indian partner for the purpose of training because of
programmaticcollaborationorfranchisingasmentionedinthepreviousparagraph.
§5.6.Typesofprogrammes
The institutions in the sample of this research are actively involved in offering
professional programmes to their students in subjects such as hospitality
management, business administration, beauty and fashion, which are in general
moreoftenofferedatprivateinstitutionsthanatpublicinstitutions.Inaddition,due
to the lack of recognition and accreditation, they are not in the position to offer
academicprogrammessuchasbachelor’sandmaster’sprogrammes.However, the
misunderstandingormisuseofthetitledegreehasbeenfoundinthesample.Some
institutions speak of offering a degree to their studentswhile they are not in the
position to act in this way because they are not recognized or have received
22
accreditation. This can be subsided by an affiliation with a recognized university
whichisthecasewiththeUnitedEducationInstitute.
§5.7.Cooperationbetweenpartners
Thecooperationbetween Indianand foreigneducationproviderswillbediscussed
by applying Altbach’s centre‐periphery hypothesis and Dale’s mechanisms of
externaleffect.
§5.7.1.ApplyingAltbach’scentre‐peripheryhypothesis
When comparing the results found in this investigation with Altbach’s centre‐
periphery hypothesiswith regard to higher education and globalization, it is clear
thatduetoIndia’ssizeitmightbeseenasacentretosome.However, itseemsits
highereducation system is lacking inmany fields suchasmeeting thedemandsof
theprospectivestudentpopulation.FurthermoreingeneralitcanbesaidthatIndia
does not have many institutions that might act as centers to institutions in the
developednations.Butitisimportanttostatethattherearesomeveryhighquality
institutions which are renowned all over the world though there number is,
particularlywhenlookingatthetotalnumberofIndianhighereducationinstitutions,
fairly low.ButthisdoesnotmeanIndianinstitutionsarenotconsideredcentersby
institutions in other nations. Altbach’s hypothesis only focuses on the relationship
between the developed and emerging nations but there are also relationships
betweenemergingnationsoccurring. In thecontextof this research it isclear that
Indian institutions do not only have ties with Altbach’s traditional centers in the
developednationsbutalsowithinstitutionsinAsiaandtheMiddleEast.Throughthe
contactswithpartner institutions in thesepartsof theworldbothcanbenefitand
learnfromeachother’sexperiences.AnditcanbesaidthatsomeIndianinstitutions
might function as a center to a periphery in nations in Asia and theMiddle East.
Altbach’shypothesismightholdsometruthbutitisclearthatitisnotadaptedtoa
morecomplexrealityandsetofrelationshipsbetweeninstitutionsintheworld.
ButnotonlytherelationshipsbetweenIndianinstitutionsandinstitutionsin
othernationsaremorecomplexthanthehypothesispredicts.Altbachstatesthatit
canbedifficultforinstitutionstoobtainthesameorhigherqualityinstitutionsasin
23
thecentersbecauseofalackofresources,investmentandsocialcapital.Thoughitis
clearthatIndia’shighereducationsystemingeneralmightbesufferingfromsomeof
thesedifficultiesagainrealityissomewhatmorecomplex.Forinstancesomeofthe
institutions in the sample of this research did not face problems with a lack of
resources and investment. In fact they make use of partnerships with other
institutions to obtain a highquality level and are finding their independence from
solelylearningfromexperiencesfrominstitutionsinAltbach’straditionalcenter.
ThethirddifficultyAltbachmentionsisalackofsocialcapitalwhichalsodoes
notseemtobecorrectwhenlookingatIndia’shighereducationsystem.Inabsolute
terms India has a large intellectual elite that influences, stimulates and challenges
itself which can lead to growing intellectual capital and innovation. And this
influencedoesnotendat India’sbordersfortheseintellectualsarepartofawider
internationalelite.Perhapstheinfluxofforeigninstitutionsmightleadtosomeloss
of intellectual and cultural autonomy but the gains of this development are also
present,particularlyforIndia.
§5.7.2.ApplyingDale’smechanismsofexternaleffects
When following the order set by Dale and looking at the indicator nature of
relationship,itisclearthatallrelationshipsarevoluntary.Thoughsomemightclaim
thatanumberofinstitutionscanfeelaneedtosetupapartnershipwithaforeign
partnerbecauseofdifficultiesinattractingstudentsorhandingoutdiplomaswitha
good reputation, no institution is forced to set up a partnership with a foreign
institution.Whileitmightbenefittheminagreatmanneritisinfactnotobligatory
atall.Thesecondindicatorwhichisexplicitnessoftheprocessisalsounproblematic.
All processes around partnerships are explicit and clear between partners. In all
cases the responsibilities and tasks of both partnerswere clearly determined and
compliant. The samegoes for the scopeof the relationships.When looking at the
areastherelationshipshaveaninfluenceitisalmostsolelyontheareaofeducation.
Asmentionedearlier thesepartnershipsarenotpartofanationalor international
level but only influence the institutions involved which describes the locus of
viability.Nevertheless,thesedevelopmentsdohaveanimpactonthenationallevel,
24
especially on the Indian national level for they influence the higher education
system.
Whenapplyingtheindicatorprocesstotheresultsitisdifficulttodistinguish
onespecificprocessgoingoninallpartnerships.Ofcoursepersuasionisnotpresent
forthepartnershipsarevoluntarybuttherearemanyotherformsapparent.There
arefourformswhichbecameclearfromtheresults:borrowing/imitation, learning,
teaching and collective agreement. Though the borders between these processes
canbevaguetheycanbedistinguishedinthecasestudiesofthisresearch.However,
it is impossible to state which process is most common for the institutions and
partnerships are verydifferent. Thedistinctionbetween learningand teaching can
be difficult to make which is also the case for this research. In the opinion of
representativesofsomeIndianinstitutionstheyarebeingtaughtthebestpractices
of their foreignpartners,which is clearlydifferent inperspective from learning. In
myopinionthissayssomethingabouttheequalitybetweenpartnerswhichisnot,at
leastnotexplicitly,anindicatorinDale’smechanisms.
In general only the Indian and foreign institution are involved in the
partnerships though there are some institutions that have several partners. The
partnerships are between one Indian institution and one foreign institution; there
arenomultipartner‐partnerships in thesample.Discerning thesourceof initiation,
whichisthenextindicator,appearedtobesomewhatdifficultinthedatacollecting.
In somecases the representativesof the institutionswerenot informedabout the
initiation process for they were not part of this process. Though most
representatives spoken to for this research were part of themanagement of the
institutions,ithasbecomeclearduringtheresearchthatmostinitiationoccurinthe
topofthemanagementandoftenonbasisofpersonalrelationships.
WhenlookingatthedimensionofpowerDaledistinguishesthreedimensions
which are consciousdecisionmaking, agenda setting anddetermining the rules of
the game. As has become clear when discussing the indicators nature of the
relationship and explicitness of the process, these relationships are voluntary and
clear. Though equality between partners is a different story it is apparent that
consciousdecisionmakingoccurs inallpartnerships.Andthefinal indicatornature
of effect on education is regarded by all Indian institutions to be very positive. In
25
their opinion the partnership offers both their students and their educational
programmes an international exposure and perspectivewhich is believed to be in
thebenefitofthestudents.Furthermoresomeinstitutionssupposethatthequality
oftheeducationalprogrammesoftheir foreignpartnersarehigherthantheirown
qualityandseethepartnershipasawaytoenrichtheirprogrammeandeventually
institution. Also their didactic methods are being copied which in their view are
more interactive and therefore better compared to the Indian teachingmethods.
There are some institutions involved in programmatic collaboration that almost
literallycopytheforeigninstitution’sprogrammecompletewithcurriculumbutmost
institutions adjust the programme to the Indian context and demands of both
studentsandjobmarket.Ofcourse,withtechnicalprogrammesitcanbelogicallyto
copyprogrammesandcurriculaforhardlyanyadjustmentsmightbeneeded.
AsmentionedearlierinmyopinionthereisanindicatormissingfromDale’s
list of indicators. Though equality can be deducted in some form from other
indicators such as the source of initiation, dimension of power and the nature of
effectoneducation,actualequalitybetweenpartnersdoesnotalwaysbecomevery
clear. Equality is a difficult and sensitive indicator to measure, not in the least
becauseofthefactthatforthisresearchtherehasbeenalargerfocusontheIndian
education providers. For the purpose of this research, I define equality as seeing
eachotherashavingthesamevalueandstatus,andbythisassesstheother’sinput
andviewsasjustasimportantasyourown.Butit isdifficulttoaskandevenmore
obtain an answer when asked about equality between partners to an Indian
education provider, let alone when asked by a researcher from a foreign and (in
mostcasescomparedtotheirowninstitution)higherqualityinstitution.Logicallythe
representatives feelsomedegreeofprideandself respect,andwillnotanswerby
statingthattheyareunequaltotheirpartner.Yetwhencautiouslyanalyzingthedata
and (evenmorecautiously) takingthe impressionsof theresearcher inmindthere
doesseemtobesomeformofinequalitybetweensomepartnerinstitutions,though
itisveryimportanttostatethatthedifferencesbetweeninstitutionsarealsointhis
areaclear.
TakinginmindthattheindicatorequalityispartlymissingfromDale’slistof
indicators that sum up to deciding on the correct mechanisms, there are several
26
mechanismsactive in the sample for this research. Clearlyborrowing and learning
aremechanismspresentinthissampleascanbeunderstoodfromthecollecteddata
whiledisseminationandimpositionareclearlynot.Thethreeremainingmechanisms
which are harmonization, standardization and installing interdependence are
somewhatmoredifficulttoapplytothisresearch.Itcanbesaidthatthereissome
form of harmonization present in some partnerships but it does appear to be
presentinaonewaymanner.Mainlytheeducationalprogrammesandperhapsthe
teachingtechniquesoftheteachersoftheIndianinstitutionsseemtoundergosome
form of harmonization with the foreign educational programmes and teachers.
Stating that this might also be the case for the institutions themselves might be
takingitabittoofarbutsomemightclaimthisisthecase.However,whatisclearis
thatharmonizationappearstobe largely inonedirection;comingfromtheforeign
institutionsandgoingtotheIndianinstitutions.Whetherthisalsomeansthereisa
mechanismofstandardizationaswellisdifficulttoestablishbutmatterofthefactis
thatthereseemstobesomedegreeofstandardizationinforexamplecurriculumin
several institutions.Andfinallythemechanismofinstallinginterdependenceseems
to tie back to Altbach’s centre‐periphery hypothesis. In my opinion stating that
interdependence is installedevenwhenonly lookingat thesituations inwhich the
Indianinstitutionlearnfromtheirforeignpartnerbutnotviceversaistakingittoo
far. Though the Indian institutions in their own opinion might learn from their
partners and the partnerships give their quality a boost, they are not solely
dependentontheirpartnerfortheirfunctioningandexistence.
§6.Conclusionsandreflection
Ithasbecomeclearthatthereisanurgentneedforasuitableregulatoryframework
regardingthepresenceandactivitiesofforeigneducationprovidersactiveinIndia’s
higher education system. Whether or not their presence and activities are
appreciated it is clear that they are active and at the moment fall outside any
domestic regulations, which is worrisome. In addition it is important that these
domesticregulationsreflectalongtermvisionforhighereducationinIndiainorder
to ensure the possible meeting of objectives set by the Government. In a world
whereboundariesarebecomingvaguerandservicesaretraded,itisdifficulttohold
27
ontonationalobjectives.Thereforeit is importanttoclearlyoutlineobjectivesand
waysofobtainingthem, insteadofreactingadhoctooccurringsituations.But it is
also important to have a clear image of theway this trendmight develop. At the
moment, the number of foreign education providers active in India appears to be
relatively low, and perceptions about what will happen in the near future differ
betweenactors. It isalso important tomention that clearmonitoring seems tobe
lacking,whichcaninfluencetheperceptionsofpossiblefuturescenario’sthathave
tobeaddressedindifferentmanners.
WhenlookingatbothIndianandforeigneducationproviders ithasbecome
clear that there are many difference between the providers, as well as between
Indianprovidersasagroup.Thoughall Indianprovidersseemtoadheretoabasic
levelofqualitythedifferencesbetweenthemaresignificant.Thesedifferencesalso
have an impact on the types of relationships they have with foreign partners,
especially on the level of equality betweenpartners. Thepartnerships seem tobe
clear and open, and in my opinion to some degree equal though there are
differences between institutions. Learning from partners can be a positive
developmentthough itmustbesaid that there ismostly learning fromthe foreign
partnerbytheIndianinstitutionandnotviceversa.Inanidealsituation,inaworld
that is becoming more andmore globalized and in the light of GATS, a situation
wouldexistinwhichallpartnerswouldlearnandbenefitfromeachother,andinthis
manner improve all higher education system around theworldwhile at the same
time being competitive to ensuring innovations and improvements. Still, this does
notseemtobethecaseatthemoment,notintheworldandalsonotinIndia.
Whenlinkingbacktotheresearchquestionposedinthispaperandlookingat
thefindingsitcanbesaidthatforeigneducationprovidersofferhighereducationin
several formsandmostly inpartnershipwithnationaleducationproviders, though
this is still on a relatively small scale when comparing it to the higher education
system as a whole. Nevertheless, this trend poses many opportunities but also
challengesforIndianinstitutions,thehighereducationsystem,theGovernmentand
Indiaingeneralthathavetobeaddressedinamannerthatensuresthebestpossible
gainsforIndianstudentsandIndiansocietyasawhole.
28
Ithasbecomeclear that therearemanyopportunitiesand justifiedworries
aboutinvolvementofforeigneducationproviderscomingintothecountrybutIndia
itselfcanbenefit fromthe liberalizationofthetrade inservicesaswell. Ithasvery
specific knowledge in areas such as ICT which it can use to start up its own
institutionsonforeignsoil. Itmightbeableto learnfromtheheadstartof foreign
education providers in India and use the best practices adapted to the suitable
context toexpand theirownactivitiesabroad.Developing countriesmight see the
signingoftheGATSintheareaofhighereducationasproblematicbuttherearealso
possibilities arising, especially for a country as India with specific knowledge and
skills to export. Awareness about strengths and weaknesses as a country are
important to benefit from the possibilities of a changing and globalizing world,
insteadoffocusingonthepossiblethreatsanddangers.
29
Literaturelist • Agarwal,P.(2007).‘PrivateHigherEducationinIndia:StatusandProspects’.The
Observatoryonborderlesshighereducation,July2007.• Altbach,P.G.(2004). ‘Globalisationandtheuniversity:mythsandrealities inan
unequalworld’.TertiaryEducationandManagement10:3‐25.• Babbie,E.(2004).ThePracticeofSocialResearch.ThomsonWadsworth,Belmont
CA,USA.• Bharvad,A. (2005). ‘GATSandEducation:OpportunitiesandChallenges’.Vidya,
JournaloftheGujaratUniversity2(1):55‐60.• Bhushan, S. (2004). ‘Domestic regulations’. National Institute of Educational
PlanningandAdministration.• Bhushan, S. (2006). ‘Foreign Education Providers in India:Mapping the Extent
andRegulation’.TheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation.• Chadha, R., D.K. Brown et al. (2000).Computational Analysis of the Impact on
India of the Uruguay Round and the Forthcoming WTO Trade Negotiations.WorkingpaperofUniversityofDelhi.
• Chadha,R.,B.Hoekmanetal.(2000).DevelopingCountriesandtheNextRoundofWTONegotiations.BlackwellPublishers,Oxford,UK.
• Creswell, J.H. (1998).Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfivetraditions.SagePublications,ThousandOaks,London,NewDelhi.
• Crotty,M.(1998).TheFoundationofSocialResearch:MeaningandPerspectivesintheResearchProcess.Sage,London,UK.
• Dale,R.(1999).‘Specifyingglobalizationeffectsonnationalpolicy:afocusonthemechanisms’.JournalofEducationPolicy14(1):1‐17.
• Dale,R.(2000).‘GlobalizationandEducation:Demonstratinga“CommonWorldEducational Culture” or Locating a “Globally Structured Educational Agenda”?’.EducationalTheory50(4):427‐448.
• Deodhar,S.Y.(2001).GATSandEducationalServices:IssuesforIndia’sResponseinWTONegotiations.IndianInstituteofManagement.
• Deodhar,S.Y. (2002).ManagingTrade inEducationalServices: Issues for India’sResponseinWTONegotiations. IndianInstituteofManagement,WorkingPaper2001‐10‐03.
• DepartmentofSchoolEducationandLiteracy&DepartmentofHigherEducation(2008). Annual Report 2007‐2008. Ministry of Human Resource Development,GovernmentofIndia.
• Detch,E.R.etal. (2001).MeasuringPerformance inHigherEducation.OfficeofResearch,UniversityofTexas,USA.
• Dickinson, A.K. (1997). ‘International Commodity Trade and Development’. In:Development and International Relations: A Critical Introduction. Polity Press:101‐125).
• Drake, W.J. & K. Nicolaïdis (1992). ‘Ideas, Interests and Institutionalization:“trade in services” and theUruguay Round’. InternationalOrganization 46 (1):37‐100.
• Finger,J.M.(2001).ImplementingtheUruguayRoundAgreements:ProblemsforDevelopingCountries.BlackwellPublishers,Oxford,UK.
• Finger,J.M.&J.J.Nogués(2002).TheUnbalancedUruguayRoundOutcome:TheNewAreasinFutureWTONegotiations.BlackwellPublishers,Oxford,UK.
30
• Finger, J.M. & P. Schuler (2000). Implementation of Uruguay RoundCommitments:TheDevelopmentChallenge.BlackwellPublishers,Oxford,UK.
• Ha‐Joonchang (2001). ‘IntellectualPropertyRightsandEconomicDevelopment:historicallessonsandemergingissues’.JournalofHumanDevelopmentVol.2(2).
• Hoekman, B., C.Michalopoulos & L.A.Winters (2004). Special and DifferentialTreatmentofDevelopingCountries in theWTO:Moving ForwardAfter Cancún.BlackwellPublishers,Oxford,UK.
• Kamat,S.G.(2007).‘WalkingtheTightrope:EqualityandGrowthinaLiberalisingIndia’. In: Green, A., A.W. Little et al. (2007).Education andDevelopment in aGlobalEra:Strategiesfor‘SuccessfulGlobalisation’.DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment,London,UK.
• Knight, J. (2002). ‘Trade in Higher Education: The Implications of GATS’. TheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation.
• Knight, J. (2003). ‘GATS, TradeandHigher Education: Perspective2003,Wherearewe?’.TheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation.
• Martensen, A. et al. (2000). Measuring Student Oriented Quality in HigherEducation: Application of the ECSI Methodology. Department of InformationScience,TheAarhusSchoolofBusiness,Denmark.
• Mukherjee, A. (2002). Distribution Services: India and the GATS 2000Negotiations. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations,NewDelhi,India.
• Mukherjee,A.(2005).‘DevelopingCountriesandGATSNegotiations:TheCaseofIndia’.GlobalEconomyJournal5(2):1‐19.
• National InstituteofEducationalPlanningandAdministration;HigherEducationUnit (2004). Internationalisation of Higher Education: Issues and Concerns.ConferencePapers,NewDelhi,India.
• Newindpress.com(2007).HigherEducationandGATS:ManyTrickyQuestions.• Novelli, M. & A. Verger (2008). ‘The structuring / restructuring of the global
governanceofeducationanddevelopment:Aframeworkfor inquiry’.12thEADIGeneralConference;GlobalGovernanceforSustainableDevelopment;TheNeedforPolicyCoherenceandNewPartnerships.
• Parvu,I.&D.M.Ipate(2007).‘MathematicalModelofMeasuringtheQualityofServices of the Higher Education Institutions’. Journal of Applied EconomicSciences2(1):1‐6.
• Powar, K.B. (2005a). Implications of WTO/GATS on Higher Education in India.PatilDeemedUniversity,Pune,India.
• Powar, K.B. (2005b). WTO and Education: Preparedness of India’s EducationSectorfortheHongKongMinisterial.PatilDeemedUniversity,Pune,India.
• Rajesh,M. (2005).GlobalisationofEducation:AnAnalysis fromtheStakeholderPerspective.IGNOURegionalCentre,Haryana,India.
• Raju, K.D. (2004). ‘Barriers to Trade in Education Services under the GATS: AnIndianExperience’.AmityLawReview5(1):1‐16.
• Roberts & Hite (2007): Ch. 17. What Strategies are Viable for DevelopingCountriesToday?(2003)RobertH.Wade
• Roberts & Hite (2007): Ch. 19. The New Global Economy and DevelopingCountries(1999)and(1997)DaniRodrik
31
• Roberts & Hite (2007): Ch. 16. In Defense of Global Capitalism (2003) JohanNorberg.
• Robertson,S.,X.Bonal,etal.(2002).‘GATSandtheeducationservicesindustry:the politics of scale and global reterritorialization.’ Comparative EducationReview46(4):472‐496.
• Robertson,S.&R.Dale(2003).ThisisWhattheFussisAbout!TheImplicationsofGATSforEducationSystemsintheNorthandtheSouth.PaperpresentedtotheColloquiumonEducationandGATSWhatDoestheFutureHold?
• Robertson, S.L. et al. (2007).Globalisation, Education andDevelopment: Ideas,ActorsandDynamics.DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment,Bristol.
• The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (2002). ‘International BranchCampuses:scale&significance’.TheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation5:1‐10.
• Tilak, J.B.G. (2004). ‘Higher Education Between the State and the Market’.UNESCOForumonHigherEducation,ResearchandKnowledge.
• Tilak, J.B.G. (2005). ‘Are We Marching towards Laissez‐faireism in HigherEducationDevelopment?’JournalofInternationalCooperationinEducation8(1):153‐165.
• Trade Policy Division, Department of Commerce (2007). Trade in EducationServices. A Consultation Paper on Higher Education and the GATS: AnOpportunity. InPreparationfor theOn‐goingServicesNegotiationsat theWTO.GovernmentofIndia.
• UNESCO (2006). Implications ofWTO/GATS onHigher Education in India& thePacific.ForumOccasionalPaperSeries,Paperno.9oftheRegionalSeminarforAsiaPacific,Seoul,TheRepublicofKorea.
• Verger, A. (2008).TheMerchants of Education:Global Politics and theUnevenEducationLiberalizationProcesswithintheWTO.Unpublishedpaper,UniversityofAmsterdam.
• Verger,A.&X.Bonal (2007). Education vs. Trade:Global StrugglesChallengingWTO/GATS.
