The ‘brand name’ research university goes global

Abstract

This paper traces attempts by two 'brand-name' research universities to transnationalise: the US-based Johns Hopkins University, and the University of New South Wales from Australia. Both endeavours were located in, and supported by, Singapore, a city-state with knowledge economy aspirations. The paper explores the globalisation of the research university, and offers insights into the regimes of value that are being assembled in, and through knowledge economies. Both institutions examined in this study failed in their attempts ostensibly because of a lack of fit in goals and commitment. The paper also highlights the ethical issues that frame the globalizing rationalities of research-intensive universities and developmental states seeking competitive advantage in a neoliberalising environment.

Knowledge nodes and international networks of connection: representations of private philanthropy by elite higher education institutions

“…However, our analysis has indicated that influential networks of transnational alumni were also active in shaping the priorities and research agendas of these same institutions, facilitating initiatives which ostensibly benefited individuals located in the South, and permitted the circulation of new knowledge beyond networks of elite HEIs. These practices of giving reflected the complex relations between university and philanthropist, with the HEIs using private donations to define themselves as facilitators of improved mobility, personal advancement and equality of access (Ward, 2008;Sidhu, 2009). They were informed by the donor's genealogy, in particular, their homeland, previous sites of learning and places of work.…”

“…Philanthropy was used by Northern HEIs to reinforce their position as global centres of learning and teaching, collaborating across countries, particularly those located in the global South (Altbach and Knight, 2007;Sidhu, 2009). Within this context, their privately funded activities were frequently development-focused (McFarlane, 2006;Glassman, 2010;Sheppard and Leitner, 2010), seeking to solve problems 'over there' (Bell, 2000; see also, Oldfield et al, 2004;Lunn, 2009;Palmer, 2010).…”

“…In the above depictions, HEIs were defining themselves -in a role often assumed by government and / or private industry, and highlighted by Hennemann (2010) and Petruzzelli et al (2010) -as 'gatekeepers', using private donations to facilitate advancement and mobility via the recruitment and retention of selected individuals, within and across national borders (Ward, 2008;Sidhu, 2009). …”

Stakeholder influence on branding strategy at an international branch campus

“…Data from the Cross-border Education Research Team (2016) confirms that, while 25 new IBCs are currently planning to open, 27 IBCs are known to have closed; in some cases resulting in significant financial, reputational, and resource losses for the home university (Miller-Idriss & Hanauer, 2011;Sidhu, 2009). Closings by such high profile universities as…”

“…HEIs are establishing new programs and models that include distance education, franchised programs, collective ventures, and international branch campuses . While governments worldwide have supported cross-border education, significant growth has occurred in the private sector because the local public sector and system cannot meet increasing demand Naidoo, 2009;Sidhu, 2009). Private universities, individual proprietors, profit seeking business interests, charitable organizations, and cultural foundations are offering training programs, courses, and degrees to students and learners who will never leave their home countries.…”