Search results

Many universities international activities have increased enormously in volume, scope, and complexity in recent years (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Altbach, 2015) with education providers seeking more innovative ways to provide education across boundaries. Joint doctoral degrees are one example of such an initiative, focusing on international collaboration between institutions. Joint doctorates can provide richer and more rewarding learning experiences for PhD students, supervisors and collaborating institutions. However, all the parties involved also need to be aware of the potential challenges and considerations that underpin effective outcomes, as well as the key differences between joint degree doctorates and doctorates with more traditional approaches. It has been pointed out that the literature on joint degree programmes is ‘thin’ providing limited information for institutional leaders (and other parties involved in their setting up and conduct) who may be contemplating joint degree initiatives (Michael & Balraj, 2003). This chapter draws on a unique case study of a joint doctoral programme that operates across continents and academic cultures to illustrate the challenges and considerations that should be borne in mind prior to entering into joint doctoral arrangements. Various ways in which the associated challenges may be overcome are also suggested in order to support effective outcomes for all the parties involved.

Library-related and resource access issues confronting students enrolled in an interinstitutional joint master’s degree program in public health are addressed in this chapter. It details a cross-institutional collaborative effort to identify and provide research resources to interinstitutional joint degree students and faculty and analyzes the program through the lens of literature on collaboration in higher education and in library instruction. Reports on findings from qualitative feedback and quantitative card sort analysis data were gathered to inform development of content for, and organization of, a library research guide. Bureaucratic structures and policies often affect library services to students and faculty in interinstitutional joint degree programs. Therefore, more salient information about library policies, services, and resources was needed in order for the affected libraries to coordinate instruction, collections, and services to best support such programs. One of the limitations of the case study was that limited qualitative and quantitative feedback was received. Also there was no prior formal needs assessment. Nevertheless, the chapter provides insight to challenges facing libraries and librarians supporting interinstitutional joint degree programs. It also points to administrative opportunities to create rich library collaborations. Existing literature does not adequately address obstacles of in-person interinstitutional joint degree programs. The contribution of this chapter is that it identifies the complications of access, library policies, and administrative procedure that will need to be address by two or more libraries that want to support joint degree programs at the college or university level.

This chapter updates earlier research that analyzed mergers, collaborations, and similar trends in LIS education, and provides a more comprehensive current summary of those trends. Three distinct patterns are beginning to emerge in both organizational structure and collaboration: changes in the nature of LIS program partnerships within parent educational institutions; the impact on LIS education by prominent academic associations that are not reliant on ALA accreditation recognition; and the growth in the number and type of academic offerings in LIS schools themselves. Among some notable changes are the establishment of the Consortium of iSchools Asia Pacific (CiSAP), continued growth in the iSchool caucus and its increasing international membership. Additionally the number of dual degree master’s programs in which LIS departments partner is on the rise, as is the number of degrees now being offered at LIS schools (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels) that are not “traditional” MLS degrees. Inter-institutional collaborative MLIS programs are also emergent, evident in such programs as the Web-based Information Science Education (WISE) consortium. The data presented here seem to suggest that the face of LIS education continues to change as the 21st century gets underway.

Much of the literature on higher education transnational, international and cross-border partnerships emphasize the partnerships’ strategic importance to the institutions, the administrative complexities of negotiating in a different language or culture or both, and more often than not, financial gains. Other scholars discuss the importance of developing global citizens. Surprisingly, there seems to be a paucity of research on the role of faculty in cross-border and transnational partnerships. This chapter, through description of one transnational program and the literature, offers reflections that contribute to a much-needed research agenda that faculty are the keystone to forming sustainable, profitable, and strategic partnerships.

This chapter relies on comparative case analysis to examine how and why particular social entrepreneurs in a higher Asian middle income economy broke new grounds in private higher education. The study provides arguments as to why these private higher education entrepreneurs, when viewed inclusively, are social entrepreneurs. Findings from the study suggest that social entrepreneurs distinctively used prior insights from their working experiences to harness the financial power of local capital to fund the scaling up of their social ventures while simultaneously engaging with the country’s economic and social challenges.

The very essence of internationalisation, which depends heavily on academic mobility and cross-border interactions, has been adversely affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has been associated with a significant decline in student and staff mobility in South Africa and around the world. Nonetheless, it has also catalysed innovation and inspired new approaches to teaching and learning that have the potential to transform the future of higher education. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education institutions are grappling with a fundamental question that goes beyond the practicalities of internationalisation: How can we re-envision the concept of internationalisation to meet the challenges of the new normal? This question calls for a deeper reflection on the nature of internationalisation itself. How can we ensure that cross-border interactions and exchanges continue to foster a sense of global community and intercultural understanding, even in a world that is physically distanced? This chapter seeks to explore the profound implications of the pandemic on the internationalisation of higher education (IHE) in South Africa. It aims to critically examine the present challenges to internationalisation and the strategies that have been developed to address them in the context of the post-pandemic world. The chapter employs a critical reflection approach through the use of qualitative research, systematic literature review, and document analysis. By utilising these methodologies, it seeks to delve deeper into the implications of the pandemic on the IHE in South Africa.

Using Singapore as a case study, this chapter analyzes how the internationalization of teacher education can take place amidst strong national obligations. It discusses qualitative and quantitative data from a study that sought out the features, strategies, and expected outcomes of internationalization in Singapore. Institutional key actors (i.e., institutional leaders, faculty members, administrative staff, and student teachers) from Singapore’s sole teacher education institution, the National Institute of Education, participated in this study.

Findings reveal that the internationalization of teacher education is perceived to be important for its expected academic, economic, sociocultural, and political benefits. However, due to teacher education’s strong national obligations, the integration of international dimensions is limited and guided by local priorities. As a result, a hybridized form of localization and internationalization can be seen in Singapore’s teacher education. This is a significant finding as teacher education – traditionally known to be nationally local – is now interested to incorporate internationalized perspectives.

Turkey has been an active member of the Bologna Process (BP) since 2001. This chapter focuses on the impact of the BP on higher education (HE) in Turkey by outlining the reforms that were carried out and the narratives surrounding the changes. The focus of the chapter will be on how the BP has been accommodated, negotiated debated or rejected in Turkey and the societal and political tensions surrounding the process. The chapter is based on the findings of semi-structured interviews conducted with the Bologna experts and the officials of universities in Turkey, who were responsible for the reforms between 2009 and 2016, as well as a review of updated data and the analysis of secondary literature and official texts, such as the National Reports of the BP and the relevant policy documents in Turkey. After a very intense reform process, the policy transfer in Turkey slowed down, and Turkey's discussions, specifically about the BP both at the policy and the university level, became close to non-existent. The chapter aims to analyse the reasons behind the loss of interest in the BP in Turkey by focusing on the critical voices and discussions surrounding the neoliberalisation of HE. The chapter will also refer to how Euroscepticism in Turkey impacted the reform process in HE.