Assessing participation in cross‐border higher education in cities: Foreign education provision in Ho Chi Minh City

Abstract

One of the limitations of research on global educational mobility has been the primary classification of key participants – students and educational institutions – in national terms. This paper tests the challenges involved in such methodological nationalism by examining the provision of cross‐border education in one city. As Vietnam's commercial centre, Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) has experienced rapid transformation over the past two decades as the country has moved steadily from a state‐directed to a more market‐driven and globally integrated economy. Since the late 1990s there has been a parallel growth in cross‐border higher education in HCMC, through the outbound mobility of students and the provision of foreign programmes by international partnerships and branch campuses. Drawing on available data supplemented with insights gleaned from interviews and existing literature, this paper develops a methodology for identifying and quantifying the key features of each form of domestic, overseas and transnational provision. We estimate that around 6% of HCMC's tertiary students are studying overseas and between 2% and 3% in foreign programmes delivered in the city. The rates of enrolment in overseas and transnational programmes by students in HCMC are thus far higher than for Vietnam as a whole, but still considerably lower than in those well‐established cross‐border education hubs, Hong Kong and Singapore. We argue that concerns about the growth of private education and inequalities in access may continue to limit the growth of transnational provision in HCMC.

The Complexity of Transnational Distance Students: A Review of the Literature

“…Despite distance education's inclusion in the overall body of transnational education modes, distance student voice is not adequately represented in its scholarship (Andrews & Tynan, 2010;Wilkins, 2016). By contrast, there is more work describing modes of delivery (e.g., Caruana & Montgomery, 2015;Francois, 2016;Knight, 2016;Wilkins & Huisman, 2012) and faculty experiences (e.g., Wilkins, Butt & Annabi, 2017;Ziguras & Pham, 2014). There are also investigations into the "international" student experience which may or may not fall into a transnational space given the conventional use of the term (see Erichsen & Bolliger, 2010;Habib, Johannesen, & Øgrim, 2014; Clegg & Reed, 2013;Selinger, 2004;Selwyn, 2011a;Selwyn, 2011b;Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013).…”

“…The literature also indicates many transnational programs operating in Malaysia (see Arunasalam, 2016;Dobos, 2011;Sidhu & Christie, 2013;Wilkins et al, 2017), the Middle East (see Miller-Idriss & Hanauer, 2011;Wilkins et al, 2017), Vietnam (see Ziguras & Pham, 2014), Taiwan (see Yung- chi Hou, Morse & Wang, 2015), Indonesia (see Sutrisno & Pillay, 2013), Pakistan (see Kanu, 2005), Korea (see FSU, n.d.; IFEZ, n.d.; IGC, n.d., UCRX, n.d.) and Singapore (see Dobos, 2011) to list a few. Several programs located in Korea and known to this author are illustrated below.…”

¿Por qué Chile? Un análisis post crítico sobre los discursos de escala en la movilidad académica internacional

“…La educación transnacional, en ese proyecto, vendría a ser la formación de capital humano necesaria para el desarrollo económico de las empresas transnacionales. De esa manera, hubs de movilidad académica se instalan en países clave para los flujos financieros, sobre todo en la Asia oriental, en naciones como Singapur (COLLINS et al, 2014;WEISS;FORD, 2011), Malasia (ABD AZIZ; ABDULLAH, 2014; WEISS; FORD, 2011) y Hong Kong (GAO, 2014;WATERS;LEUNG, 2016;ZIGURAS;PHAM, 2014). La actuación de esas instituciones adopta el mismo proceso de branding que cualquier operación comercial, acogiendo o comprando nombres de universidades reconocidas para legitimarse y, así, controlar mercados (HEALEY; MICHAEL, 2014).…”

Open Praxis vol. 11 issue 1

“…Despite distance education's inclusion in the overall body of transnational education modes, distance student voice is not adequately represented in its scholarship (Andrews & Tynan, 2010;Wilkins, 2016). By contrast, there is more work describing modes of delivery (e.g., Caruana & Montgomery, 2015;Francois, 2016;Knight, 2016;Wilkins & Huisman, 2012) and faculty experiences (e.g., Wilkins, Butt & Annabi, 2017;Ziguras & Pham, 2014). There are also investigations into the "international" student experience which may or may not fall into a transnational space given the conventional use of the term (see Erichsen & Bolliger, 2010;Habib, Johannesen, & Øgrim, 2014; Reed, 2013;Selinger, 2004;Selwyn, 2011a;Selwyn, 2011b;Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013).…”

“…Hou et al (2014) identified 511 transnational programs in China alone at both undergraduate and graduate levels. The literature also indicates many transnational programs operating in Malaysia (see Arunasalam, 2016;Dobos, 2011;Sidhu & Christie, 2013;Wilkins et al, 2017), the Middle East (see Miller-Idriss & Hanauer, 2011;Wilkins et al, 2017), Vietnam (see Ziguras & Pham, 2014), Taiwan (see Yung- chi Hou, Morse & Wang, 2015), Indonesia (see Sutrisno & Pillay, 2013), Pakistan (see Kanu, 2005), Korea (see FSU, n.d.; IFEZ, n.d.; IGC, n.d., UCRX, n.d.) and Singapore (see Dobos, 2011) to list a few. Several programs located in Korea and known to this author are illustrated below.…”