Purposes of transnational higher education programs: Lessons from two

Indonesian universities

Agustian Sutrisno and Hitendra Pillay

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia 4059

While intended to facilitate knowledge transfer from international universities

and develop Indonesian universities’ capacity, transnational higher education

programs (TEPs) in Indonesia have been criticised for operating merely as an

international trade in education—implying discrepancy between the rhetoric and

reality surrounding the key purposes of establishing TEPs among Indonesian

universities. This case study seeks to ascertain what actually drives Indonesian

universities to operate the TEPs. Interview and document data from two private

Indonesian universities were thematically analysed to identify the key purposes

of establishing TEPs in light of the conflicting global-national-local agendas and

unequal power relations between TEP partners. The findings suggest the

Indonesian universities actively advanced their particular institutional purposes

within the Indonesian national agenda and negotiate mutually beneficial

outcomes with their global partners. This study informs other universities to

devise clear purposes and expectations in managing TEPs to avoid functioning

merely as student recruitment pathways for international partners.

Keywords: transnational education, Indonesian higher education, case study,

knowledge transfer, power relations

Introduction

Transnational higher education programs (TEPs) are an example of innovative delivery

modalities of this globalised era, where nations and universities are becoming more

interconnected, stretching beyond their national borders (Marginson and Ordorika 2011;

Ziguras and McBurnie 2011). In managing TEPs, universities have to reformulate their

purposes to be in line not only with the institutional and national agendas, but also with

the potentially competing broader global interests (Naidoo 2010). Given the TEPs’

substantial number and importance (Hill et al. 2013), a study of how universities

understand the purposes of establishing TEPs is necessary to help inform and strengthen

this initiative. Therefore, as implied by Marginson and Rhoades (2002) and Unterhalter

and Carpentier (2010), the study reported here examines the purposes of TEPs as a

specific type of higher education program to provide a tangible grounding for

understanding the direction taken by universities in the 21st century.

As a part of a large higher education sector, Indonesia’s TEPs are distinctive,

growing, but under-studied. Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country, has a

sizeable higher education sector with more than 4.3 million students and 3,011 higher

education institutions in 2010 (Pusat Data dan Statistik Pendidikan n.d.). It has

participated in free trade agreements that promoted the liberalisation of higher education

services, prompting the government to allow partnership between Indonesian

universities and international universities to establish TEPs. One of the aims of the

policy liberalisation initiative was to encourage and facilitate knowledge transfer from

international partner universities to develop the Indonesian higher education capacity

(Nizam 2006; Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional 2007). According to OECD:

Capacity is the ability of people, organisations and societies as a whole to

manage their affairs successfully. Capacity development is the process whereby

people, organisations, and society as whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt

and maintain capacity overtime (2006, 12).

Unlike their Malaysian and Singaporean counterparts, Indonesian TEPs are run by

established Indonesian universities, rather than non-degree granting colleges used as

shopfronts to deliver overseas programs (Welch 2011). The Indonesian TEPs generally

take the form of dual degree programs within established comprehensive public and

private universities which allow students to commence their studies in Indonesia, and

then continue at an overseas partner university, resulting in the granting of two

equivalent degrees—one from the Indonesian university and the other from the overseas

partner for the single program undertaken (Tadjudin 2009). Among Indonesian

universities, TEPs are normally considered as additions to their regular programs where

the graduates are only granted the Indonesian degrees. Despite the abovementioned

government directive for TEPs as a means for capacity development, they are often

criticised as mere revenue-generation enterprise (Tadjudin 2009). In the absence of any

in-depth study, little is known about the actual rationales driving Indonesian universities

to establish TEPs. Hence, the current article attempts to address this paucity in empirical

research. The subsequent section examines the interplay between global-national-local

priorities in transnational higher education, followed by description of the methodology

used in this study, leading to the delineation of its findings. The discussions of the

findings conclude this article.

Global-national-local interplay in TEPs

Marginson and Ordorika (2011) argue that researching higher education in the global

era has to take into account the interplay between global, national, and local

environments within which universities determine their actions. Although there are

global networks between universities, such as the TEP partnerships, universities

simultaneously function in particular national systems and local contexts. In their view,

universities cannot be positioned as passive research objects swayed by global and

national influences. Universities are dynamic actors in the global-national-local

interplay, as their actions can undermine, negate, and alter the global and national

influences, underpinned by their own local-institutional agendas and vice versa

(Marginson and Rhoades 2002). Nevertheless, the local-institutional agendas are also

not free from competing aspirations between schools, faculties, and university

executives, which may contest each other, and consequently re-interpret the local-

institutional agendas in the midst of the global-national-local interplay (Marginson and

Rhoades 2002). Traditionally, Indonesian universities, as stipulated by the government,

subscribe to the ideals of Tridharma: education, research, and community service

(Nugroho 2005). In the context of growing globalisation and heightened global-

national-local interplay, these ideals are often renegotiated by the universities when

considering developing and offering TEPs.

Within the global-national-local environment, issues of power relations and

knowledge flow between universities across national borders demand special attention

(Marginson and Ordorika 2011).Unequal power relations between TEP partners persist

as universities from OECD countries tend to dominate their partners in developing

countries because of their perceived superior reputation and thus have greater influence

on decision making (Altbach 2004). Utilisation of the OECD country partner’s

reputation to elevate the local public perception of the developing country university

seems to benefit the local universities just as much in increasing local market share

(McBurnie and Ziguras 2007). This phenomenon was reported by Akiba (2008) who

found that a Malaysian private university attracted a substantial number of students

because of the reputation of its Australian TEP partner. Regarding power relations and

decision making, Canto and Hannah (2001) found that a British university that

partnered with a Brazilian university could steer the partnership direction to post-

graduate student recruitment to suit its objectives instead of supporting the Brazilian

partner’s capacity development aspiration. The general perception that emerges from

the literature tends to suggest that generating revenue through student recruitment from

developing countries was the key purpose of establishing TEPs among OECD country

universities, whereas for developing country universities, it was more about their

capacity development (Sakamoto and Chapman 2010). Some the cases reported in the

literature tend to imply that these divergent expectations are mutually exclusive, but if

one follows Akiba’s (2008) findings and if developing country universities are strategic,

then there can be benefits for them as well.

The global-national-local interplay also makes possible the flow of knowledge

between universities across national borders (Marginson and Ordorika 2011). However,

given the potentially distinct purposes and unequal power relations between partnering

universities, knowledge transfer may be pushed lower on the priorities of Indonesian

universities’ TEP partners, contrary to the institutional aspiration of the Indonesian

universities and the national policy of the Indonesian government (Gilbert and

Gorlenko, 1999; Yang 2010). It is acknowledged at the outset of this article that by

focusing on knowledge transfer, the study does not negate Indonesian universities’

ability to generate their own knowledge, but as directed by the government, TEPs can

be used as means to facilitate knowledge transfer and develop institutional capacity.

Thus the global-national-local interplay in higher education shaping the drivers of TEPs

is the focus of the study reported in this article.

Methodology

This study examines how particular Indonesian universities understand the purposes of

establishing TEPs in the midst of the global-national-local interplay. Therefore, case

study design was employed to generate thick description regarding potential causal

relationships between purposes, actors, actions, and outcomes (Yin 2009). Moreover, as

previous studies on transnational higher education among Indonesian universities are

limited, the current study is a revelatory case study as it aims to reveal a previously

unknown phenomenon and report the preliminary findings upon which future studies

can be based (Yin 2009). As in most case studies, defining the boundaries of the

research to make it manageable is important. This case study was bounded by two

participating universities, which was sufficient to serve its revelatory purpose.

Focussing the study on two universities allowed in-depth exploration into the

commonality and particularity of the purposes of TEPS as espoused by the participating

Indonesian universities, which can be contrasted with findings in other national

contexts. By doing so, future studies on the international activities of Indonesian

universities can have solid grounding to base their directions.

Research sites

In 2010, there were 2,928 private compared to 83 government-owned higher education

institutions in Indonesia (Pusat Data dan Statistik Pendidikan n.d.). Private Indonesian

universities far outnumber government-owned universities, and they are more likely to

enter into a TEP partnership than government-owned ones. However, private

universities are less studied than the government-owned universities yet are equally

subjected to the growing national and global competition for student recruitment. Since

they receive no subsidy from the Indonesian government, they are perhaps more prone

to the impacts of such competition as they depend on student number to sustain their

existence (Susanti 2011).

To maintain anonymity of the participating universities, they are referred to as

Indonesian University A (IU-A) and Indonesian University B (IU-B). IU-A has been in

operation for more than 40 years with a student population of around 10,000 students. It

is located in a major urban centre of Indonesia and at the time of data collection, IU-A

had three TEPs in cooperation with Australian and European universities for

undergraduate programs in Business and Information Technology. Although a private

university, IU-A was traditionally-organised, in line with Indonesian government public

sector organisational structures with leadership hierarchies at executive, faculty and

school-levels. IU-B is a more recent university which was established about 20 years

ago with a student population of approximately 25,000 students. IU-B had 13 TEP

partners in Australia, Europe, and Asia, offering undergraduate and master-level

programs ranging from Fashion Design, Business to Information Technology. IU-B is

located in a city that is three-times the size of the city where IU-A is located. In 2011,

IU-A’s TEPs were in their fourth year of operations, whereas IU-B’s oldest TEPs were

about a decade-old. Selecting these two very different private universities can produce

comparative findings providing insights into how different characteristics and

experience influence the management of TEPs.

Procedure and data collection

In line with the case study methodology, semi-structured interviews were used to collect

data from key informants at IU-A and IU-B. These included university executives,

faculty officers, and TEP lectures at the school level, which broadly corresponded to the

three organisational levels of the university structure. Given the focus on the managerial

and purposive aspects of TEPs, it was decided that students enrolled in these programs

were not included as participants as they have limited knowledge on their university’s

management and aspirations. A total of 20 interviewees, 10 from each university, were

involved. Their names were withheld as per mutual agreement. Since English is not the

main language of instruction in most Indonesian universities, 13 participants preferred

to be interviewed in Bahasa Indonesia (the national language of Indonesia) with the

remaining 7 choosing English for their interviews. The interviews were about 40-60

minutes long. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The Indonesian

transcripts were translated to English using the back-translation procedure to ensure the

trustworthiness and accuracy of the translated data was maintained. The data were

firstly translated into English by a certified translator and then back-translated into

Indonesian by another translator (Liamputtong 2010). Furthermore, the transcribed data

was shared with the respective interviewees to verify the accuracy of the recording.

The second source of data was relevant university documents. They included

Memoranda of Understanding for International Cooperation, Letters of Agreement for

TEP Partnership, Future Roadmap, and Strategic Plans. Documents only available in

Indonesian, such as the Strategic Plans, were translated into English and back-

translation procedure was also applied. These documents were considered as a

secondary data source to corroborate the main findings from the interviews. Both

interview and document data were then thematically analysed.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis strategy was used to analyse all the transcripts which were translated

to English (Braun & Clarke 2006). The themes were derived from both the literature

review and emergent ideas from the data. For the analysis, the data were read repeatedly

and arranged into themes in two stages. In the first stage, the thematic analysis was

conducted on all the interview data to identify and generate the dominant themes.

Dominant themes were defined as themes that were frequently referred to by the

participants (appearing more than 25 times in the entire dataset) and noted by at least

60% of the participants. Particular attention was given to the grouping of participants

based on the three organisational levels of the university structure in order to examine

the potential differences in understanding the purposes of establishing TEPs within a

university, not only between the participating universities. NVivo 9 qualitative data

analysis software facilitated the data aggregation and thematic analysis process.

In the second stage, given that the documents were considered as secondary

data, they were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the interviews. The

documents were analysed based on the dominant themes generated from the interview

data. The document data extracts that supported the dominant themes were collated and

used to substantiate those themes.

Besides considering the trustworthiness of the translations as mentioned earlier,

this study also undertook to ensure trustworthy research findings through four means

(Guba, 1981). First, the findings from the interview data were triangulated with findings

from the relevant university documents as previously outlined to achieve findings that

are not solely dependent on the participants’ subjective views, thus establishing the

confirmability of this study. Second, to address the credibility issue, this study

employed member checking process. The participants were invited to review the

interview transcripts and provide feedback to ensure the meaning was consistent with

what was intended. Third, as this case study involved a small number of participants, it

is acknowledged that the findings could not be generalised to all Indonesian

universities. However, by providing thick description of the context and findings, the

study can have transferability of underlying theoretical principles to other universities in

a comparable situation. Finally, to ensure the dependability of the study, an audit trail

was provided through careful documentation of the data collection and analysis

procedures. This is reflected in this article through clear identification of the sources of

interview and document excerpts by mentioning the position of the interviewee as an

executive, faculty officer, or lecturer and referencing the page number or particular

section of the documents. Altogether, these actions assist in maintaining the rigour of

the study.

Findings

Three common purposes of establishing TEPs were identified in both IU-A and IU-B:

international profiling, developing institutional capacity, and commercial purposes.

While sharing commonalities, each university placed varying emphases on these

purposes, revealing unique strategies to situate their local expectation and

simultaneously honour their TEP agreements.

International profiling purpose

In this first purpose, both Indonesian universities established TEPs to improve the

universities’ recognition on the international stage. This international profiling purpose

was discussed by 75% of the total participants. Each university had specific

conceptualisations of what constitutes international profile. IU-B aimed to gain

international accreditations from international agencies to increase their profile. This

notion was consistently reported by participants from the three organisational levels in

IU-B.

I would like to have TEP cooperation... give priority to universities with EQUIS

and AACSB...Because we want to gain international recognition. (IU-B University

Executive, Excerpt 1)

The accreditations sought were from European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS)

and Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). IU-B’s Future

Roadmap Document outlined the goal of securing EQUIS accreditation by 2015 and

AACSB accreditation by 2018.

Whereas, IU-A sought to lift its international profile through leveraging the

recognition of the TEP partner. In this case, the Indonesian university was content to

consider recognition by association and international accreditations were not a priority.

One of the executives stated:

…by opening this TEP, people in our city or the market segment of IU-A will see

that IU-A is an international university. This TEP can also prove that our

curriculum is accepted overseas, so it is a guarantee because if we try to apply for

the international accreditation, it will be a longer process. But now we have a TEP.

This is a type of recognition too (IU-A University Executive, Excerpt 2)

As shown above, the TEP partner’s recognition of IU-A’s curriculum was perceived as

an indication that IU-A’s academic standing was recognised at the international level.

Furthermore, the first half of Excerpt 2 reveals the university executive’s view that

TEPs could be used to elevate its image as an internationally-reputable university

among the local market.

However, the idea of improving the university’s international image by using the

TEPs was not supported by IU-A faculty officers and lecturers—suggesting a difference

of views within a single university.

There might be the need of the institution to improve its positioning in the public

perception. But in my opinion, and well since I also have the authority to speak

about it, I will try to redirect the goal to improving the quality... (IU-A Lecturer,

Excerpt 3)

Excerpt 3 suggests that projecting the university’s international image to the local

market was not considered as the key purpose of establishing TEPs by participants from

the faculty and school levels. According to them, the programs should be used to

improve the university’s academic quality.

One key explanation on the above different views was provided by one of IU-A

university executives.

... at the level of the implementer, such as... the lecturers, they think more about the

content and the implementation. While in the upper level, they tend to consider

financial interests more... But so far they don’t lead to a higher tension, but it is

definitely potential. (IU-A University Executive, Excerpt 4)

The university executives had to constantly be aware of the financial situation of the

university and the TEPs, whereas the lecturers as implementers of the TEPs’ delivery

was more focussed on academic aspects and quality improvement, which corresponds

with the next purpose of establishing TEPs—institutional capacity development.

Institutional capacity development purpose

The second purpose embodies the universities’ intention to develop their institutional

capacity through knowledge transfer from TEP partners. This capacity development

purpose was discussed by 60% of the total participants. Views from all the

organisational levels in IU-A and IU-B on the capacity development purpose were

consistent. Two excerpts from lecturers representing each university illustrate the

purpose.

We hope there will be transfer of knowledge or experience which has been done

there [i.e. TEP partner] ... so that IU-A can also develop and learn... That’s why

what is important is how our curriculum here matches with the curriculum in TEP

partner. (IU-A Lecturer, Excerpt 5)

We want to also learn from them [i.e. TEP partners], looking at what [international]

accreditation that they have, and basically try to take some good qualities that they

have and try to adopt it over here. (IU-B Lecturer, Excerpt 6)

As illustrated in the above excerpts, a key similarity between IU-A and IU-B’s

institutional capacity development purpose is the focus on knowledge transfer from the

TEP partners to improve their educational quality, albeit different manifestations for

each university. Based on Excerpt 5, IU-A anticipated knowledge transfer from the TEP

partner with a focus on seeking the partner’s recognition for its curriculum. As

mentioned earlier, IU-B aimed to be internationally-accredited, thus Excerpt 6 indicates

that IU-B wanted to learn the partners’ experience in preparing for international

accreditation and apply that to its own preparation for the accreditation.

The document analysis, particularly the Letter of Agreement between IU-A and

one of its TEP partners clarified how the curriculum recognition by the partner could

facilitate knowledge transfer and improve IU-A’s quality.

The parties agree that some modification of the curriculum in each of the courses

involved may be beneficial, in order to assist articulation and credit transfer... To

that purpose, they will encourage the sharing of relevant curriculum material and

the sharing of information on teaching methodology (IU-A Letter of Agreement

article 8.1, Excerpt 7).

In the TEP partnership, the modification of curriculum required reviewing course

rationale, course content, and teaching-learning approaches. This knowledge transfer

was enabled by IU-A learning from its partner’s curriculum material, teaching design,

and delivery methodology. Therefore, despite different needs for knowledge transfer,

both participating universities similarly established TEPs to develop their capacity.

Commercial purpose

The final purpose denotes the global trade in education, focussed on financial

consideration that drives establishment of TEPs. Based on the responses from 70% of

the total participants, both Indonesian universities were concerned about the TEPs’

financial sustainability. Nevertheless, they differed on viewing the programs as a

commercial venture to generate revenue.

Generally, IU-A participants stated that their university did not prioritise profit

from TEPs. However, IU-A still needed to keep the TEPs financially sustainable.

I think that's the main reason, to be known globally, rather than driven by

economic reasons (IU-A University Executive, Excerpt 8).

As a university, IU-A is not really profit-oriented. But I think profit is important to

maintain the sustainability of a program [i.e. TEP] (IU-A Lecturer, Excerpt 9).

The above views exemplify agreement by the majority of staff members across the

different organisational levels that IU-A’s main purpose for establishing TEPs was not

entirely commercially driven, and financial profit was only important to ensure the

TEPs’ sustainability. The emphasis on sustainability is also supported by one of IU-A’s

documents which called for, ‘The improvement of the quantity and quality of

sustainable cooperation programs with other universities (Strategic Plan of IU-A

Faculty of Engineering 15, Excerpt 10).’

While there were indications of IU-A’s non-profit orientation in running TEPs,

the university did not totally disregard the commercial value of TEPs. One university

executive explained:

We don’t directly target that [i.e. student enrolment] in TEP, but indirectly we

need to target it in other [regular] programs... If [local] people believe that IU-A

has internationally acceptable quality, they will enrol, well, maybe not in the TEP,

but other [regular] programs... We are open to a partnership with TEP Partner, in

which it can introduce itself not only to IU-A but also to high schools... It looks as

if IU-A were used by the TEP Partner for its promotion, while actually IU-A also

benefits from it as people will see IU-A as an international university. (IU-A

University Executive, Excerpt 11)

The above excerpt alludes to IU-A’s cost recovery strategy in capitalising on the TEP

partner’s reputation to boost student recruitment for its regular programs. In its

marketing campaigns, IU-A involved the partner’s representative to visit local high-

schools. From the perspective of an outsider and also perhaps the staff members at

lower organisational levels, the international partner appeared to be using IU-A’s access

to local high-schools to promote itself. This view resonates with the earlier discussion

where faculty officers and lecturers disapproved using TEPs to promote IU-A’s

international image. However, for IU-A university executives, this joint-marketing was

intended to improve its international image and recruit more high-quality students to its

regular programs. IU-A’s TEPs had small student number, only single digit in the

Information Technology TEP, but IU-A anticipated student enrolment increase in its

regular programs. With higher student enrolment in the regular programs, IU-A could

subsidise the TEPs and keep the partnership to serve its local student-recruitment

agenda. Evidently, IU-A aimed to maintain the financial sustainability without being

overly commercially-driven and dependent on TEPs’ income. Hence, improved

international profile was anticipated to increase IU-A’s base level revenue generated by

higher student enrolment in the regular programs.

Given its longer experience in running TEPs, the commercial purpose at IU-B

has changed over time, from simply increasing TEP student enrolment numbers to

securing financial sustainability. While the commercial purpose was dominant in the

initial years of its TEPs, IU-B started to leverage the partnership beyond the direct TEP

financial consideration. The subsequent excerpts highlight the shifting purpose.

At first we opened the TEP, we did it only for marketing and student recruitment,

but now we are also trying to leverage partnership that we have for other activities,

including research. (IU-B Faculty Officer, Excerpt 12)

We would like to run the TEP financially sound. Otherwise, how to make the

programs sustainable? ...At the beginning we were very focussed on the economic

reason. But when we have a good partnership, for five years, do you still want to

put priority on the economic consideration?... We have to move to next level,

faculty collaboration...lecturer exchange...research collaboration (IU-B University

Executive, Excerpt 13)

Excerpts 12 and 13 show congruency in perceptions of IU-B staff members across

different organisational levels concerning the priority on student recruitment and

marketing of TEPs in the initial years. As the TEP partnerships matured and the

commercial purpose was achieved and stabilised, IU-B was ready to move to the next

stage of the partnership that provided non-monetary benefits, such as lecturer exchange

and joint research. Excerpt 13 also signals a change in the commercial purpose to

sustainability of the programs, rather than market expansion. To understand how IU-B’s

commercial purpose changed overtime, some historical perspective is discussed below.

The initial priority on student recruitment could be associated with IU-B’s first

partner’s demand. The Australian university partner required a set number of students as

a pre-condition for the TEP to start.

The Australian partner university said: ‘You have to have at least 20 students in

this program. You have to pay the 20, because we [i.e. the Australian university]

have to fly out our faculty. That is our fixed cost.’ I said: ‘Oh, okay. I understand

that.’ Otherwise, we cannot have our first partnership... But what happened when

we ran the program? They asked for a minimum of 30 students. The first time we

only got like 15 students, so we had to pay the 15 extra. (IU-B University

Executive, Excerpt 14)

The preceding excerpt illustrates how unequal power relations in the TEPs

disadvantaged IU-B. It had to increase efforts on marketing the TEPs and recruiting

more students to maintain the financial viability. Understandably, IU-B focussed on the

commercial purpose during the initial stages of the TEP operation. In this case, IU-B

was treated as a recruitment agent rather than a partner. There was little regard for what

IU-B expected from the partnership.

Nevertheless, for IU-B executives, accepting the initial unequal position as the

TEP partners’ recruitment agent was a strategy to engage in knowledge transfer.

We are like our partners’ channel of supply chain... Sometimes we think [about]

our students that we send to them. We’re like their marketing agent. But I say, yes

we can be like that if you ‘marry’ with a not so good university but if you partner

with good university... It’s a win-win. We give them students, but they give us

quality. (IU-B University Executive, Excerpt 15)

According to the university executive, acting as the partners’ recruitment agent was a

necessary pre-condition to advance IU-B’s agenda to acquire knowledge from the

partners and eventually improve its own quality. IU-B was ‘trading-off’ its TEP

students for knowledge transfer opportunities with these ‘higher-quality’ international

partners. One of the effects of this strategy was IU-B’s adopting a strong marketing

campaign that saw exponential growth of TEP student number, from 15 to 1,400

students within a 10 year-period.

For TEP, we [i.e. IU-B] have 1,400 students. We are the biggest in the country. We

have a name now... Now [international] universities come to us to do partnership

and we are more selective... We have a good track record in working.... make sure

that our partners also actually make some money out of the TEP. So we try very

hard to make them happy as well. (IU-B Faculty Officer, Excerpt 16)

Based on Excerpt 16, the high number of students was seen as evidence of IU-B’s

success in managing the TEPs and generating substantial income for itself and its

partners. Due to this financial success, in recent years, more international universities

approached IU-B to actively seek TEP partnerships. IU-B had a privileged position and

could be selective in forging new partnerships—a change in the power relations. This

opportunity to selectively choose TEP partners with internationally-accredited

universities afforded IU-B with greater opportunities to acquire knowledge and prepare

for its own international accreditation. In fact, IU-B was sponsored by two of its

internationally-accredited partners to join the European Foundation for Management

Development (EFMD)—the body that grants EQUIS accreditation. ‘Earlier this year,

we already became a member of EFMD, sponsored by an Australian and a European

partner university (IU-B University Executive, Excerpt 17).’ The particularity of IU-A

and IU-B’s strategies in their commercial purpose and other differences on the purposes

of establishing TEPs identified previously show how Indonesian universities

strategically use the programs to support their institutional agendas, to be discussed in

the following section.

Discussion

This empirical case study sheds light on the Indonesian perspectives regarding the

purposes of establishing TEPs, the power relations between Indonesian universities and

their international partners, and the global-national-local tensions in managing the

programs. In conjunction with the theme of this special publication, the findings also

offer insights into the changing purpose of Indonesian higher education in this

globalised world.

Mutually exclusive vs. mutually supportive purposes of establishing TEPs

International profiling, commercial, and institutional capacity development are the main

purposes for establishing TEPs among the two participating Indonesian universities.

Based on the literature review, there is an assumption that commercial and institutional

capacity development purposes are mutually exclusive (Canto & Hannah, 2001).

However, in the case of IU-B, the university’s initial priority on the commercial purpose

did not stop it from advancing its institutional capacity development purpose. Acting as

a student recruitment agent for the earlier TEP partners and increasing student

enrolment were strategies to secure partnerships with internationally-accredited

universities, which in turn privileged them to seek opportunities to engage in knowledge

transfer with these internationally-accredited partners. IU-B executives were aware that

the commercial purpose was pivotal for its partners and were strategic in acquiring

knowledge from higher-quality partners. As shown in the finding section, IU-B kept

them engaged by increasing the financial profit from the TEP partnerships and ‘trading-

off’ its students for access to the TEP partners’ knowledge and experience. The

knowledge transfer initiatives, therefore, were not necessarily of less priority than the

commercial purpose for IU-B. Instead, the commercial purpose supported the initiatives

to develop institutional capacity and pursue IU-B’s desired international profile. Thus

the purposes of establishing TEPs were mutually supportive rather than exclusive. In

contrast, for IU-A, the commercial purpose was not prioritised, contributing to the low

student number. Without commensurate financial profit, there might have been little

incentive for the TEP partners to engage in knowledge transfer.

The findings that the three main purposes of establishing TEPs complement each

other criticise two opposite views on the purpose of TEPs and suggest an alternative on

how TEPs can be sustained to benefit the Indonesian universities. In the first view,

Indonesian TEPs have been criticised as essentially a profit-making endeavour

(Tadjudin 2009). Such critique may be based on a surface level observation of the

programs’ high tuition fee, but may miss the universities’ underlying strategies of using

TEPs to improve their own institutional capacity and develop an international profile.

In the second view, Huang (2007), for instance, views that developing country

universities’ interest in transnational education is primarily on capacity development,

which concurs with one of the purposes identified in the present study. However, as

government subsidies shrink and universities are required to support themselves, both

private and government-owned universities cannot neglect the commercial purpose of

TEPs and solely focus on capacity development.

In line with Mercer and Zhegin’s (2011) findings on a British and Russian

universities’ TEP partnership that the partnership cannot be sustainable without

financial viability, complementarity of the three purposes identified in the current study

highlights the need to balance the ideals of capacity development and the reality of

maintaining the financial viability of the TEPs. Universities guided by such balanced

view may be more successful in maintaining the TEPs and reap the benefits of

knowledge transfer from the TEP partners to support their international profiling. Some

of the participants in the current study have noted the occurrence of knowledge transfer

from the TEP partners and tangible changes in the practices of the Indonesian

universities. A formal study concentrating on knowledge transfer through TEP

partnerships is currently undertaken by the first author and should make further

contribution to this increasingly important aspect of TEP partnerships.

Unequal power relations between TEP partners

Both Indonesian universities, coming from a developing country, understandably

experienced unequal power relations with their partners from OECD countries. As

found in previous studies by Beerkens (2010) and Marginson and Sawir (2011),

Indonesian universities were considered unequal when compared with the leading

international universities’ reputation and capacity. In the current study, the inequality is

most evident in the case of IU-B which had to accept the demands made by its first TEP

partner for a set number of students. To some extent, the inequality could also be

observed in IU-A which used its international partner’s reputation to build the

university’s international image for the local market.

Nevertheless, the two Indonesian universities were strategic and instead of

seeing the inequality as negative, exploited it to advance their own institutional agendas.

This was exemplified by IU-A’s strategy to capitalise on the TEP partner’s international

reputation to increase its local market share and IU-B’s readiness to act as a recruitment

agent for the TEP partners in order to secure partnerships with more reputable

universities and engage in knowledge transfer with those universities to obtain

international accreditations. IU-B’s purpose of establishing TEPs was chiefly to learn

from the TEP partners and then seek recognition from independent accreditation

agencies and become an internationally-reputable university. In other words, TEPs were

means toward an end and was not the end in itself. Hence, IU-B avoided dependency on

the existence of TEPs to build its international profile.

The lack of dependency on the TEP partnerships generally distinguishes

Indonesian private higher education institutions from private colleges in neighbouring

countries. Despite the unequal power relations with TEP partners, Indonesian private

universities have their own degree-granting authority and a larger proportion of students

in the regular programs than the TEPs. Consequently, they do not depend entirely on the

TEP partners for their survival as was the case of Malaysian and Singaporean private

colleges. The Malaysian and Singaporean partnerships seem to be purely commercially

driven and can be vulnerable and often at the mercy of the TEP partners. Murray (2011)

reported that after one Australian university terminated its TEPs, the Malaysian,

Singaporean, and Hong Kong college partners had to find another TEP partner as they

were dependent on the partner’s reputation and credential to stay commercially viable.

However, in the case of the Indonesian universities, because they saw TEPs as

additional rather than core programs, they were less vulnerable and, therefore, could use

the programs to strengthen themselves. Taking IU-A as an example, using the partner’s

reputation to boost the university’s local marketing effort demonstrates IU-A’s

resourcefulness to exploit the partner’s higher international reputation, instead of being

dependent on the TEP partners.

Global-national-local tensions in TEPs

As actors in the global-national-local environment, the participating Indonesian

universities had to reformulate their conceptualisation on the purposes of establishing

TEPs and renegotiate their strategies to achieve the purposes in light of the conflicting

global, national, and local priorities (Marginson, Kaur and Sawir 2011). Considering the

large higher education market in Indonesia, the global pressure for international trade in

education is substantial. To be competitive both globally and locally, the Indonesian

universities had to accommodate the demands made by the TEP partners or risk losing

the partnerships altogether. In the case of IU-B, the university persevered through

unequal power relations to achieve its purposes in establishing TEPs. This illustrates the

strategic approach adopted by IU-B and in doing so, the university’s TEPs were not

converted into mere international trade enterprises despite pressures from a certain

partner to boost student enrolment. IU-B still actively pursued its institutional capacity

development purpose. Overtime, the initial priority of commercial purposes was

saturated and the partnerships matured to pursue other mutually beneficial goals beyond

mere student recruitment, such as joint research and lecturer exchange.

In pursuing the institutional capacity development purpose, the Indonesian

universities seemed to maintain the national imperative to use TEPs as means for

knowledge transfer. Nevertheless, each participating university was able to apply its

own interpretation of institutional capacity development and pursue its respective

institutional agenda. IU-A emphasised curriculum matching, whereas IU-B emphasised

developing capacity to prepare for international accreditation. As the Indonesian

universities continue to develop their institutional capacity through knowledge transfer

with the TEP partners, eventually they may obtain international accreditations and no

longer need the recognition from the TEP partners. In this scenario, the TEPs may

outlive their use for the Indonesian universities and require alternative initiatives. The

scenario perhaps will soon eventuate at IU-B, which has been accepted as a member of

EFMD, one step closer to receiving the EQUIS accreditation. IU-B seems to have clear

plans regarding what it expects in the long run from the TEPs.

Given the findings reported here centred on two Indonesian universities, it only

represents a very small proportion of the 3,011 higher education institutions in

Indonesia. Hence, caution must be exercised when interpreting and transferring the

findings. There may be other Indonesian universities that have different experiences,

such as those not succeeding in TEP partnerships and are swayed into mere commercial

venture due to global pressures, or those succeeding but for reasons other than reported

in this study.

At the universities’ local-institutional environment, staff members from different

organisational levels were not always in accord about the main purpose of establishing

TEPs. This was particularly evident among IU-A participants who had different views

about the international profiling and commercial purposes. At the executive level, there

was greater acknowledgement of the need to generate revenue by utilising the TEP

partner’s reputation to recruit students. The view was not shared by the faculty officers

and lecturers who believed that the purpose of TEPs was for institutional capacity

development and gaining international universities’ recognition for IU-A’s curriculum

and academic processes. Therefore, within the local environment itself, there were

tensions among different organisational levels. As stated earlier in Excerpt 4, such

tension arose due to different level of awareness concerning financial viability of the

TEPs between the university executives as the top financial administrator and staff

members at the faculty and school levels as the implementer of the academic programs.

This awareness of financial viability is crucial in an environment where the government

assistance to higher education is shrinking and the number of higher education

institutions in Indonesia is growing, thereby increasing competition between

universities (Hill and Thee 2012). TEPs were seen by the university executives as a

competitive advantage for the university compared to other Indonesian universities that

did not have similar programs. However, staff members at the lower levels were not

necessarily made aware of the executives’ strategies in using TEPs.

As mentioned earlier in the university description, IU-A was more rigidly

structured than IU-B. Communicating ideas and strategies between the different

organisational levels could be challenging in traditionally-structured universities (Dill

1999). This suggests a need to develop better internal communication within the

university. While each organisational level of the university contributes differently in

managing and delivering TEPs, the purposes of having the programs should be made

clear and consistent throughout the different levels. Without effective internal

communication, directing the TEPs will be further complicated as it involves not only

renegotiating the national and global purposes with the institutional purposes, but also

renegotiating the competing purposes espoused by different groups within the local

university level.

Indonesian higher education purposes and Conclusion

Reflecting on the theme for this special edition, understanding the purposes of

establishing TEPs in Indonesia offers insights into the changing focus of higher

education in Indonesia. The Indonesian universities in this study attempt to strengthen

their position locally and simultaneously develop international profiles. As mentioned

previously, the underpinning purpose of developing institutional capacity is to adopt

international standards in curriculum, teaching and learning, and management to

achieve international recognition. Nevertheless, developing and successfully running

TEPs cannot disregard financial considerations. The TEP partners’ influence appears to

help the Indonesian universities attract more high quality students not only to the TEPs

but also to the regular programs. At the same time, their influence also drives

Indonesian universities to pay more attention to the financial sustainability of higher

education programs. Therefore, the purpose of Indonesian higher education has not

remained unchanged amid the global-national-local interplay. As previously stated,

Indonesian universities are expected to follow the principles of Tridharma (Nugroho

2005). These ideals of education, research, and community service have been re-

interpreted and expanded in TEPs to include international benchmarking of educational

standards and increasing the universities’ financial robustness. While research in the

Indonesian context suggests an outward conformity to the American-style

entrepreneurial research university model and purposes, at the deeper level there are

institutional-local based adaptations and re-interpretations of the global and national

purposes of higher education (Beerkens 2010). This can be seen from the subtle

differences in how each Indonesian university has understood the outwardly similar

purposes of establishing TEPs and the tensions within one of the universities concerning

how the purposes have been prioritised. Each university and higher education program

offer particular insights into the contemporary purposes of higher education in this

globalised world.

To conclude, the findings suggest the purposes of establishing TEPs,

international profiling, commercial, and developing institutional capacity, may be

common to many universities but how individual universities manifest and interpret

those purposes can vary. There can be subtle differences concerning what each

university seeks from the TEP partnerships based on its institutional agenda and

leadership’s strategies. Indications of unequal power relationship with the partner

universities can be found, but the Indonesian universities have devised strategies to take

advantage from this inequality. One of the interesting findings is that while it may

appear from the outside that the Indonesian universities have been passively subservient

to the global and national forces affecting them, the finding suggests otherwise. They

have actively sought solutions to advance their own institutional agendas and negotiate

mutually beneficial outcomes with their TEP partners, with due consideration to the

Indonesian Government national aspirations. Thus this study has demonstrated how the

Indonesian universities have formulated their specific interpretation on the purposes of

establishing TEPs in the midst of the global-national-local environments which have

competing agendas. Other universities can also gain advantages from their TEP

partnerships by devising their unique institutional strategies underpinned by clarity of

purposes and expectations in TEPs to avoid simply functioning as a recruitment

pathway for international partners.

References

Akiba, H. 2008. The changing face of transnational education in Malaysia: A case study

of international offshore university programs. PhD diss, University of

Minnesota.

Altbach, P. G. 2004. Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal

world. Tertiary Education and Management 10, no. 1: 3-25.

Beerkens, E. 2010. Global models for the national research university: adoption and

adaptation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8,

no. 3: 369-391.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology 3, no. 2, 77-101.

Dill, D. D. 1999. Academic accountability and university adaptation: The architecture

of an academic learning organization. Higher Education 38, no. 2: 127-154.

Canto, I., and J. Hannah. 2001. A partnership of equals? Academic collaboration

between the United Kingdom and Brazil. Journal of Studies in International

Education 5, no. 1: 26-41.

Gilbert, K., and Gorlenko, E. 1999. Transplant and process-oriented approaches to

international management development. Human Resource Development

International 2, no. 4: 335-354.

Guba, E. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Technology Research and Development 29, no. 2: 75-31.

Hill, C., K.-C. Cheong, Y.-C. Leong, and R. Fernandez-Chung. 2013. TNE – Trans-

national education or tensions between national and external? A case study of

Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education ahead-of-print:1-15.

Hill, H, and K.W. Thee. 2012. Indonesian universities in transition: Catching up and

opening up. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 48, no. 2: 229-251.

Huang, F. 2007. Internationalization of higher education in the developing and

emerging countries: A focus on transnational higher education in Asia. Journal

of Studies in International Education 11, no. 3-4: 421-432.

Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional. 2007. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional

Republik Indonesia Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 (Regulation of the Minister of

National Education of the Republic of Indonesia Number 26 Year 2007).

http://www.kemdiknas.go.id/list_linkproduk-hukumperaturan-

menteri2007 .aspxindeks=3permen_26_2007.pdf.

Liamputtong, P. 2010. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S., S. Kaur, and E. Sawir. 2011. Global, local, national in the Asia-Pacific.

In Higher education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic Responses to Globalization,

ed. S. Marginson, S. Kaur, and E. Sawir, 3-34. Dordrecht: Springer.

Marginson, S., and I. Ordorika. 2011. ‘El central volumen de la fuerza’: Global

hegemony in higher education and research. In Knowledge matters: The public

mission of the research university, ed. D. Rhoten and C. Calhoun, 67-129. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Marginson, S., and G. Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets, and systems of

higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43, no. 3: 281-

309.

Marginson, S., and Sawir, E. 2011. Globalization, resources and strategies: A

comparison of Universitas Indonesia and the Australian National University. In

Higher education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic responses to globalization, ed. S.

Marginson, S. Kaur, and E. Sawir, 199-215. Dordrecht: Springer.

McBurnie, G., and C. Ziguras. 2007. Transnational education: Issues and trends in

offshore higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mercer, J., and A. Zhegin. 2011. Developing a postgraduate dual-award in educational

leadership: A Russian pelican meets an English rose. International Journal of

Educational Development 31, no. 2: 109-117.

Mok, K. H. 2011. When neoliberalism colonizes higher education in Asia: Bringing the

public back to the contemporary university. In Knowledge matters: The public

mission of the research university, ed. D. Rhoten and C. Calhoun, 195-230. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Murray, D. 2011. University of South Australia: A study of disengagement from

transnational teaching partnerships. In Leadership and management of

international partnerships, ed. J. Fielden, 38-42. London: Leadership

Foundation for Higher Education.

Naidoo, R. 2010. Global learning in a neoliberal age: Implications for development. In

Global inequalities and higher education: Whose interests are we serving?, ed.

E. Unterhalter and V. Carpentier, 66-90. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nizam. 2006. Indonesia. In Higher education in South-East Asia, ed. M. N. N. Lee and

S. Healey, 35-68. Bangkok: UNESCO.

Nugroho, H. 2005. The political economy of higher education: The university as an

arena for the struggle for power. In Social science and power in Indonesia, ed.

V. R. Hadiz and D. Dhakidae, 143-165. Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox and

ISEAS.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. The challenge of

capacity development: Working towards good practice. Paris: OECD.

Pusat Data dan Statistik Pendidikan. n.d.. Statistik pendidikan tinggi 2009/2010 (Higher

education statistics 2009/2010). http://www.pdsp.kemdiknas.go.id/Pages/Daftar

StatistikPendidikan.aspx

Sakamoto, R., and D.W. Chapman. 2010. Expanding across borders: The growth of

cross-border partnerships in higher education. In Cross-border partnerships in

higher education: Strategies and issues, ed. R. Sakamoto and D. W. Chapman,

3-15. Hoboken: Routledge.

Susanti, D. 2011. Privatisation and marketisation of higher education in Indonesia: The

challenge for equal access and academic values. Higher Education 61, no. 2:

209-218.

Tadjudin, M. K. 2009. Quality assurance in Indonesian higher education. In Higher

education in Asia/Pacific: Quality and the public good, ed. T. W. Bigalke and

D. E. Neubauer, 149-164. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Unterhalter, E., and V. Carpentier. 2010. Introduction: Whose Interests are we serving?

Global inequalities and higher education. In Global inequalities and higher

education: Whose interests are you serving, ed. E. Unterhalter and V.

Carpentier, 1-39. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Welch, A. 2011. Higher education in Southeast Asia: Blurring borders, changing

balance. London: Routledge.

Yang, R. 2010. Transnational higher education in China. In Globalisation and tertiary

education in the Asia Pacific: The changing nature of a dynamic market, ed. C.

Findlay and W.G. Tierney, 285-302. Singapore, World Scientific.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ziguras, C., and G. McBurnie. 2011. Transnational higher education in the Asia-Pacific

region: From distance education to the branch campus. In Higher educationin

the Asia-Pacific: Strategic responses to globalization, ed. S. Marginson, S.

Kaur, and E. Sawir, 105-122. Dordrecht: Springer.