University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Selection of partners for international joint degree programs

(USC Thesis Other)

Selection of partners for international joint degree programs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: SELECTION OF PARTNERS 1

SELECTION OF PARTNERS FOR INTERNATIONAL JOINT DEGREE PROGRAMS

by

Jennifer Lauren Brown

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2013

Copyright 2013 Jennifer Lauren Brown
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my faculty committee for guidance throughout this difficult process.
To my chairs Dr. Mark Power Robison and Dr. Michael A. Diamond, thank you for structuring
this process and challenging me to think in different ways. Dr. Patricia Riley, thank you for
bringing your expertise to my project and giving your time to participate on my committee.
Many thanks are owed to my family who has supported not only this journey but all those
leading up to it. Mom, thank you for being a great role model and for always believing in me,
even when I didn’t. Jaren, I would not have made it through this without your love and support.
Morgan, thank you for making me take a break from school sometimes and being a great
cheerleader along the way. Dad, thank you for always being so proud of me.
To Dr. Sarah, my editor, confidante, and sister, I couldn’t (and wouldn’t) have finished
this without you. I am so glad we happened to find each other in that class back in Fall 2005.
Lilly, thank you for listening to my frustrations and sympathizing along the way, I am so happy
our work brought us together.
To Team R&D, thank you for being awesome and commiserating during the rough times
over the past 18 months. It has been an honor to know you all.
Finally, thank you to the rest of my family and friends who encouraged and supported
this journey. I certainly could not have completed this without your understanding and
encouragement.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 3
Table of Contents
Abstract 4
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 5
Background 5
Singapore’s Educational Context 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 13
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 18
Internationalization in Higher Education 18
Rationales for Engaging in Internationalization 26
International Partnerships in Higher Education 31
Joint Degree Programs 38
Higher Education in Singapore 44
Selecting a Partner Institution 51
Conceptual Framework 55
Conclusions from the Literature 58
Chapter Three: Research Methods 60
Research Question 61
Research Design 61
Population and Sample 62
Instrumentation 64
Interview Protocol 66
Data Collection and Analysis 67
Validity and Reliability 68
Limitations 69
Conclusion 71
Chapter Four: Findings 73
Role of the Singaporean Government 78
The Research Questions 82
Conclusion 101
Chapter Five: Discussion 103
Summary 103
Discussion and Analysis 107
Recommendations 112
Future Research 116
Conclusion 118
References 119

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 4
Abstract
This case study investigates the selection of partner institutions for international joint degree
programs at the graduate level utilizing Knight’s (2008) challenges to the development of such
partnerships which are: Academic Alignment, Mobility and Language concerns, and Recognition
and Legitimacy concerns. This study focuses on the criteria used to identify and evaluate
potential institutional partners for international joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological
University in Singapore. Specifically, the initiation of international joint degree programs, the
methods for identification of potential partner institutions, and the factors considered to evaluate
the suitability of the partner for international joint degree programs are explored. An embedded
case study of three graduate joint degree programs in the sciences at NTU was used to answer
the research questions. Faculty and administrators at both NTU and one of the partner
institutions, Technical University of Munich, Asia, were interviewed regarding the development
of the programs. Document review was completed utilizing public documents including
program and school brochures and websites. The findings of this study indicate that the
predominant concerns when selecting a partner institution at NTU were: program focus and
school type; the availability of financial support; the prestige and rankings of the partner; and
recognition of the partner by the Singaporean government. The policies of the Singaporean
government were a primary driver in the development of these international joint degree
programs, as funding was readily available and the partner institutions already enjoyed
established connections in Singapore.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 5
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Higher education institutions are engaged in international activities in numerous and
expanding ways. What originally began as simply the exchange of students and scholars across
national borders has broadened into a variety of partnerships and agreements between institutions
and with governmental agencies that have created a range of international activities. One of the
most connected forms of international partnership is a joint degree program. A joint degree can
be defined as, “an arrangement whereby providers in different countries collaborate to offer a
program for which a student receives…a joint award from the collaborating partners” (Knight,
2006, p. 383). An important area to examine is that of selecting an international institution to
partner with in the creation of a joint degree program. Given that these programs require a
deeper commitment to international cooperation than traditional exchange programs and both
institutions affix their university seal and approval to one degree, the selection of a partner and
accurate evaluation of the supports and challenges facing the new program can be the
determining factor in the successful establishment of the partnership (Tubbeh & Williams, 2010).
As such, this study focused on the identification and evaluation of institutional partners for an
international joint degree program. The study explicates the criteria used to determine the
suitability of an institution for an international joint degree program. Investigating the partner
selection process for international joint degree programs further develops an understanding of the
necessary considerations for international partnerships in higher education.
Background
The internationalization of higher education is a burgeoning field and has led to a
plethora of new ventures for colleges and universities. Internationalization is the process of
expanding a university’s offerings to include multi-national initiatives; the increasing numbers of
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 6
international initiatives take a variety of forms (Altbach & Knight, 2011; Knight, 2008). While
the business world has long operated within the globalized context of the marketplace, American
higher education until recently remained mostly tied to locality and traditional international
interactions such as study or research abroad programs (Armstrong, 2007). With the increased
focus on the global economy, this localized tradition is beginning to change. In 2013, most
American universities have some type of international program and many tout their global
connections and programs as a benefit to students, faculty, and future employers.
Internationalization began with the movement of students and scholars across borders, next the
exporting of educational services through partnerships in the international market began, and
most recently internationalization approaches have included branch campuses, corporate
university partnerships, multinational university partnerships, and online delivery methods
(Mazzarol, Soutar, & Seng, 2003). Internationalization and globalization in higher education
will be further explored in the second chapter of this text to clarify the context of this study.
International Partnerships
International partnerships in higher education have been increasing as a result of
globalization. Partnerships are a way to internationalize a campus by creating a connection to an
institution in another nation and as the number of partnerships has increased so too have the
varieties of partnerships (Van de Water, Green, & Koch, 2008). International higher education
partnerships differ in levels of commitment and the American Council on Education guidelines
categorizes them as follows: friendship and cooperation agreements, broad institutional
partnerships, and program specific partnerships (Van de Water et al., 2008). Friendship
agreements are less committed and may simply represent an interest in building a deeper
relationship. Broad institutional agreements are more detailed and involve documented
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 7
arrangements for exchange of students and faculty, specifics for sharing resources and may
involve multiple activities. Program specific partnerships are focused on one school,
department, or program and are usually initiated by faculty (Van de Water et al., 2008). Joint
degree programs are considered a program specific partnership because they are academic
programs designed collaboratively that culminate in one degree jointly conferred by both
institutions.
Joint Degree Programs
International joint degree programs require the dedication and commitment of at least two
universities, and demand that each institution agree to affix their institutional names and
university seals to one degree—and thus tether their reputations to one-another. Because joint
degree programs are so closely connected to the academic core purpose of the university, they
can be more difficult to negotiate and require a higher level of commitment than other types of
internationalization efforts which may be more closely aligned with informal relationships. Joint
degree programs are created for a variety of reasons including: meeting the changing demands of
professions (particularly at the graduate level), increasing interdisciplinarity of programs, and
enhancing specialization of programs (Michael & Balraj, 2003). International joint degrees have
become more common as travel and communication methods have grown easier. These degree
programs have the added enticement of study across national borders and sometimes in very
different regions of the world. International joint degree programs can build global and cultural
capacity of students and provide increased communication surrounding methods of study and
professional standards in different nations (Knight, 2008). The potential benefits of these
partnerships include increased visibility for participating institutions, shared resources,
possibility for joint research and study, and increased international opportunities for students.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 8
The potential challenges for these programs include power struggles, funding challenges, unclear
agreements, conflicting academic calendars and systems, divergent values, and communication
breakdowns (Tubbeh & Williams, 2010). Despite the numerous potential barriers to
international partnerships the benefits of these programs can be vast and if approached in a
strategic and thorough manner these partnerships can build the academic capacity of
participating institutions (Van de Water et al., 2008). Because the commitment to the joint
degree demands a very close relationship between the institutions, selection of a partner is
paramount to the potential success of these programs.
Existing Guidelines for Selecting Partners
Three higher education associations in the United States have published information
regarding the selection of institutional partners for international collaboration: the American
Council on Education (ACE), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and the Association of
International Educators (NAFSA). Each report will be further examined in chapter two of this
study; however they make several common recommendations. Accreditation, quality of faculty
and academics, appropriate facilities and resources as well as experience with previous
international partnerships are a few recommended areas to be considered in selecting partners
(Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et al., 2008). While the ACE
guidelines and the NAFSA suggestions for selecting partners for international partnerships can
be useful, both of these guides refer to international partnerships on a general level. Because
international partnerships occupy a wide range of commitment levels, it is difficult to determine
if these guidelines are sufficient for joint degree programs specifically. The Council of Graduate
Schools report (2010) provides brief information on the selection of partners for both joint and
dual degrees and thus provides some indication that the general recommendations for partner
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 9
selection in international partnerships in higher education are appropriate. Given the varying
commitment levels of international partnerships, it is unclear if the existing general guidelines
are sufficient for joint degree programs, which require a strong level of commitment.
International partnerships, joint degree programs, and partner selection will be discussed further
in the second chapter of this text and are foundational concepts for this study. Nanyang
Technological University in Singapore is the site for this case study. To understand the context
of this case, a discussion of Singapore’s higher education system follows.
Singapore’s Educational Context
Singapore is an urban city-state with just over 5 million residents. Originally established
as a British colony in 1819, Singapore joined the Malaysian federation in 1963 and became an
independent nation in 1965 (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d.). Given the limited natural
resources of Singapore, the government has long focused on the development of its human
resources (Mok, 2011). In spite of attempts to create Chinese language education at the
postsecondary level, English has remained the dominant language of instruction (Tan, 2006).
The government’s focus on the development of human resources has meant that the higher
education system has undergone various governmental committee reviews since the 1980’s with
the aim of expanding access, increasing curricular offerings, and developing creativity and
innovation of students (Mok, 2011). Singapore’s higher education system is strongly influenced
by the government’s role in planning and decision-making processes and the importance of
education in the nation’s economic development strategies (Tan, 2006).
There are 4 major public universities, 5 polytechnics and numerous private foreign
educational providers in Singapore and each of these systems have expanded as access to higher
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 10
education has increased at the decree of the government (Tan, 2006). The Singaporean Ministry
of Education plays an interventionist role, determining the outcomes of major policy decisions
regarding enrollments, institutional structure, admissions, and quality assurance (Tan, 2006). In
response to social demand for higher education and the need for educated workers the
government has repeatedly determined enrollment targets, recruited foreign staff and students,
invited foreign universities to establish branch campuses, and focused on the idea of developing
Singapore into an educational hub as part of the nation’s economic development plan (Tan,
2006). The Singaporean government also encourages the growth of private education and
coordinates multiple programs aimed at increasing access to education in Singapore, establishing
branch campuses of well-regarded foreign institutions, drawing students to Singapore to study
with financial incentives, and promoting international joint-degree programs between local
Singaporean institutions and institutions around the globe (Mok, 2011).
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) was originally established as Nanyang
Technological Institute (NTI) to provide English education on the Nanyang University (a
Chinese language institution) campus in 1981 (Tan, 2006). The government designed NTI with
the idea that it would be developed into a technological university. In 1991, NTI was converted
into the second comprehensive university in Singapore to meet increasing demand for higher
education and became Nanyang Technological University (Tan, 2006). NTU has approximately
33,500 undergraduate and graduate students and offers a broad based education with a wide
range of international opportunities through study abroad and with global partners (Nanyang
Technological University, 2012c). Currently, Nanyang Technological University has four
colleges, a medical school; the interdisciplinary graduate school as well as several important
autonomous institutes including the only teacher education school in Singapore, the National
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 11
Institute of Education; the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, a graduate school; the
Earth Observatory of Singapore; and the Singapore Centre of Environmental Life Sciences
Engineering (Nanyang Technological University, 2012a). Nanyang Technological University is
involved in numerous international partnerships including traditional overseas studies
agreements, international work and research experience programs, educational and research
collaboration programs with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Cornell, and
the University of California at Berkley, numerous dual or double degree programs, and six
graduate level international joint degree programs with four institutional partners (Nanyang
Technological University, 2010). The establishment of so many international partnerships
indicates a successful strategy for identifying and evaluating potential partners and ultimately
establishing programs with institutions suitable to the interconnectedness of a joint degree. The
focus of this study was to illuminate the criteria used in successfully establishing international
joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological University.
Statement of the Problem
With the increase in internationalization efforts via international programs and
partnerships in higher education there has been an increase in multinational joint degree
programs (Van de Water et al., 2008; Knight, 2008; Obst, Kuder, & Banks, 2011). Further,
Obst, Kuder, and Banks (2011) surveyed 245 higher education institutions with an existing joint
or dual degree program and 95% of these institutions had plans to create additional joint or
double degree programs in the near future. International joint degree programs provide a
method for internationalization and also represent a connection to an institution in another
country and often region of the world. This academic collaboration is a strong commitment to
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 12
partnership between the participating institutions and may lead to further connections between
the institutions.
The vast majority of existing research on international higher education partnerships
focuses on overseas studies, exchange programs, offshore programs, and dual degree programs,
and consequently joint degree programs have not been thoroughly researched. Existing literature
regarding international joint degree programs focuses mostly on the barriers or obstacles to these
programs and does not address successful practices in developing such programs. Joint degree
programs represent a greater commitment than other types of international partnerships because
the focus of these programs centers on the academic core purpose of higher education and both
institutions must cooperate to create such programs (Knight, 2008). Additionally, the placement
of both university seals on one academic degree necessitates clear and thorough agreements
between partners. These partnerships require resources, both financial and human, and may not
be profitable given the numerous barriers and complications faced in creating international
programs (Tubbeh & Williams, 2010; Knight 2008). As with other internationalization efforts,
potential areas of concern include: academic alignment with partner institutions, quality
assurance, accreditation, legal barriers, cultural or language barriers and recognition of the
program by those outside of the higher education field (Knight, 2008; Altbach, 2008). Given the
challenges of joint degree programs, as explained above, the selection of institutional partners is
vital to the successful establishment of an international joint degree program.
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has established numerous international
partnerships including six graduate international joint degree programs with four different
partners as well as a number of international double degree and alliance programs with
institutions around the world (Nanyang Technological University, 2010). By examining the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 13
criteria used by the NTU graduate programs to select partners for joint degree programs, the
obstacles and barriers to the development of international joint degree programs may be
accounted for and possibly overcome earlier in the process. In light of the numerous risks and
potential barriers to creating joint degree programs and the likelihood that these types of
partnerships will continue to grow, it is imperative that the body of research be increased to
create a more complete understanding of these endeavors. It is necessary to determine if
universities utilize structured frameworks or guidelines, whether internally developed or based
on one of the reports listed above, when considering possible partners for joint degree programs
and, if so, what factors are considered. Information regarding how suitability for such a close
partnership is determined should also be gathered from institutions that have developed
international joint degree programs, such as the Nanyang Technological University.
Purpose of the Study
International joint degree programs face many challenges and can be difficult to develop
because of the differing educational systems and regulations of potential partner institutions.
Common challenges include differences in academic procedures including admission and
program structure, funding concerns, and quality assurance (Nickel, Zdebel, & Westerheijden,
2009). To overcome these obstacles partnering institutions must be willing to work together
towards the shared goal of developing a joint degree. These programs are not typically income
generating and require the time and commitment of all the universities involved. The purpose of
this study was to describe and analyze how an institution identifies and assesses the suitability of
a potential partner institution for an international joint degree program. There has been little
research focused on this process and what factors are most important in determining suitability
for this type of international partnership. Due to the numerous risks of establishing a joint
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 14
degree program and the high level of connection a jointly issued degree represents, a deeper
understanding of the identification and evaluation process of potential partner institutions is
required.
Although partner selection guidelines for general international partnerships exist, these
guides are limited by a lack of research. Further, both the ACE and NAFSA guidelines focus on
international partnerships at the most general level. Given the level of connection and
commitment required for the joint degree, the selection of partners may require additional
considerations not applicable to general international partnerships. Nanyang Technological
University was an appropriate site for this study due to its many international collaborations
including the six international graduate joint degree programs that are the focus of this study, and
NTU’s stated vision to be a “great global university” (Nanyang Technological University,
2012b). The goal of this study was to shed light on existing practices for the identification and
assessment of suitable institutions for an international joint degree program at Nanyang
Technological University.
Research Questions
What criteria are used to identify and evaluate potential institutional partners for international
joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological University?
• How are potential partners identified?
• What factors are considered in the evaluation of suitability of the partner for an
international joint degree program?
• How, and by whom, are international joint degree programs initiated?

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 15
Significance of the Study
As internationalization in higher education continues to grow it is imperative that the
knowledge base expands to inform future efforts. This study contributes to the growing body of
knowledge on international joint degree programs as a method of internationalization in higher
education. Further, it enriches the information available regarding the issues that should be
considered when engaging in an academic partnership with another institution of higher
education even within the same nation. Ultimately, the findings from this study are useful for
administrators regarding the selection of partners for international joint degree programs and
informing the creation of future programs. Because joint degree programs are very close
international partnerships and require additional vetting and consideration prior to the
commitment of the institutions, it is likely that the findings of this study will also be useful for
less connected arrangements. This study contributes to the increasingly organized approach to
internationalization in higher education by illuminating important factors of consideration in
selecting international partner institutions. Further, this study contributes to the existing
scholarly literature surrounding the identification and evaluation of potential partner institutions
for international partnerships.
Limitations
As this study utilized qualitative research methods including interviews and document
analysis at a single case study site, its scope is limited. The case study examined the
identification and evaluation of potential partner institutions for a selected set of international
joint degree programs only at one institution. Interviews were conducted with faculty members
and administrators whom engaged in the creation of an established international joint degree
program at Nanyang Technological University. In addition, one administrator from a partner
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 16
institution was interviewed and the researcher was in email contact with an NTU Graduate
Education Administrator. The purpose of the study was to understand how NTU identifies and
evaluates potential partner institutions and describes how a specific set of international joint
degree programs were developed there. Institutions of higher education exist in varying contexts
and there may be additional considerations or different priorities that would be required in the
partner selection process based on institutional context. Further, some considerations that NTU
considers important may be less important or possibly irrelevant at another institution. Nations
vary in their approach to and regulation and control of higher education and this study does not
address all of these concerns. This case study includes different academic disciplines but is
limited to the availability of existing international joint degree programs at Nanyang
Technological University, which are science, engineering, and technology-focused programs.
The programs in this study were from the School of Biological Sciences and the School of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering. What may be an important consideration for a science or
engineering degree may not be relevant to a degree in international relations and this study will
not sufficiently address all of these variations. Access to the informants for these joint degree
programs was somewhat limited and the researcher was unable to gain access to internal
documents. Additionally, some interviewees referred to certain topics as confidential and one
administrator agreed to be interviewed but then stopped responding to scheduling requests.
These limitations will be further discussed in chapter three of this dissertation.
Delimitations
This study does not include institution wide partnerships as they are outside the scope of
this project. Sustainability and maintenance of international joint degree programs is not
addressed beyond the respondents’ reports of the programs length of existence. Because this
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 17
case study site is located in Singapore the context of the Singaporean educational market and
governmental regulations will play a key role. This study’s focus was the process of identifying
and evaluating potential partner institutions for international joint degree programs at one
institution, thus it will not include the regional or governmental concerns of each partner
institution. One administrator who participated in this study is an academic manager at the
Technical University of Munich, Asia. His perspective is included in the findings but since he
represents TUM Asia, his interview responses are focused on the Singapore context rather than
the home campus in Germany. This study investigates the selection of partners for an
international joint degree program and the focus was the selection process of successfully
established programs and does not include information about partnerships that were abandoned
prior to formalization or which ended before this study began.
Organization of the Study
This study is presented in five chapters. The next chapter provides a review of the
relevant literature regarding international partnerships in higher education and the guiding
framework of this study. The third chapter discusses the methodology of this study and why it is
appropriate for the purpose of the study. The fourth chapter reviews the findings of this study
and answers the research questions laid out in this chapter. The final chapter provides
recommendations for future research and implications for practice.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
In order to explain the context of this study and evaluate its appropriate contribution to
the research, the existing literature must be reviewed. This chapter begins with a deeper
explanation of the internationalization of higher education and provides discussion of relevant
frameworks and typologies of approaches and strategies for internationalization in the current
context of globalized higher education. Next, an overview of the rationales for engaging in
internationalization efforts as well as the variety of stakeholder motivations for participation in
these efforts is included. International partnerships in higher education, including necessary
considerations regarding development and management of said partnerships will be provided.
The available literature on joint degree programs follows and includes the potential benefits and
challenges of these partnerships. Due to the scarcity of information specific to joint programs
this section includes some research that focuses on dual and combined degree programs, which
are a less intensive collaboration but have many parallels. The context for higher education in
Singapore including the role of the government and economic development is reviewed to
provide context for this case study of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Finally,
the existing research on selection of partners for international collaborations is detailed and the
framework to be used for this study is provided.
Internationalization in Higher Education
Internationalization and globalization are commonly used terms in the current literature
on higher education. These terms are used interchangeably at times, however, for the purpose of
this study both will be defined and are considered separate, yet related concepts. Globalization
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 19
refers to the economic, societal and political forces that are creating a more connected world by
advancing international involvement (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The development of advanced
technology, alternate models of education financing, acceptance of commercialization and
marketization, increased mobility for scholars, English as the primary language of science, and
the fast global spread of ideas have had a dramatic affect on higher education (Altbach, 2008).
All of these elements are tied to growing mass consumerism and the development of the global
economy (Scott, 2000). Often used in the corporate world, globalization also refers to the
combination of technology and the “modularization of production” that has permeated national
boundaries and forever altered the workings of the economy (Armstrong, 2007, p. 131). The
globalization of the economy has led to an increasingly common view of higher education as a
trade-able commodity rather than a public good. This concept of higher education as global
commodity is positioned in opposition to internationalization as an ideal of higher education
efforts that increase access, and bring peace and mutual understanding (Brandenburg & de Wit,
2011). Further, Scott (2000) argues that globalization challenges the supremacy of the nation-
state by superseding it via the global marketplace. Internationalization, however, depends on the
nation-state and is rooted in strategic relationships thus limiting its ability to address global
concerns that do not adhere to the boundaries of governments (Scott, 2000). Internationalization
and globalization interact to reinforce each other. Internationalization efforts facilitate
globalization in higher education (Mitchell & Neilsen, 2012).
The use of the term internationalization in higher education has developed over time and
has become embedded in institutional policies, strategies and missions and, in some countries,
the internationalization of higher education has become a national policy (Knight, 2011).
Internationalization can be viewed as the institutional response to the effects of globalization on
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 20
higher education and will be defined for this study as “a process of integrating international,
intercultural and global dimensions into the goals, major functions (teaching/learning, research,
service) and delivery of higher education at both institutional and national levels” (Knight, 2008,
p. 4). Although internationalization has been rapidly increasing in the last several years due to
advances in technology and continuing globalization, universities have been undertaking
international efforts for many years (de Wit, 2002). As internationalization has become
solidified as a concept, it is sometimes used to describe any vaguely global or international
activity and its meaning can be unclear due to this catchall usage (Knight, 2011). Further,
Knight (2011) argues that a series of myths have plagued internationalization such as the
expectation of universities that the presence of more international students will internationalize
the campus, that an international reputation will serve as a proxy for quality, that a high number
of international partnerships or agreements makes an institution more prestigious, that a large
number of international accreditations means an institution is highly international and thus of
high quality, and finally that internationalization efforts equal the development of a global brand.
While these concepts are not entirely unrelated it is often the case that international students
associate primarily with other international students, that reputation does not always equal
quality, a large number of international agreements usually indicates that none of the agreements
are highly meaningful, possession of many international accreditations does not necessarily mean
better quality and finally, while an internationalization strategy may successfully develop a
recognizable brand, a marketing campaign is not an internationalization strategy (Knight, 2011).
Brandenburg and de Wit (2011) recognize several related problematic issues in
internationalization and globalization and call for a reclamation of the term internationalization
and ownership of the process of internationalization. Their recommendations are as follows:
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 21
clarity in the definitions of internationalization and globalization and the end of dogmatic and
idealistic views of these concepts, a questioning of “why we do certain things and what do they
help in achieving the goal of quality” in a knowledge society, and finally a refocusing of time
and attention to rationales and outcomes rather than instruments and means of international
efforts (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011, para. 6). Increasing internationalization in higher
education has many positive implications; however, it is imperative that higher education
institutions and professionals involved in this process are clear on the meaning and goals of their
internationalization efforts.
Clarity in purpose of internationalization is necessary for successful implementation.
Armstrong (2007) argues that the greatest challenge in creating a strategy for internationalization
is having a clear reason for doing so. Further, he states, “successful globalization will require a
quantum leap in understanding of mission” (Armstrong, 2007, p. 135). A clearly articulated
institutional mission can guide the creation of appropriate international efforts that are designed
to further the institution according to set goals. Regardless of whether internationalization is a
specific segment of an institution’s mission statement, an internationalization plan can provide
some guidance for overcoming the existing institutional barriers to internationalization. Further,
developing clear goals and guidelines for internationalization efforts can address some of the
pitfalls identified in the previous paragraph. Internationalization is a process that requires
institutional change; this is difficult due to the change resistant, bureaucratic nature of
universities (Childress, 2009). Additionally, universities are typically comprised of multiple
academic units with different goals operating within the overall organization, which can be
incredibly challenging for consensus building (Childress, 2009). Ultimately, a defined statement
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 22
of the values behind institutional internationalization is growing in importance and shapes the
outcomes and rationales for the process of internationalization (Knight, 2004).
Internationalization in higher education is a complex and varied topic. Universities are
structured in numerous ways, report to various stakeholders (sometimes including governmental
oversight), and are situated in different contexts. It is important that institutions develop
international strategies with a clear connection to mission in order to operate successfully and
meet international institutional goals. The internationalization and globalization of higher
education provide the context for this study in that international joint degrees are endeavors
developed as one strategy for institutional internationalization. Given the academic core focus
and close nature of joint degree programs, a clear goal or focus for these programs is especially
needed. There are several ways to approach internationalization in higher education. These
internationalizing strategies have developed over time and in response to the increasing
globalization of the economy. International joint degree programs are one strategy to increase
the international quality of an institution but there are many other options available. What
follows is a discussion of the varied approaches to internationalization in higher education.
Internationalization Approaches and Strategies
Universities approach internationalization in a variety of ways. Much of the
internationalization of higher education has been centered on a hub and spoke model in which
students and faculty are sent to foreign partners for study or research and then enrich the
international outlook of the home institution when they return (Armstrong, 2007). Some
institutions have expanded beyond this model, developing activities that include: offshore
programs, twinning partnerships, and branch campuses. Knight (2004) states that
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 23
internationalization strategies are developed at the institutional, national and sector levels. At the
institutional level, approaches to internationalization include many different foci. International
activities such as study abroad, academic programs, and other institutional linkages comprise
many internationalization efforts in higher education. Another approach focuses on the
outcomes of internationalization, for example global competency of students, or the rationales
for engaging in internationalizing efforts. Approaches can be categorized by the actual process
of including international strategies into the functions of the institution, or as at home
internationalization which focuses on increasing the intercultural or global dimension of the
campus climate or culture. Finally, approaches can be considered abroad meaning cross-border
delivery or offshore administrative arrangements (Knight, 2004). At the national or sector level
approaches to internationalization are defined as: programs (funded programs that encourage
international activities), rationales (defining the importance of internationalization for the nation
or sector), ad hoc (a response to a new opportunity in internationalization), policy (that address
international dimensions in higher education), and finally strategic (internationalization of higher
education as a strategy for national development). Knight (2004) notes that these approaches are
not mutually exclusive. Additionally, they are likely to work together to form an institutional,
national or sector internationalization strategy.
Offshore programs take many forms, from a program that simply uses office or college
space in another country to offer a degree, to more connected programs that involve participation
by multiple institutions. Some partnerships, called twinning, are agreements in which the first
two to three years of the degree is completed at an offshore institution and then students move to
the onshore location to complete the degree (Armstrong, 2007). Franchising is the practice of a
source institution franchising a foreign provider to deliver its programs while the institution
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 24
retains control of the content and awards the degree (Armstrong, 2007). International joint,
double or dual, and combined degree programs are examples of international partnerships
between universities to provide specialized programs that ultimately end in one joint
qualification, a qualification from both (or all) institutions, and finally a consecutive degree
program that awards both bachelor’s and master’s (or master’s and Ph.D.) degrees (Knight,
2009). A branch campus is an offshore location of a higher education institution in which
students may study and complete a degree entirely offshore (Becker, 2010). These are all
examples of strategies for internationalization and given the wide variety Beerkens (2002)
created a typology for international inter-organizational arrangements and Knight (2006) later
developed a framework for cross-border higher education.
Beerkens (2002) asserts that the crossing of boundaries, both within organizations and on
the international level, is the result of changes in knowledge production, resource dependence,
and increasing trans-disciplinarity. Collaboration between disciplines and across institutional
and national borders has been further aided by the growth of communication technology.
Beerkens (2002) identifies four dimensions in his typology: size, scope, nature of integration,
and intensity. The size dimension contains three types of arrangements: associations with
multiple member organizations, partnerships with two member organizations, and networks with
multiple member organizations. Scope refers to both length of time for the agreement and scale
of activities included in the arrangement. The scale of activities dimension ranges from
disciplinary based to thematically organized to institution wide arrangements. The nature of
integration dimension refers to arrangements made within higher education (i.e. between
universities) and cross sectoral (which includes partnerships with industry or governments).
Intensity is the final dimension and refers to the depth of collaboration, starting with cooperation,
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 25
then coordination, and finally amalgamation or merger. This typology can provide a method for
understanding international arrangements on the basis of their most basic functions. An
international joint degree program is most often between two or three institutions, program and
discipline specific, typically long term and coordinated. While Beerkens (2002) typology is a
useful starting point it is too general given the increasing variety and number of international
endeavors in higher education.
Knight’s (2006) framework for international education offers a tool to understand the
“fascinating but very complex world of cross-border education” that is emerging (p. 345).
Knight’s framework looks at the categories of educational agents including people, programs,
providers and projects as well as the type of cross-border activities these agents engage in. It is
the people, programs, providers, and projects that cross borders, while the conditions are based
on the type of activity. For the purposes of this dissertation the focus will be on program
mobility, for which Knight (2006) provides six different categories: franchise, twinning, double
or joint degree programs, articulation agreements, validation arrangements, and virtual or
distance education. Some of these categories have been defined earlier in this text and the
remaining are as follows: double degree programs are collaborations between institutional
partners to offer a program in which students receive qualifications from all participating
institutions (double or dual); articulation agreements guarantee transferability of certain courses
offered between institutions; a validation agreement allows for a receiving provider in one
country to offer a program or qualification of a foreign institution from the source country; and
distance or virtual education refers to offering of courses or programs via distance learning or
online. Knight’s framework and typology (2006) are useful tools for understanding cross-border
educational activities in a global context. While definitions are somewhat unwieldy on this
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 26
scale, they are needed as internationalization efforts continue to develop. Beerken’s (2002)
typology and Knight’s (2006) framework are useful for this study because they position
international joint degree programs within the overall context of the international higher
education landscape. The next section of this chapter will explore the numerous rationales for
engaging in internationalization activities. This is important for international joint degree
programs due to their nature as very close academic arrangements, understanding the goals and
rationales for creating such a program is a key aspect of doing so successfully.
Rationales for Engaging in Internationalization
Rationales for engaging in internationalization activities vary by institution and include
increasing revenue or prestige, gaining an institutional global presence, meeting institutional
expectations for internationalization efforts, providing educational access in areas with unmet
demand, and increasing capacity of resources (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Altbach, Reisberg, &
Rumbley, 2009; Obst et al., 2011). In order to select an overseas partner for a joint degree
program, understanding the rationales for this type of internationalization are vital. Jie (2011)
found that the most successful international partnerships were those in which participating
institutions had a high level of compatibility between their motivations and expected outcomes
for engaging in the partnership. Notably, as these motivations changed over time the program
had to adapt as well (Jie, 2011). Rationales for engaging in internationalization efforts can be
categorized as: political, economic, and socio-cultural or academic (de Wit, 2002). Political
motivations include foreign policy, national security, technical assistance or cooperation and
peace and mutual understanding. By developing positive educational experiences for
international students a country can foster better relations with potential future leaders of foreign
nations. Economic rationales include growth and competitiveness, development of the labor
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 27
market, meeting national educational demand without increasing national investment in
educational infrastructure (encouraging study outside home nation), and financial incentives (full
fee paying students). Cultural and social rationales for internationalization include the export of
a nation’s culture to other countries via education, and the cultural function of the university to
spread the notion of the “’universalism’ of knowledge” (de Wit, 2002, p. 93), as well as the
opportunity for personal development and growth that is offered by international and
multicultural educational experiences. Finally, academic rationales include the boundary-less
status of knowledge, expanding the academic horizon and institution building as well as
increasing profile and status for a particular institution. These rationales are rooted in the
historical development of the internationalization of higher education and vary by stakeholder
(de Wit, 2002). Further, they are wrought with concerns about which cultural and political ideas
are valued and who benefits from the international ventures in higher education.
Knight (2006) argues that globalization has blurred the boundaries of de Wit’s (2002)
categories resulting in new rationales driven by more than one of the types of motivations. Her
categories are human resource development, strategic alliance, income generation and trade,
nation building and capacity building, and socio-cultural development. Human resource
development rationales are driven by the increasing knowledge economy, increased trade in
services, and the mobility of labor (Knight, 2006, 2004). Strategic alliance rationales include
building connections that can further development and improve “geopolitical ties and economic
relations between countries” (Knight, 2006, p. 362). Income generation and trade are connected
to the development of the global knowledge economy and include attracting full fee paying
students from other nations as well as the increase in private commercial education providers
(Knight, 2004). Nation building and capacity building rationales are related to meeting the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 28
demands for access to higher education by allowing foreign providers to enter the market.
Finally, socio-cultural development rationales refer to the debate regarding cultural influences of
being educated by a foreign provider within your country of origin or obtaining your education
in another country and the subsequent intercultural skills that can be developed when engaging in
international higher education. Rationales for engaging in internationalization occur at two
levels: Institutional and National (Knight, 2012). In other words efforts at internationalization
can be driven by the institution for its own purposes as well as by national efforts to create a
knowledge economy or meet other national goals. Knight (2012) argues that over the last several
years, rationales for internationalization have shifted from increasing the quality or capacity of
the institution to increasing prestige and recognition of the institution. While both de Wit (2002)
and Knight (2012, 2006) provide overarching frameworks for rationales to internationalize
higher education there is additional literature regarding various stakeholders’ motivations for
participating in international programs that is relevant for understanding international joint
degree programs.
Stakeholder Motivations
There are a variety of stakeholders in international partnerships in higher education and
the motivations for support of these programs vary by stakeholder. Rationales for institutional
linkages include academic, economic, political, and social/cultural (as discussed above), as well
as student and staff development, knowledge production and institutional branding (Lizarraga,
2011; de Wit, 2002). The meanings of these motivations are demonstrated by participants as
values, interests or needs, and expected benefits of engagement in the international partnership
(Lizarraga, 2011). Each stakeholder group has a set of their own values, interests and needs and
will act to engage in international endeavors if the activity is seen as holding potential benefits
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 29
that meet these values, interests and needs. These rationales may change over time, overlap both
within and between groups of stakeholders, and multiple rationales are often employed by
stakeholders to become involved in international higher education (de Wit, 2002).
Stakeholders include faculty members, administrators, students, governments and
industry related to the program (Amey, 2010; Oleksiyenko, 2010; Tubbeh & Williams, 2010).
Faculty members are key stakeholders and often play vital roles in international partnerships. In
some international programs a faculty member is the champion drives the partnership (Amey,
2010; Tubbeh & Williams, 2010). These programs often originate out of an existing relationship
or research connection or an individual’s passion for a specific international project (Amey,
2010). Without the existing connection or drive to participate in international partnership
building, there is little incentive to engage in these activities for faculty, as funding and time are
limited and administrative procedures necessary to establish agreements are often complex
(Dewey & Duff, 2009). Internationalization efforts are more effective when faculty are involved
and the efforts are curriculum centered (Porfirio, 2012). The coordination of faculty initiatives
and institutional goals is necessary for faculty commitment to internationalization (Dewey &
Duff, 2009). A university dean or provost may support a partnership (or not) for university
image or resource reasons that are broader than the concerns of traditional research faculty
members (Amey, 2010; Tubbeh & Williams, 2010). The motivation for students to support
internationalization is often framed in the sense of developing global competence and
professional development for future success in the global economy (Amey, 2010; Culver, Puri,
Spinelli, DePauw, & Dooley, 2011; Dewey & Duff, 2009). Without an institutional strategy for
internationalization or connection to the mission of the university, international programs are
haphazard and unsystematic and run the risk of dissolving over time (Amey, 2010). This is
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 30
problematic when programs are created from the bottom up and are run by a faculty member or
administrator because if that person loses interest or leaves the institution the program may
disintegrate. For this reason as well as the numerous barriers to international partnerships, an
internationalization plan for the university is the key for strategic implementation and
sustainability of internationalization goals (Childress, 2009).
Governments can play a vital role in internationalization efforts of public institutions of
higher education or in nations where the government oversees international agreements. The
governmental role is important in this study because the Singaporean government plays a driving
role in higher education by determining educational policy (Tan, 2006). In public institutions
developed to meet the need of local constituents the internationalization process can be tenuous
if it is seen as potentially detracting from the local stakeholders. Leaders may need to help state
or local governments involved with oversight see the benefits of international ventures (Hyde,
2009). Oleksiyenko (2010) finds that Hong Kong’s decentralized education system leads to
creativity in the development of partnerships yet due to its reintegration with Mainland China
there is strain between the forces of internationalization and intra-nationalization. The education
and finance systems remain somewhat autonomous yet all partnerships or arrangements with
other nations are managed through Beijing (Oleksiyenko, 2010). Willis (2007) discusses the role
of provincial and national government oversight of higher education in China as well. The
structure of the government requires approval for partnerships with foreign parties. Singapore’s
government has repeatedly participated in review of universities and set policies regarding
various aspects of Singaporean higher education, largely tied to economic development (Mok,
2011; Saha & Ang, 2010; Tan, 2006). The Thai government is an example of government with
a less direct role in the development of international partnerships in higher education. The Sasin
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 31
School of Management (a partnership with the Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of
Management and Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania in the U.S.) was
created in response to the Thai government’s decision to encourage foreign investment on the
eastern seaboard of the nation (Pembleton, 2011). Governments can influence the development
of international partnerships in higher education both directly and indirectly.
All of the stakeholders detailed above view the potential international partnership through
their own role in the university. All of these considerations are relevant when establishing an
international joint degree program because various stakeholders will affect the development of
any institutional program. It is important to understand the concerns and interests of
stakeholders at participating institutions because while government may not play a role in one
university it may have a very strong connection to the administration of the partner institution.
Being cognizant of these differences will assist in the selection of a suitable partner institution
for international joint degree programs. This section discussed motivations and rationales at the
institutional, national or sector, and individual stakeholder levels. All of these stakeholders can
affect the development of international activities and thus are important considerations in
internationalization processes generally. The next section will detail international partnerships
specifically. Partnerships are one type of internationalization activity that includes numerous
variations, of which joint degree programs is a particularly close model.
International Partnerships in Higher Education
Among the variety of methods for higher education internationalization, partnership
agreements are a way to share both the potential risks and benefits among participating
institutions. Partnerships take a variety of forms and require varying levels of commitment and
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 32
interaction based on the level of connection between the programs or institutions. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a key aspect of partnerships and details the agreement
between the programs or institutions and their commitment to the partnership (Council of
Graduate Schools, 2010; Stinson, 2010). The MOU is the document that lays the foundation for
the agreement and can detail a very loose connection or a more in depth partnership arrangement.
The MOU is often the first step in developing an international partnership and may be superficial
in that an MOU may simply state that the two institutions have an affinity. Types of partnerships
will be detailed in the next section of this text. Partnerships are described as being initiated in
two general ways: top-down, instigated by the university leaders, or bottom-up, usually initiated
by a faculty member or group of faculty members (Amey, 2010; Council of Graduate Schools,
2010). Stinson (2010) identifies university partnerships as either intentional or unintentional and
finds that this has an affect both on the clarity of the agreement and the sustainability of the
program. For example, when a faculty member is the champion of an international program and
then leaves the university for another position the program may be discontinued (Amey, 2010;
Stinson, 2010). Intentional partnerships are likely to be more successful and sustainable if the
foundations of the agreement are clear and do not rely on one individual’s connections or passion
(Stinson, 2010). Beyond this basic categorization of international partnerships in higher
education, two typologies have emerged from higher education associations and are detailed
below.
Typologies of International Partnerships
The American Council of Education Guidelines on International Partnerships (Van de
Water et al., 2008) defines international partnerships by categorizing them in three types:
friendships and cooperation agreements, broad institutional agreements and program-specific
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 33
partnerships. Friendship and cooperation agreements are the least involved type of arrangement
and usually serve as the first step in later, more involved partnerships. These agreements usually
involve no financial commitment and simply mean the institutions are friendly and have a
general affinity (Van de Water et al., 2008). Broad institutional agreements are more detailed,
include conditions and expectations for the arrangement between the two institutions and
symbolize a long-term commitment and special relationship between the institutions. Finally,
program-specific partnerships and agreements are between programs, departments, or schools
and are more focused. These types of agreements often involve research, services, teaching, and
other types of cooperation. This category includes exchange programs and other international
programs such as dual degrees and joint degrees (Van de Water et al., 2008). The focus of
international partnerships and agreements can include any activity that the institution engages in.
Often, international partnerships become the domain of the program or department that initiated
and sustains them rather than that of the university as a whole (Amey, 2010). The structures and
methods of international partnerships vary and include many of the numerous methods of
internationalization discussed earlier in this chapter.
The Association of International Educators (NAFSA) guide to interuniversity linkages
provides an alternative typology for international programs (Tillman, 2007). International
partnerships are categorized as formal or informal. These two broad categories encompass the
variety of international linkages between universities. Formal partnerships are those that are
documented and recognized officially, while informal agreements are undocumented and
frequently not authorized (Tillman, 2007). Formal agreements are delineated as two types:
friendship agreements and program or activity specific agreements. The NAFSA guide is
intended for non-U.S. universities that are looking to partner with a U.S. institution and provides
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 34
information regarding the higher education system in the United States as well as a series of
guidelines for creating international interuniversity linkages which will be discussed in more
detail later in this chapter.
By the ACE and NAFSA standards, international joint degree programs are program
specific, formal partnerships. Because a joint degree program involves the academic core of
higher education (teaching, learning, and degree granting) these programs have written
agreements, and are program specific because they are centered on a particular degree program
with a disciplinary focus. Both the American Council on Education report (Van de Water et al.,
2008) and the NAFSA guide to interuniversity linkages (Tillman, 2007) provide typologies for
international partnerships as well as guidelines for institutions seeking to create such
partnerships. These reports are designed to assist the growing number of university officials
seeking to establish international partnerships, however they provide only resources and no
research regarding the success of their guidelines. Both documents encourage thoughtful
engagement prior to establishing partnerships and offer a range of needed considerations before
commitment to partner with another institution. Both suggest that prior to partnering, institutions
must be clear on the purpose of and the motivations for such commitments to meaningful
international interaction. International joint degree programs are considered formal, program
specific activities and thus require development of thoughtful and detailed guidelines regarding
the program.
Management of International Partnerships
Clear articulation of agreements, shared interests, and culture affect the relations between
international partners (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Heffernan & Poole, 2005; Jie, 2010;
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 35
Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et al., 2008). In order to successfully create partnerships in higher
education across international borders it is imperative that agreements are clear and concise and
include the expectations of both partners (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Tillman, 2007;
Van de Water et al., 2008). Without this fundamental step a partnership cannot be successfully
established. Shared interests in the program and its successful creation are a vital component as
well. Jie (2010) used a game theory approach to analyze international educational partnerships.
According to her use of game theory, both partners value their own self-interests higher than
each other’s interests or even the shared interests of the program. Partnering institutions may
enter arrangements with different goals and interests and this can be problematic in the
partnership and may ultimately affect trust and communication (Jie, 2010). Even if partners
enter the relationship with shared motivations, goals, and interests these can develop over time
and this reinforces the need for clear agreements on the nature of the partnership and potential
strategies for renegotiation at later points. Ultimately, partners with more shared interests will be
more successful than those with divergent interests (Jie, 2010). The motivations behind
involvement in international partnerships are a key component of shared interests. If both parties
are motivated to participate for similar reasons the partnership will be more successful, thus it is
important that motivations and rationales for engagement in an international partnership be
considered in selecting a partner for an international joint degree program. Further,
communication between potential partners is necessary to build a successful partnership
agreement.
Culture is an important factor in the issues of communication, commitment and trust
between partner institutions (Heffernan & Poole, 2005). As stated above, without
communication and trust between partners the likely success of a relationship is slim.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 36
Heffernan and Poole (2005) use a five-phase relationship model to discuss international
partnerships in higher education, the phases are as follows: awareness, exploration, expansion,
commitment and dissolution. The first two phases are most relevant to this study and are
identified by the authors as the most crucial. Awareness is the consideration that both parties
could be interested in establishing the partnership. Exploration is identified as the most
important phase for successful development of effective partnerships and involves the early
interactions between the partners and the development of impressions and expectations from
each party. It is these two phases (typically lasting between 6 and 15 months) that can
determine the success of committing to the partnership (Heffernan & Poole, 2005). The
influence of culture on these two initial phases is strong. There are multiple views of how long
a relationship must develop prior to formal business commitments that are rooted in cultural
values. Further organizational culture has an effect on these phases as well and can lead to
misunderstandings or frustrations between partners. This model for building partnerships,
developed to understand the creation of international education partnerships is based on open,
honest communication, trust, and commitment (Heffernan & Poole, 2005). Without an effective
understanding of cultural expectations and differences it is difficult to build trust and ultimately
create a cross-border partnership.
There is often a difference between the motivations of institutions in developed or
educationally leading countries and those in developing countries (Altbach et al., 2009). Further,
partnerships between institutions located in developed and developing countries can create
uneven dominance in the relationship between international partners (Tubbeh & Williams, 2010;
Witt, 2011). There have been uneven gains in access to higher education across the globe and
this has further reified the distribution of wealth and status in the global economy. Higher
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 37
education serves as a factor that reproduces power; meaning that when institutions that are
already prestigious and powerful enter into a partnership with a less recognized institution, the
prestigious institution typically wields more power in the relationship and ultimately reinforces
its own authority within higher education (Witt, 2011). Globalization has the possibility of
reifying existing inequalities and can disadvantage developing nations (Altbach, 2008). The
recognition of this danger is an important factor in international partnerships and requires
consideration. Access to higher education as a pathway to social mobility is a long existing
narrative and advanced education is likely to improve one’s socioeconomic standing over time.
However, access alone does not guarantee social equity and when international partnerships are
created to provide access in areas of need, institutions must consider existing barriers to access
including cost and academic preparation (Altbach et al., 2009). A clear understanding of the
motivations of partner institutions as well as the context of the arrangement is necessary in
developing successful international partnerships.
It is essential to understand the different types of motivations for involvement in
international higher education partnerships, as well as factors that affect interaction between
institutions in different countries in order to determine what factors should be considered in
selecting potential institutional partners. As reviewed in the section above, motivation, power,
communication, trust and shared interests all play a role in international partnerships, both in the
development of the arrangement and the ongoing partnership. Without a clear understanding of
the potential areas of concern it would be impossible to know what to consider when beginning
interaction with a potential institutional partner. Given the close nature of the partnership
between schools in a joint degree program it is imperative that partners be evaluated thoroughly
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 38
and motivations for participation are clear. The next section reviews the available literature on
joint degree programs.
Joint Degree Programs
The term joint degree has no single definition in the literature and thus represents varying
levels of commitment and collaboration among institutions (Rauhvargers, Bergan, & Divis,
2003; Knight, 2008). There are numerous current uses of the term joint degree program and the
lack of consistent definition has been an issue in the literature surrounding these types of
programs (Michael & Balraj, 2003; Knight, 2008). The term joint degree is used to describe:
degree programs designed jointly and degrees awarded that include both (or all three)
institutional names and seals; programs in which students may receive a degree from each of the
partnering institutions; and programs that issue a degree from one and a certificate from another
institution (Rauhvargers et a., 2003). The definition for this study will be: “a single degree
program jointly offered by two separate institutions” in which the participating institutions have
the capability of granting degrees (Michael & Balraj, 2003) and one degree is issued with the
name of all participating institutions (Knight, 2008). The majority of these programs are offered
at the graduate level (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Knight 2008). Further, graduate
schools with larger populations of international students are more likely to have international
joint degrees (Knight, 2008).
The European Union has the longest history of successfully supporting the development
of international joint degree programs, and thus these types of degrees are more common at
European institutions. Programs that encourage the creation of such cross border educational
collaborations offer funding to both institutions and students for the specific purpose of engaging
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 39
in cross border partnerships (Knight, 2008). In 1999, twenty-nine European countries signed the
Bologna Declaration and began working towards a European Higher Education Area (Bologna
Process, 2010). The goals of this endeavor include: facilitating mobility of students, staff, and
graduates between European nations, preparing students for future careers as well as their role of
citizen within a democratic society, increasing access to higher education and to streamline the
quality of education, recognition of qualifications and degrees between nations, and to make
degrees between nations comparable and understandable (Bologna Process, 2010). Currently,
there are forty-seven member nations and the Bologna Process includes collaboration with other
organizations such as the European Commission, Council of Europe, and UNESCO. The
Erasmus Mundus program was created with the goal of establishing joint programs between
European institutions and other industrialized regions (Knight, 2008). The program offers
support to institutions looking to implement a joint program, to individual students who would
like to study in a joint program, and to organizations active in higher education that are
promoting European education (European Commission, 2010). The EU-USA Atlantis Program
was developed to promote understanding and cooperation between the European Union and the
United States and to improve the quality of the workforce (European Commission, 2011). This
program provides support for joint programs among groups of EU and US institutions, provides
funding for short term exchanges and curriculum development, and support for vocational
training programs created among EU and US institutions. Because the European Union has
created support for increased international collaboration and recognition of academic courses and
degrees it is not surprising that more international joint degree programs have been established in
European countries than in other regions of the world. This is relevant to this study because the
government of Singapore has placed a focus on developing Singapore into an educational hub
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 40
and instigated a strategic approach via policies and funding to attract international students,
foreign educational providers, as well as encourage partnerships between Singaporean
institutions and overseas institutions (Mok, 2011; Saha & Ang, 2010; Tan, 2006). The role of
government support for internationalization efforts can be vast and the Singaporean
government’s role in higher education has directly influenced the development of international
efforts in Singapore’s universities.
Benefits of Joint Degrees
Joint degrees require a high level of commitment and can provide many benefits to
participating students, faculty and institutions. While there is some literature on the benefits of
joint degrees this section also includes some research on the benefits of international
collaborative degree programs, which includes dual and combined degree programs. Dual
degree programs are joint programs in which students spend significant time at both institutions
and earn a degree from each participating institution (Knight, 2008). Combined degree programs
are those that award two degrees at consecutive levels (i.e. a bachelor’s followed by a master’s)
with some component of education at each participating institution (Knight, 2009). Although
dual and combined degree programs represent a less committed and intertwined relationship
because they do not affix multiple institutional names and seals to one degree they are similar
types of programs and many of the benefits are shared. There are benefits to these programs at
multiple levels, most importantly to participating students, faculty members and institutions.
For students, participating in education in multiple nations can enhance cultural
awareness and language skills, help develop global citizenship, provide expanded educational
offerings and provide an opportunity for personal development and enrichment (Asgary &
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 41
Robbert, 2010; Brookes & Becket, 2011; Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Culver, Warfinge,
Grossman, & Puri, 2011; Rauhvargers et al, 2003). Further, participation in a joint or dual
degree program offers affiliation with and pride in multiple institutions and offers a broader
experience through international study (Knight & Lee, 2012; Knight, 2009; Michael & Balraj,
2003). With an international joint degree program there is the added benefit of experience in
another culture, exposure to a wider variety of fellow students and faculty, as well as possible
career benefits if the program results in additional professional qualifications or broader
understanding of relevant professional concerns in various contexts (Culver et al., 2011; Knight,
2008; Knight & Lee, 2012). For faculty these programs can be beneficial in terms of gaining
access to greater resources, increased likelihood of research collaboration, broadening
professional networks and the possibility of engaging in innovative teaching processes (Knight,
2008; Knight & Lee, 2012).
Institutions themselves benefit from the increased access to resources and possible
faculty collaboration, and may ultimately increase the academic capacity of the institution by
diversifying its academic programs (Knight, 2008; Knight & Lee, 2012; Michael & Balraj,
2003). International double, combined and joint degree programs can also contribute to status,
competitiveness and prestige (Knight, 2009; Knight & Lee, 2012). Further, international joint
degrees can contribute to an institution’s internationalization goals (Knight, 2008; Rauhvargers
et al., 2003). These benefits can enhance the quality and reputation of the participating
institutions yet there are numerous challenges to the creation of such programs that must be
addressed in order to successfully establish a joint degree program.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 42
Challenges of International Collaboration and Joint Degrees
The challenges of international collaboration are many but can be overcome with
thoughtful consideration and planning (Tubbeh & Williams, 2010). Knight (2008) characterizes
the challenges into two categories: academic alignment issues and mobility, language,
recognition and legitimacy. Academic alignment issues include national and university
regulatory differences, quality assurance and accreditation concerns, and financial issues
(Knight, 2008). Issues such as residency requirements and academic calendars (university
policies) and recognition of coursework taken at an institution in another country can create
roadblocks to the creation of international joint (or dual) degree programs (Asgary & Robbert,
2010; Knight, 2008). Additionally, faculty governance can complicate the development of these
programs as some academics and policymakers view these programs as potential academic fraud
(Knight, 2009). Quality assurance and accreditation concerns plague nearly all international
collaboration efforts and can lead to recognition issues (Altbach & Knight, 2011; Armstrong,
2007; Knight, 2008; Knight & Lee, 2012; Rauhvargers et al, 2003). Financial concerns are a
large challenge for joint and dual degree programs even though revenue is not typically a
primary motivation for developing these programs (Knight, 2008; Kuder & Obst, 2009; Obst et
al., 2011). Both in terms of student financial needs due to the necessity of travel and often
higher tuition rates but also in regard to funding for the administration of joint and dual degree
programs, financing these programs can be challenging (Asgary & Robbert, 2010; Knight, 2008;
Kuder & Obst, 2009; Obst et al., 2011).
Mobility, in Knight’s (2008) framing, focuses on the needed mobility of students for joint
and double degrees, which in some cases can limit the accessibility of these programs to some
students. She also notes that with increasing technology some programs are becoming more
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 43
flexible in offering online or distance learning components, this however, limits the international
experience of the program and may affect student outcomes from an international joint program.
The vast majority of international joint and dual degree programs rely on physical mobility of
students (Obst et al., 2011). The language of instruction can be a challenge as well in that most
schools will offer instruction in the home language and English and this often requires students
and faculty to be multilingual (Knight, 2008). Obst et al. (2011) found that English is the
predominant language in joint and double degree programs. Further, respondents listed language
as one of the least challenging aspects of developing programs.
Recognition of international joint and dual degrees is connected to the quality assurance
and accreditation concerns in that these types of degrees do not belong to any one national
education system and thus are difficult to categorize (Rauhvargers et al., 2003). There is not an
internationally recognized accreditation system and the bureaucracy of becoming accredited in
multiple systems is overwhelming (Obst et al., 2011). Ultimately, joint, double, and combined
degrees often have to seek accreditation in each nation (if available) although some professional
programs can seek accreditation through professional international accreditation agencies
(Knight, 2009). Accreditation and recognition of joint degree programs is so problematic in
Europe that the European Consortium for Accreditation has one of the four working groups of
the organization devoted to mutual recognition and joint programs (European Consortium for
Accreditation, 2012). Some countries do not allow the awarding of joint degrees across
international borders and this results in students receiving a degree from one school and a
certificate from the other (Knight, 2008; Obst et al., 2011). Further, recognition of these
programs by outside actors such as employers and credentialing bodies is uncertain (Knight,
2008). Another potential challenge to the recognition of joint degree programs is the potential
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 44
misuse or abuse of double counting credits towards the degree (Knight, 2012). These degree
programs should have differentiated outcomes and should meet the requirements of both
institutions.
The benefits of and challenges to establishing an international joint degree program are
numerous and nuanced as explored in the last two sections. It is important to recognize these
factors in order to understand the reasons for engaging in these types of partnerships and to
prepare for the potential obstacles that institutions will face in creating an international joint
degree program. It is for all of the reasons listed above that the selection of a partner institution
can be the determining factor in successful establishment of a program (Tubbeh & Williams,
2010). The process of selecting a partner institution should include a full awareness of the
challenges to be faced as the institutions can address some of these concerns in the initial
partnering arrangement. Additionally, understanding the potentially complicating factors can
assist in the development of a framework for criteria to consider when evaluating a potential
partner institution for an international joint degree program. The next section overviews the
context of higher education in Singapore.
Higher Education in Singapore
Understanding the context of Singapore’s higher education system is essential for this
study. As stated earlier in this chapter it is incredibly important to have knowledge regarding the
various factors that may influence an institutional internationalization effort. To investigate the
partner selection process utilized by Nanyang Technological University in Singapore for its
international joint degree programs, it is necessary to understand factors that guide those efforts.
The higher education system in Singapore is largely determined by the role of the government
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 45
and the use of education as a method for economic development of the nation (Mok, 2011).
Singapore is a small city-state with limited natural resources and thus human resources are of
great importance for the country (Saha & Ang, 2010). Originally a British trading post, the first
university in Singapore was established as the King Edward VII Medical College in 1905 (Tan,
2006). A second institution was established in 1928 to meet demand for the civil service and
teaching sectors. In 1949, the two institutions merged into the University of Malaya with two
campuses, one in Singapore and another in Kuala Lumpur, to meet the needs of Singapore,
Malaya and Borneo (Tan, 2006). In response to community desire to end colonial rule a Ten-
Year program was developed in 1947 to educate citizenry for self-governance, provide equal
opportunity for education, and provide free instruction in English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil
(Saha & Ang, 2010). Ultimately this led to the creation of the polytechnic institute in 1954 to
increase technical capabilities in Singapore. Once Singapore achieved independence, from
Britain in 1963 when the nation joined the Malaysian Federation, and ultimately in 1965 when
Singapore left the federation, the government’s involvement in the development of the higher
education sector increased. The People’s Action Party was and still is run by English educated
moderates whom established English as the language of education (Saha & Ang, 2010). The
Singaporean government has continually played a dominant role in the higher education system.
Currently, a total of four autonomous Singaporean universities have been established: the
National University of Singapore, in 1980 after a merger with the Chinese language Nanyang
University; Nanyang Technological University, in 1992, originally established as a technical
institute on the Nanyang University campus and later developed into a university to meet
increasing educational demand; Singapore Management University in 2000, a private company
established by the Singaporean parliament; and in 2009, the Singapore Institute of Technology
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 46
was developed in partnership with industry and designed to provide the next step for students
who start in polytechnics (Ministry of Education, 2012). In addition to the four universities there
are five polytechnics designed to educate middle-level professionals for the technical and
economic development of Singapore and nine foreign-owned, specialized private institutions of
higher education (Ministry of Education, 2012).
Role of Government in Higher Education
The role of the government in higher education in Singapore is expansive and largely tied
to the nation’s need to develop human resources (Tan, 2006). Throughout Singapore’s
independent history numerous government-devised committees were convened to investigate
varying aspects of education and make recommendations that the government then implements
(Tan, 2006). The Ministry of Education has driven the growth of higher education in Singapore
by setting a goal to create a global center for education by attracting ten premiere universities to
develop branch campuses in the city-state and attracting foreign students to study within the
nation (Jordan, 2011; Mok, 2011; Sidhu, Ho, & Yeoh, 2011a, 2011b; Tan 2006). The
government’s dominating role in higher education has been mostly in response to economic
development concerns, which will be discussed in this section shortly. According to Lee (2010),
it was not until the mid-1990’s that the concept of a ‘World Class University’ was elucidated in
Singaporean public rhetoric. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong set the governmental vision for
attaining world-class status in 1996. The Prime Minister stated that to achieve this status the
nation’s educational institutions must pursue excellent teaching and a solid all-around education,
build a strong alumni community and must seek to “become hubs of research and intellectual
exchange in Asia,” including increasing understanding between Asia and the West (Lee, 2010, p.
294). In 1997, the Ministry of Education launched an initiative called ‘Thinking Schools,
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 47
Learning Nation’ (TSLN) to develop innovation and creativity in education (Saha & Ang, 2010;
Tan, 2006). In 2000, the Ministry of Education encouraged more autonomy for the publicly
owned institutions. Although this allowed for the universities to have more say over their
internal affairs and reorganized them as non-profit institutions, the government still provides
educational funding and requires adherence to an accountability framework that includes: policy
and performance agreements with the Ministry of Education as well as a Quality Assurance
Framework developed by the ministry (Tan, 2006). Funding of the public universities by the
government keeps tuition rates low, as the universities do not depend on tuition dollars for the
bulk of their activities (Waring, 2013). The primary mechanisms for governmental control are
via the allocation of funds and the appointment of senior university officials, thereby directing
policy decisions within the higher education system in Singapore (Tan, 2006).
In addition to the influence of the government on Singaporean institutions, the
government has attracted foreign educational providers to meet the demand for access to higher
education. This has included developing specific educational sub sectors including: preparatory
and boarding schools, universities, commercial and specialty schools (polytechnics), and
corporate training centers to meet both consumer demand for access and corporate demand for
educated and trained workers (Saha & Ang, 2010). Since the Global Schoolhouse initiative was
launched in 2002, nine foreign owned post-secondary institutions and 30 pre-tertiary schools
offering international curriculum have been established in Singapore (Singapore Economic
Development Board, 2011). A strong relationship between the foreign provider and the
Singaporean government determines the success of the offshore offering within the hub (Singh,
2012). In a study of marketing strategies for a branch campus located in Singapore, Singh
(2012) found that the Ministry of Education determined the market of potential students for
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 48
UNLV Singapore, and ultimately led to the success of the branch campus by providing
legitimacy to the branch campus and also by attracting and funding students to study there.
Without the approval and support of the Singaporean government, via the Ministry of Education,
it is unclear whether a foreign educational provider could survive, let alone thrive, in Singapore.
Beyond the enticements to bring selected foreign providers to the nation, the Singaporean
government has provided funding to attract foreign students to study in the nation to meet human
resource needs for the many corporate entities in the nation. These scholarships require that
foreign students work for Singapore-based companies for a minimum of three years after
graduation (Saha & Ang, 2010). All of these governmental policies are rooted in the nation’s
plan for economic development, a discussion of which follows.
Economic Development
The role the government of Singapore plays in the nation’s higher education system is
largely due to the position of the government that higher education is a major component of
economic development in Singapore (Mok, 2011; Saha & Ang, 2010; Sidhu et al., 2011a; Tan,
2006). Singapore’s ruling party was initially established on an industrialization plan relying on
foreign investment and manufacturing (Sidhu et al., 2011a). However, this plan had the side
effect of not developing entrepreneurial innovations to drive the economy and thus the nation
was drastically affected by the Asian financial crisis in 1997. As a response to this experience
the government created a new economic development plan that focused on a services strategy.
In order to increase the growth of innovation and a strong economy in Singapore, economically
driven educational policies were developed beginning with the Teaching Schools, Learning
Nation initiative in 1997 (Mok, 2011; Sidhu et al., 2011a). In 2002, Singapore launched the
Global Schoolhouse Initiative to strengthen the knowledge economy environment and meet the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 49
nation-building goal of becoming a regional educational hub (Singh, 2012). The Global
Schoolhouse Initiative is based on three primary methods: providing financial support to foreign
institutions to establish education services in Singapore; to attract 150,000 international students
to study in Singapore by 2015; and to redesign Singaporean education to facilitate innovation
and creativity (Mok, 2011; Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b; Waring, 2013). In 2003 a multi-
government agency initiative was developed that includes the Economic Development Board, the
Tourism Board, International Enterprise Singapore and the Ministry of Education called
Singapore Education (Mok, 2011). This initiative works at both attracting institutions to
Singapore and promoting Singaporean education overseas. Beyond encouraging foreign
providers to establish operations in Singapore, the government has also provided funding to the
Association of Private Schools and Colleges in support of ensuring academic quality in
Singapore (Mok, 2011). Further, the government promotes the development of joint degree
programs between local universities and overseas institutional partners to foster educational
development at Singaporean institutions (Mok, 2011).
Mok (2011) identifies Singapore as a market-accelerationist state with proactive
regulation of higher education. He argues that the Singaporean government “operates according
to the logic of the market but intervenes in markets in order to remove inefficiencies” (p. 75).
This systematic intervention in and management of higher education is a primary piece of
Singapore’s nation building and economic development strategy. Within this economic
development strategy, institutions adhere to governmental policies regarding higher education in
Singapore. Not surprisingly, the autonomous universities in Singapore have numerous
partnerships with prestigious international institutions, and there are multiple international
branch campuses and offshore programs located in Singapore. These educational initiatives are
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 50
designed not only to create an educational hub for the purposes of financial development, but
also to meet social goals including sustaining Singapore’s population (Waring, 2013). By
attracting foreign students to study and then work in Singapore the government is attempting to
maintain and develop talent in the nation and international students have the potential long term
social good of building their own families in Singapore rather than simply contributing to the
economy by paying tuition dollars (Waring, 2013). The local population has recently voiced
concerns over the large international population in Singapore in terms of increased competition
for their children’s opportunity to study and work there (Sidhu et al., 2011b; Waring, 2013). The
2011 election in Singapore had the lowest level of support for the government’s ruling party
since independence and as a result there has been a shift in policy to focus on Singaporean locals
and examine the role of foreigners in the nation (Waring, 2013). Waring (2013) argues that this
watershed election has caused a recalibration of the Global Schoolhouse Initiative directly;
international student enrollment was capped in 2012 and the government guaranteed new
funding for 2,000 additional university seats for Singaporean students at the public universities.
The Global Schoolhouse Initiative is no longer available on the Singapore Economic
Development website and it remains to be seen what additional changes will be made regarding
international students.
This section provides an overview of the Singaporean context for higher education in
order to understand the setting for this study and to provide the needed background to understand
Nanyang Technological University’s major influences. The Government of Singapore plays a
driving role in the growth, development and regulation of higher education because it includes
the sector as a key part of the nation’s economic development plans (Mok, 2011; Saha & Ang,
2010; Sidhu et al., 2011b; Tan, 2006). The Singaporean government has facilitated the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 51
internationalization of its local institutions and of the city-state itself by providing financial
incentives and support to both foreign students and institutions. Further, the government has
encouraged the development of international partnerships, and joint degree programs
specifically, with overseas institutions (Mok, 2011). Although the government has greatly
influenced the development of higher education this is but one factor in developing international
joint degrees. The next section will explore the existing literature regarding selection of partners
for international partnerships in higher education.
Selecting a Partner Institution
The literature on selection criteria for a partner institution for an international joint degree
program is small and consists of a few surveys and reports published by educational
organizations. The existing reports include data on not only joint degrees but also dual degrees.
The Council of Graduate Schools Report on joint degrees, dual degrees and international
research collaborations (2010) provides some data regarding partner selection for these three
types of partnerships. This report surveyed only graduate schools in the United States who
reported an existing international dual or joint degree program or planned development of a dual
or joint degree program. The study was grant funded by the National Science Foundation, thus
the focus of this research is on science, technology, engineering and math graduate programs.
The study found that more than half (58%) of collaborative international degree program
partners were selected due to known contacts. Nearly one quarter (23%) were selected due to an
existing partnership of some kind. Sixteen percent of partners were selected based on a strategic
decision and only two percent identified other reasons for partner selection. The report
concludes that partner selection is largely based on the desire to deepen an already existing
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 52
relationship of some type, either an existing program or university partnership or an existing
faculty or dean contact and often these reasons for partner selection are intertwined.
The Institute of International Education surveyed institutions on joint and dual degree
programs in 2009 and again in 2011 (Kuder & Obst, 2009; Obst et al., 2011). In both reports the
most common reason for selecting a partner institution is that there is an existing exchange
arrangement between the two schools. The second most common reason is that there are known
faculty contacts and partnerships. Finally, the third most common reason for selecting a partner
is that the decision was made based on a strategic interest. Notably, this third reason has
increased during the time between the two surveys. In 2009 only 23-24% of the surveyed
institutions indicated a strategic decision while in 2011 this number grew to 43.7%. The 2009
survey focused on the United States and the European Union only, while the 2011 survey was
more inclusive with 28 countries participating though the report focuses on the top six reporting
countries, four from the EU, the U.S. and Australia. Perhaps this increase in strategic planning
for partnerships is due to the greater number of countries included but it could also be indicative
of the increasing organization surrounding internationalization within higher education. Both the
Council of Graduate Schools (2010) report and the Institute of International Education surveys
(Kuder & Obst, 2009; Obst et al., 2011) provide a data based foundation for why institutions
were selected for international joint degree programs. The next section reviews the existing
professional association guides to international partnerships as well as a relevant study on market
entry into China through selection of a Chinese university for partnership.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 53
Existing Guides for Selecting Partners for International Collaboration
Both the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) Guide to interuniversity
linkages and the American Council on Education (ACE) Report on International partnerships in
higher education offer suggestions for partner selection (Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et al.,
2008). The first recommendation in both documents is that the institution seeking to create an
international arrangement must clarify its goals and desired type of partnerships. The institution
must have a clear focus and intended outcome in order to begin narrowing down a list of
potential partners who may be a good match for said program. The NAFSA Guide recommends
that universities seeking a US partner should obtain relevant information about potential partners
via websites and educational associations such as the Institute of International Education, U.S.
Educational Advising Centers and Fulbright Commissions (Tillman, 2007). Both NAFSA and
ACE recommend gathering information from faculty and former students with connections to the
potential institution, speaking with other universities already partnered to the potential partner,
and seeking information via professional association networks (Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et
al., 2008). Both documents provide a list of questions that should be asked of a potential partner.
Although their intended audiences are different many of the questions overlap and focus on the
following areas of concern: accreditation, previous experience with international partnerships,
academic calendars, library and research facilities, academic quality of the intended partner
program, capacity to manage the proposed partnership, similarities and differences between the
two institutions in size, location, expertise of faculty, and type of academic programs (Tillman,
2007; Van de Water et al., 2008). Further, because the ACE guide is geared towards U.S.
institutions seeking international partners’ questions regarding language requirements, cultural,
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 54
social and political dynamics of the region, as well as the existence of any State Department
travel advisories or warnings are added (Van de Water et al., 2008).
Willis (2007) studied selection of a Chinese institutional partner by a foreign university
manager. His study does not focus on joint degree programs but rather how foreign institutions
gain market access to higher education within China. The Chinese government requires that
entering institutions partner with a Chinese institution in order to be present in the higher
education market. Willis used qualitative survey data from 156 Chinese universities to obtain a
cross-section by type and later interviewed foreign university staff that had more than 5 years of
experience managing an alliance with a Chinese institution. He identified fundamental selection
criteria as the following: category of university, location, student enrollment, ranking, range of
research institutes, benefit segmentation (i.e. selecting Chinese institutions perceived to benefit
from the collaboration), listening to the advice of colleagues (with expertise on China, university
alliances, or educational delivery), and by seeking the advice of Chinese government bodies.
Foreign managers used all of this information to either confirm or disconfirm that they were
pursuing partnership with an appropriate Chinese institution. Once the potential partnership pool
was narrowed down managers began to investigate compatibility, balanced mutual benefits and
the potential for a smoothly functioning alliance. Ultimately, the respondents in Willis’ (2007)
study stated that using a variety of assessment factors was the key to finding the correct partner.
They also found that in the initial phase of research selecting either a location or a type of
university could assist with the process. Finally, all respondents stated that a high level of
research and understanding of the partner institution was the key to avoiding the possible pitfalls
of entering the Chinese higher education market.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 55
The Council of Graduate Schools Report (2010), the NAFSA Guide (Tillman, 2007), the
ACE Report (Van de Water, et al., 2008) and Willis (2007) provide useful information regarding
the selection of partner institutions for international collaborations. While the Council of
Graduate Schools report is more specific to international joint or dual degrees it is somewhat
limited in that only 43 schools participated and all were pulled from previous Council of
Graduate Schools surveys. Further, the study focused only on programs in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics and these types of programs may not have the same concerns as
other non-scientific programs. The NAFSA Guide (Tillman, 2007) and the ACE Report (Van de
Water et al., 2008) provide seemingly appropriate suggestions for questions to consider in the
partner selection process yet neither of these documents provides any research regarding the
actual use of said guidelines. Willis (2007) provides an excellent overview of the types of
concerns and initial characteristics considered by university managers when selecting potential
international partners. Although his study is not focused on joint degree programs it identifies
many of the same factors listed in the American Council on Education guidelines for
international partnerships (Van de Water et al., 2008). Willis’ focus on entry into the Chinese
higher education market may leave out concerns or identify additional areas to consider (the
concept of “losing face” in Chinese culture for example) that may be relevant in other national
contexts. This existing body of literature on the selection of partners for international higher
education collaboration provides the foundation for this study.
Conceptual Framework
The guiding framework for this study of partner identification and evaluation is derived
from the American Council on Education’s International Partnerships Guidelines (Van de Water
et al., 2008). These guidelines include a series of questions to consider when identifying and
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 56
evaluating potential partner institutions and these questions align with the concerns raised in the
literature reviewed above. Again, the first step in creating any international partnership is the
identification of internal goals and agreement on the type of partnership, in this case, an
international joint degree. After this initial stage, a short list should be developed based upon the
academic focus of the program (i.e. when developing a joint degree program in engineering, only
engineering programs can be considered) and the goals for the partnership (Van de Water et al.,
2008). The series of questions to be considered can be categorized according to Knight’s (2008)
characterization of the challenges that joint degree programs face: academic alignment issues and
mobility, language, recognition and legitimacy concerns. Although Knight (2008) frames these
challenges as two major areas, for the purposes of this study they will be used as three
categories: Academic Alignment Issues, Mobility and Language, and Recognition and
Legitimacy. Each of these categories will be explored below.
Academic Alignment Issues
Academic alignment refers to the similarities between the potential partner institutions’
motivations and rationales behind participating in the international joint degree program and the
alignment of the potential program with the internationalization plans, mission statement and
institutional goals for the program, the academic quality and prestige of both partners is also
included. As Jie (2010, 2011) suggests, partnerships in which participants have similar
motivations behind involvement are more likely to be successful. Also, Knight (2008) and
Childress (2009) describe concerns regarding having clear values pertaining to
internationalization in order to engage in activities that fit the institution’s plans. Further, this
section also involves review of the capacity of each partner to participate in and manage the
proposed joint degree program. Potential questions/concerns in this category include: What is
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 57
the mission of the potential partner? Does the proposed activity/program align with our
institutional mission and internationalization goals? Does it align with the potential partner
institution’s mission and goals? What is the academic quality of the proposed partner program?
What is the reputation of the proposed partner program? Does each school have experience with
managing international partnerships, and if so, what can be learned about the institution by the
existing partnerships? Do both institutions have the financial capacity to engage in the program?
All of these questions are important and have the ability to address many of the common
problems international joint degrees face once they are created.
Mobility and Language
Mobility refers to both student ability to move to participate in the program, as is often
expected, as well as program and faculty mobility (Knight, 2008). This category includes
developing an understanding of the context of the potential partner institution as well. Language
of instruction and regional and cultural differences between the institutions must also be
considered prior to establishment of the partnership. The language of instruction for joint degree
programs is most often English but can also require fluency in another languages and this must
be considered in order to evaluate the suitability of the partnership. In some partnerships the
region is of specific interest, for instance, if a university wants to leverage its location on the
Pacific Rim it is likely to choose partners in other areas of the Pacific Rim. The region can also
be important in terms of safety. Are there health or safety concerns that may affect the ability to
travel to the region? Cultural considerations include understanding the cultural norms in the
region and in some instances educating faculty, staff and students regarding cultural difference
between the countries.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 58
Recognition and Legitimacy Concerns
Recognition and legitimacy concerns are highly connected to academic quality and
prestige but refer to the recognition of the programs qualifications (degrees) by potential
employers and other institutions, should students want to engage in further study after the joint
degree (Knight, 2008). Accreditation of international joint degree programs is a concern here.
Given the accreditation troubles faced by joint degree programs due to the lack of an
internationally recognized accrediting body, recognition is largely connected to the ability of
each institution to be regionally accredited. Legal and governmental considerations are also a
key component here. What type of government rules the country? Does the government play a
strong role in higher education? How much say does the government have in the approval of
international partnership agreements? And how does governmental involvement affect the
partnership?
There are many factors that need to be considered prior to entry into an international joint
degree program. This framework provides a foundational knowledge for the criteria used at
Nanyang Technological University when identifying and evaluating potential partners for
international joint degree programs. Some of the factors listed above are predominant in the
partner selection process while others are less important due to the context of Nanyang
Technological University and its international joint degree programs.
Conclusions from the Literature
There is a growing body of research on internationalization of higher education and its
many strategies and approaches. It is clear that in the modern milieu of globalized higher
education, the purpose, values and goals of internationalization efforts must be clarified at
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 59
institutions (or departments/units) that participate in these activities (Armstrong, 2007; Childress,
2009; Knight, 2009). Strategies for internationalization vary greatly and international joint
degree programs are but one approach. This chapter included a thorough discussion on the
variation in internationalization approaches, specifically international partnerships in order to
provide context for this study. The existing body of literature on joint degree programs including
their benefits and challenges was included to enrich the reader’s understanding of these
programs. Further, the higher education system of Singapore was discussed to provide
information regarding the setting for this case study. Finally the literature regarding partner
selection in international higher education was reviewed and utilized to lead to the framework for
this study, which sought to elucidate the criterion used at the Nanyang Technological University
when identifying and evaluating potential partners for international joint degree programs. This
case study draws on the strengths and gaps in the existing body of literature reviewed above in
order to understand and provide research on partner selection for international partnerships.
Nanyang Technological University provided a rich case study setting given its impressive track
record in successfully establishing 6 international graduate joint degree programs and the
institution’s focus on increasing international partnerships in the coming years (Nanyang
Technological University, 2012).

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 60
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
As internationalization efforts at colleges and universities have grown in the last few
decades, international partnerships of various kinds have noticeably increased (Van de Water et
al., 2008). International joint degree programs are the most connected and committed of these
partnerships as they center on the academic core purpose of higher education, academic
programs. By placing the institutional seals on the same academic qualification the reputation
and quality of both institutions are linked. As discussed in the previous two chapters,
international joint degree programs provide numerous benefits to university stakeholders but also
face a myriad of challenges including academic alignment issues, cultural and language
concerns, and recognition and legitimacy concerns (Knight, 2008). The second chapter of this
dissertation reviewed the existing literature regarding internationalization, joint degree programs
and the partner selection process but there is a notable gap regarding the literature on partner
selection for international joint degree programs. This study contributes to this body of literature
and provides a description and analysis of an existing model of partner selection for international
joint degree programs at Nanyang Technical University. Specifically, the researcher identified
and analyzed how one institution identifies potential partners and then evaluates the suitability of
these institutions for a joint degree program.
Qualitative inquiry methods were employed to complete this task. These methods
“facilitate study of issues in depth and detail” and allow for researchers to ask open-ended and
process oriented questions (Patton, 2002, p. 14). The focus of this study was about the process
of identification and evaluation of potential partners for international joint degree programs; as
such the methods must enable the researcher to learn about this process. The remainder of this
chapter will discuss the methods employed in this study including research questions, research
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 61
design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, validity and
reliability, and limitations.
Research question
What criteria are used to identify and evaluate potential institutional partners for international
joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological University?
Sub-Questions:
• How are potential partners identified?
• What factors are considered in the evaluation of suitability of the partner for an
international joint degree program?
• How, and by whom, are international joint degree programs initiated?
Research design
The design for this study was a qualitative case study focused on Nanyang Technical
University. A qualitative case study is a bounded system in which some issue, concern or
hypothesis is examined. Further, qualitative case studies are particularistic, highly descriptive,
and heuristic (Merriam, 1998). By examining the selection of partners for international joint
degree programs at Nanyang Technical University, the researcher explicates how the selection
process is undertaken at NTU for the purpose of increasing the information available to faculty
and administrators involved in the creation of international partnerships at other institutions.
This was an embedded case study, which involved multiple units of analysis in order to learn
more about the partner selection phenomenon than investigating only one joint degree program
(Patton, 2002). In this case study, a sample of the international joint degree programs at Nanyang
Technological University was investigated in order to examine the process of identifying and
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 62
evaluating potential partners for successfully established international joint degree programs. By
investigating multiple international joint degree programs the researcher creates one overarching
case study through the rich description of the smaller cases within the study site. The data for
qualitative research come in three varieties: interviews, observations and document analysis
(Patton, 2002). This study relies on interviews and document analysis, as observations were not
possible given the research questions’ orientation to the selection of partners, which occurred
prior to the study.
Population and Sample
Given the case study aspect of the research design, the population was faculty and
administrators involved in the creation of the existing international joint degree programs, as
well as any central administrator with a role in international partnerships, at Nanyang Technical
University. The sample was drawn from the six graduate international joint degree programs in
existence at NTU: Ph.D. in Biological Sciences with Karolinska Institute in Sweden; Executive
MBA with Shanghai Jiaotong University in China; a master’s in Infrastructure Engineering and
Management with Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay; a master’s of science in Integrated
Circuit Design with Technical University of Munich; a master’s of science in Microelectronics
with Technical University of Munich; and a master’s of science in Aerospace Engineering with
Technical University of Munich. All of these programs remain active with the exception of the
master’s in Infrastructure Engineering and Management with the Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay. Of the remaining five programs the partnerships with the Technical University of
Munich were identified as the most active and the two institutions are expanding these
partnerships into additional programs in other areas. Graduate programs were the focus of this
study because the vast majority of international joint degree programs are at the graduate level
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 63
(Knight, 2009). Further, the Institute of International Education survey on joint and double
degree programs found that most participating schools were planning to create additional
programs primarily at the graduate level (Obst et al., 2011). While there are many international
programs at NTU the focus of this study was on the following international joint degree
programs: the Ph.D. in Biological Sciences with the Karolinska Institute in Sweden; the M.Sc. in
Integrated Circuit Design with the Technical University of Munich; and the Ph.D. in Integrated
Circuit Design with the Technical University of Munich.
Patton (2002) describes purposeful sampling as the approach of “selecting information
rich cases for study in depth” (p. 230). International joint degree programs were selected for this
study using the following criteria: degree level (graduate programs only), area of study, and
availability of staff and faculty who were involved in the creation of the program. The programs
selected had available founding faculty members who still hold primary roles in the management
of their programs. Further, the programs are within two different schools at NTU, Biological
Sciences and Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and were initiated in two different ways.
The inclusion of these programs provided a richer set of data than if the researcher had focused
only on the engineering related programs in partnership with the Technical University of
Munich, of which there are many outside of integrated circuit design.
This study, while focused only on the identification and evaluation of potential partner
institutions at Nanyang Technical University, included an administrator at one of the partner
institutions, the Technical University of Munich. The TUM administrator represented TUM
Asia, the branch of TUM located in Singapore that runs joint programs with NTU and the
National University of Singapore, as well as offers its own degrees. His perspective was focused
on the Singaporean context only. The aim of this study was to clarify the partner selection
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 64
process for international joint degree programs at one school. While there are likely to be many
methods for selecting partners for international programs, by focusing on one institution with a
number of these programs the study allows for a rich and thorough description of this process at
NTU. The interview protocol does ask for any accommodations made at the request of the
partner, which helps explain some variation in the process between programs at NTU.
Respondents were located through an initial Nanyang Technological University contact.
The existence of multiple programs at NTU combined with the involvement of the central
university administration allowed for an in-depth study of the partner selection and evaluation
process at NTU. One faculty respondent recommended the researcher speak with the TUM Asia
administrator in order to gain a deeper understanding of the NTU-TUM partnership. While both
faculty respondents and the TUM administrator remain involved in the management of their
respective degree programs, the central NTU Administrator interviewed no longer works at NTU
and thus was not involved with the programs at the time of this study. The initial contact with the
Nanyang Technological University was via email and arranged face to face interviews that were
conducted during the researcher’s trip to Singapore in November 2012. Additional
correspondence regarding the study continued via email in the spring of 2013.
Instrumentation
In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument for data collection and thus the
credibility of the qualitative methodology utilized in this study depends “on the skill, competence
and rigor of the person doing fieldwork” (Patton, 2002, p. 14). Because interviews were the
primary data source for this study it is imperative that the interview questions be detailed,
thorough, and directly connected to answering the study’s research questions. The researcher
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 65
developed an interview guide that includes all relevant topics and questions to be explored in the
interview but also allows the researcher to further explore areas that may yield better data
(Patton, 2002). The interview protocol was developed based upon both the research questions as
well as the framework for this study which addresses the following themes in developing joint
degree programs: academic alignment issues, mobility and language concerns, and recognition
and legitimacy concerns (Knight, 2008). Document analysis was also used as a source of data for
this study. Employing multiple data sources enriches the data and strengthens the study by
providing “cross-data validity checks” (Patton, 2002, p. 248). This will be discussed further in
the validity and reliability section of this chapter.
The framework for this study is based on the American Council of Education Guidelines
for International Partnerships in Higher Education and Knight’s (2008) themes of academic
alignment issues, mobility and language concerns, and recognition and legitimacy concerns (Van
de Water et al., 2008). Academic alignment refers to the alignment of important factors such as
institutional missions, internationalization strategies, academic calendars, and purpose of
program or area of study. If partners are aligned in these areas the development of the
partnership may be easier. Mobility and language concerns refer to the ability of students,
faculty, and the program to be mobile in terms of traveling to partner locations for study. This
area also includes language of instruction and cultural difference between the home countries of
each partner. Recognition and legitimacy concerns include academic quality, accreditation
processes, and the recognition of international joint degree programs by other institutions and
employers. These themes often present the greatest barriers to the development of international
joint degrees and thus were useful in illuminating the successful strategies of NTU to overcome
them for development of partnerships.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 66
Interview Protocol
The following interview guide was used while interviewing Nanyang Technological
University faculty and administrators who worked on the creation or have access to the historical
development of the international joint degree programs selected. The researcher explained the
purpose of the interview and the informed consent process prior to beginning the interview.
1) How did the idea for the joint degree program develop?
2) How was (partner institution) initially identified as a potential partner for the
program?
3) What criteria were used to evaluate (partner institution) as a potential partner for the
joint degree?
4) What academic and institutional aspects of the partner institution were most
important in selecting (partner institution) as a partner for this program? (Academic
alignment)
5) Was home country or region of the partner institution important? Why or why not?
(Mobility/Language)
6) Were cultural differences and language of instruction at the partner institution
considered? If so, how? (Mobility/Language)
7) Were accreditation and rankings a concern when selecting a partner for this program?
(recognition/legitimacy)
8) What accommodations did NTU make for the sake of this partner? What effect did
this have on the program?
9) Was the Global Relations office at NTU involved in the process of partner selection?
If so, how?
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 67
10) Were there other considerations in partner selection and evaluation that I did not ask
about directly?
Interview Protocol for Administrator from the Global Relations Office:
1) Is there a university wide policy or process regarding the development of
international joint degree programs?
2) Are there institutional or Ministry of Education guidelines regarding the selection of
partner institutions for international joint degree programs?
3) Does the VP for Global Programs office review international joint degree programs
prior to approval?
4) What criteria are used to evaluate the intended partner institution for proposed
international joint degree programs?
5) How does your office interact with departments as they are selecting and evaluating
potential partners for international joint degree programs?
6) What accommodations were made by NTU for the sake of the partner? How did
these accommodations affect the program?
7) How is the knowledge gained from the development of an international joint degree
program passed on to other administrators or faculty at NTU?
8) Are there additional considerations in partner selection for an international joint
degree program that I did not ask about?
Data Collection and Analysis
The researcher traveled to Singapore in November 2012 to collect data on site at the
Nanyang Technological University and the TUM Asia facility. Interviews were conducted with
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 68
faculty and administrators whom participated in the creation of the selected international joint
degree programs at NTU. An administrator from the Office of Global Relations at NTU was
also interviewed to understand the university internationalization strategies as related to selecting
partners for international joint degree programs. The interview guides were used in all of the
interviews in Singapore. The researcher also reviewed the formal, public documents of the
programs regarding the international joint degree programs.
The data collected via interviews and document review were coded and organized by
theme and analyzed using the framework described in chapter two of this dissertation. The
framework is rooted in Knight’s (2008) review of the challenges to creating international joint
degree programs and the American Council on Education’s Guidelines for International
Partnerships (Van de Water et al., 2008). These challenges illustrate recommended criteria that
should be considered when selecting a partner for an international joint degree program and can
be categorized as: academic alignment issues, mobility and language concerns, and recognition
and legitimacy concerns (Knight, 2008). While coding the interview and document data the
researcher identified the three themes of Knight’s international joint degree program challenges,
while also coding for sub themes and emerging themes not identified in the framework. The
findings from this process were then cross referenced with the body of literature reviewed in
chapter two of this dissertation.
Validity and Reliability
In qualitative research there is no single way to test the reliability and validity of a study;
instead this must be developed analytically for each unique study using appropriate guidelines
(Patton, 2002). As such, measures were taken to ensure that the data were of high-quality and
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 69
accurately recorded, that the credibility of the researcher had been established throughout the
process of designing and undertaking this study, and that the data from this study were cross-
validated through multiple data sources. The aim of this study was to describe and explain the
criteria used in the process of identifying and evaluating potential partners for international joint
degree programs as “accurately and completely as possible” so that the findings from this study
will correspond with the reality of Nanyang Technical University’s partner selection process
(Patton, 2002, p. 546). To do this, data were recorded and collected as accurately as possible
with clarification requested when a respondent’s statement was unclear. The use of the interview
protocol approved by faculty committee and the Institutional Research Board ensured that
appropriate and directly related questions are asked of each interviewee. Digital recording of
each interview was utilized when possible. One interviewee declined to be recorded and an
interview with another respondent took place in a location where background noise was too loud
to ensure accurate recording. In both of these circumstances the researcher took copious notes
during the interview and transcribed these notes immediately following the session.
Limitations
This study is limited in scope due to its focus on three international joint degree programs
at one university. This limits the generalizability of the study’s findings. However, the data
collected were consistent with the body of literature regarding the development of international
joint and double degree findings. Another limitation of this study stems from constraints on
access experienced by the researcher. The researcher was not granted access to the internal
documents of the programs. Thus, the findings are gathered from interviewee responses as well
as public documents such as promotional brochures and websites. While public documents
reveal the stated intent of and the declared mission and vision for the programs as well as
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 70
internationalization by the university, they do not reveal the internal motivations or concerns that
may have been present in less formal, internal documents. Further, the interviewees responded
to the researcher in varying ways. While the NTU faculty members and the former NTU Global
Relations Officer were open with the researcher regarding the vast majority of topics in this
study, some subjects were considered confidential. One faculty member stated that some
accommodations made for the partner were confidential matters and only shared one
accommodation (financial support) he felt comfortable describing. The TUM Asia administrator
was somewhat hesitant to speak to the researcher. He declined to be recorded and referred to
public documents and government programs many times in the interview.
This case study centers on the interviews of four informants. Access to faculty and
administrators willing to participate in the study was very limited. Although there are six active
international joint degree programs, only two faculty members were willing and able to be
interviewed. Their experiences may not represent the full variety of ways that these programs
are initiated at NTU. Although there are only two faculty member informants they represent
three programs, all of which were initiated in different ways: one through a faculty contact,
another as a result of a partner institution proposal, and the third as an expansion of an existing
partnership. Further, their statements were in line with the literature regarding international joint
degree programs. Throughout the data collection and analysis processes the researcher took
measures to cross validate the findings by utilizing the existing body of research on international
joint degree programs reviewed in the previous chapter.
A notable limitation to the generalizability of this study is due to Singapore’s educational
context. The Singaporean government has actively worked to create an educational hub within
the nation. An atmosphere of educational innovation has been stimulated through numerous
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 71
government programs, which include funding for international collaboration and participating
students. As the findings and analysis discuss in the following chapters, this funding and
governmental encouragement played a large role in the development of the international joint
degree programs (and other international collaboration) at NTU and in Singapore. Much of the
literature reviewed in the previous chapter notes that funding is a primary problem for
international joint degree programs (Asgary & Robbert, 2010; Knight, 2008; Kuder & Obst,
2009; Obst et al., 2011). The existence of readily available funds for international collaboration
as a result of the nation-building goal of developing an educational hub is a major factor in the
development of so many international joint degree programs in Singapore. In nations where this
is not a goal there is likely little to no government funding for these types of programs and as a
result there may be fewer programs. The Singaporean government plays a driving role in the
nation’s economy and the encouragement of these programs from outside of the university likely
increased the pace of development for international collaboration. Thus, these findings may not
be relevant in a nation without the stated goal and enacted policies encouraging such
collaboration and the development of international programs.
Conclusion
A qualitative embedded case study of a selection of NTU graduate international joint
degree programs was undertaken in order to understand the selection of international partners for
joint degree programs. Specifically, this study elucidates how potential partners are identified
and evaluated for international joint degree programs at NTU. Through the methods detailed
above, the findings of this study enable future administrators and faculty to select potential
partners for international joint degree programs in a more systematic and thorough way.
Interviews with faculty and administrators engaged in the creation of the selected international
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 72
joint degree programs served as the primary data source. Document analysis was also utilized to
enrich the data and allow for verification of the findings from the interviews. Finally, use of the
literature reviewed in the previous chapter was undertaken to cross validate the data.
The collected data was organized, coded and analyzed using Knight’s (2008) framework
of challenges to the creation of international joint degree programs which are categorized as
follows: academic alignment issues, mobility and language concerns, and recognition and
legitimacy concerns. The findings of this study will be presented in chapter four. A final
summary of the study and further analysis of findings will be provided in chapter five.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 73
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings of this case study, which examined a selection of
Nanyang Technological University’s graduate international joint degree programs. The goals of
this study were to identify the criteria used to select and evaluate potential institutional partners
for international joint degree programs in order to provide additional information regarding the
partner selection process for other institutions. The data presented in this chapter were drawn
from interviews with faculty and administrators at NTU as well as an administrator at one
partner institution, the Technical University of Munich (TUM). In addition to interviews, public
documents regarding the programs were collected, including brochures and websites. The data
were analyzed using the framework described in the previous two chapters that identifies
potential challenges to the creation of international joint degree programs under three major
themes: Academic Alignment, Mobility and Language Concerns, and Recognition and
Legitimacy Concerns (Knight, 2008; Van de Water et al., 2008).
This chapter begins by providing an overview of the interviews, followed by a
description of the international joint degree programs included in this study and their respective
partner institutions. The next section discusses the role of the Singaporean government in the
development of these joint degree programs. The findings are organized by the research sub-
questions, which are revisited in this chapter.
Interviews
To identify the criteria used to select and evaluate potential institutional partners for
international joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological University the researcher traveled
to Singapore in November 2012 to conduct interviews with faculty and administrators involved
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 74
in the creation process for a selection of international joint degree programs at NTU. The
researcher interviewed the following participants: Dr. N., the professor who developed the joint
Ph.D. program in Biological sciences with the Karolinska Institute in Sweden; Dr. S., the
professor who developed the joint Master of Science in Integrated Circuit Design and
subsequently the Ph.D. in Integrated Circuit Design with the Technical University of Munich;
Mr. C., an administrator at the Technical University of Munich, Asia (TUM Asia) which is the
partner institution for the M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs in Integrated Circuit Design; and Mr. L., the
Director of International Relations at Nanyang Technological University from 2004-2012. Both
professors created and are still involved in the management of their respective programs. Dr. S.
recommended that the researcher speak with Mr. C., who is Manager of Academic Services at
the Technical University of Munich, Asia. Although Mr. C. was not directly involved in the
creation of the Integrated Circuit Design programs he was very knowledgeable regarding the
founding of the program in terms of purpose and shared a great deal of information regarding all
of TUM Asia’s programs in Singapore. The researcher also corresponded via email with
professors N. and S., Mr. L., and a recommended contact in the graduate studies department at
NTU, Ms. H., for follow up questions in the spring of 2013. Mr. L. was the primary point of
contact for this study and linked the researcher to both professors at NTU. Further, he shared his
nearly eight years of experience as the international relations director at NTU. During his tenure,
NTU developed and implemented nearly all of its international joint degree programs. To
provide a foundation for the findings below, a brief overview of each international joint degree
program follows.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 75
Doctor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences
Nanyang Technological University and the Karolinska Institute jointly offer a Ph.D. in
Biological Sciences. Participating students spend two years at each university, ideally
graduating in four years. Typically, the students choose to spend the first two years in Singapore
and the last two years in Sweden (Dr. N., personal communication, November 6, 2012).
Students have two faculty advisers, one in each location, and produce a dissertation in order to
graduate. Students must meet the requirements of both institutions in order to graduate but the
program is designed to allow for this via a blending of coursework from both institutions and one
jointly supervised thesis (Nanyang Technological University School of Biomedical Sciences,
n.d.). Because this is a Ph.D. program it is research focused and students are provided with a
research scholarship that funds their studies and travel to Sweden. While both schools can
recruit students, the majority of applicants are graduates from NTU or the National University of
Singapore (Dr. N., personal communication, November 6, 2012). Founded in July 2001, the
School of Biological Sciences focuses on developing graduates for the field of life sciences
(Nanyang Technological University, 2009a). Although there is only one department of
Biological Sciences at NTU, Karolinska has many departments that fall under this category and
this allows students to choose from a wider selection of coursework during their two years in
Sweden. Although the program is considered a joint Ph.D. degree as it is jointly administered,
graduating students receive two certificates with a notation of the joint program (Nanyang
Technological University School of Biomedical Sciences, n.d.). The focus of this program is to
prepare researchers and professors for the field. Ideally, each student’s research process results
in additional questions to be explored through further research throughout their careers, and
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 76
hopefully, continued collaboration with both KI and NTU professors and fellow graduates as
research partners (Dr. N., personal communication, November 6, 2012).
The Karolinska Institute (KI) is a medical university located in Stockholm, Sweden.
Founded in 1810, the university has awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine since
1901 (Karolinska Institute, 2012). The university has approximately 6,000 students studying in
both undergraduate and graduate programs. KI conducts 40% of the academic medical research
in Sweden and engages in international collaboration with universities all over the world in the
biomedical and biotechnology fields (Karolinska Institute, 2012). In addition to the joint Ph.D.
in Biological Sciences with NTU, KI also partners with the Agency for Science, Technology and
Research, a government research agency in Singapore (Agency for Science, Technology and
Research, 2012).
Integrated Circuit Design Programs
Nanyang Technological University and the Technical University of Munich jointly offer
the Master’s of Science program in Integrated Circuit Design, founded in 2005 (Nanyang
Technological University, 2009c). The program is two semesters of full time coursework
followed by an internship and dissertation period. Coursework is structured as a series of
modules that occur in a condensed format to facilitate travel of German professors and industry
professionals to Singapore to teach the courses (Nanyang Technological University, 2009b). At
the end of coursework each student undertakes an internship and dissertation research in
Germany for approximately eight months. During the internship, the student completes the
required dissertation for the M.Sc. The student, faculty adviser, and industry partner supervising
the student’s internship, work together to determine the topic of the dissertation (Dr. S., personal
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 77
communication, November 6, 2012). This program puts a strong emphasis on preparation for the
integrated circuit design industry and the relationships between the partnering universities and
companies in the field are extremely important. The internship is an opportunity for companies
to have an extended interview with potential hires and often leads to a full time job upon
graduation. The website notes that most graduates find employment in the Integrated Circuit
Design field within Singapore and a few find positions in Germany (Nanyang Technological
University, 2009b).
After successfully implementing the Master of Science program, NTU and TUM
developed a joint Ph.D. program in Integrated Circuit Design in December 2010 (Nanyang
Technological University, 2009c). This program currently has two students who began their first
year in the program in fall 2012, both from NTU. The Ph.D. is a 2+2 program in which students
spend two years at each institution. To be selected for the Ph.D. program from NTU, a student
must be Singaporean or a permanent resident of Singapore. This program is subsidized, as are
most Ph.D. programs, and students are expected to produce research and eventually become
professors or researchers in the field (Dr. S., personal communication, November 6, 2012). The
agreement to begin the joint Ph.D. program in Integrated Circuit Design was part of a larger
arrangement to offer joint Ph.D. programs with the Technical University of Munich. The two
schools signed an agreement to offer joint Ph.D.’s in Integrated Circuit Design, Microelectronics,
and Nanoelectronics. All of these programs are within the School of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering and the partnership is expected to increase joint Ph.D. offerings in other technical
disciplines as well (Nanyang Technological University, 2009d).
The Technical University of Munich is a science and technology focused university in
Munich, Germany. The university has over 32,000 students and focuses on the development of
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 78
promising young scientists (Technical University of Munich, n.d.). In 2002, TUM established a
branch campus in Singapore, The German Institute of Science and Technology - TUM Asia.
(TUM Asia, 2007-2013). TUM Asia offers degree programs at the bachelor’s, master’s and
doctoral level. Both the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological
University have joint degree programs with TUM Asia (TUM Asia, 2007-2013). In addition to
joint degree programs, TUM Asia and NTU partner on a joint research venture called TUM
Create funded by the National Research Foundation of Singapore. The Singaporean government
actively encourages the growth of the higher education sector within the city-state as a method of
nation building via economic development. The role of the Singaporean government in higher
education as it relates to the development of the international joint degree programs in this study
follows.
Role of Singaporean Government
The role of the government in higher education is a necessary consideration during the
international partnership development process (Knight, 2008; Obst et al., 2011; Tillman, 2007;
Van de Water et al., 2008). Government can severely limit the ability to create a partnership
through restricting the awarding of degrees across international borders; conversely,
governments can facilitate international collaboration in higher education as well, providing
incentives for partnerships, branch campuses, or other programs (Knight, 2004, 2008).
Singapore plays an interventionist role in higher education within its borders, primarily for
economic development purposes (Mok, 2011; Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b; Tan, 2006). Although
NTU is an autonomous public university, it was originally established by the government and
depends on government funding for most of its activities. The Singaporean government granted
NTU autonomy in 2006 in hopes of increasing innovation and creativity; however, the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 79
government’s control of funding for teaching and research activities is the primary method of
directing higher education. Additionally, high-level university officials are government
appointees, which affects the direction of NTU academic policy (Tan, 2006). With the
implementation of the Global Schoolhouse in 2002 and Singapore Education in 2003, the focus
on and funding of higher education by the government in order to establish Singapore as a
premier educational hub has increased (Saha & Ang, 2010; Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b). Most of
the government’s interventions in higher education are focused on developing educational sub
sectors, increasing innovation, and meeting industry demand for trained and educated workers
(Saha & Ang, 2010). In order to achieve these goals, the government aggressively directs higher
education and thus plays an undeniably major role in the development of the education sector in
Singapore. The role of the Singaporean government in higher education emerged as a theme in
the interviews for this study in two primary ways: provision of funding and encouragement for
specific sectors of education.
Funding for international joint degree programs presents one of the major barriers to
development and implementation. These programs are not usually fund generators but rather are
in need of financial support (Asgary & Robbert, 2010; Knight, 2008; Kuder & Obst, 2009; Obst
et al., 2011). Mr. L. noted that in the process of developing joint programs, funding often ends
the discussion of this type of collaboration. He also stated that one reason for the existence of so
many of these programs in Singapore is the financial support available in Singapore (personal
communication, November 9, 2012). The 2002 Global Schoolhouse Initiative to strengthen the
knowledge economy in Singapore provided financial support for foreign institutions establishing
education services in Singapore (Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b). This initiative brought ten branch
campuses of foreign institutions into Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2013). Mr. C. credited
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 80
the Global Schoolhouse as one of the main reasons for the establishment of TUM Asia.
Establishing operations in a foreign nation is difficult and costly. The support offered to foreign
institutions via the Global Schoolhouse provided an incentive for the development of TUM Asia
(Mr. C., personal communication, November 7, 2012). Beyond funding for foreign institutions,
the initiative also offers financial support to foreign students and to projects geared at
redesigning Singaporean education for innovation and creativity (Mok, 2011; Saha & Ang, 2010;
Sidhu et al., 2011b). One method of developing innovation within the higher education sector is
to partner with well-known and respected international universities. By partnering with foreign
universities, the institutions in Singapore offer a greater variety of programs, increase
collaboration with faculty in other nations, and attract additional students to study in Singapore.
Dr. S. and Mr. C. both discussed the financial support for students derived from the government
via scholarships to study in high demand fields. Both the availability of funding for student
study in particular areas and accessible grant money for innovative international collaborations
provide motivation to develop international joint degree programs in growth fields.
The government’s educational initiatives are focused on developing the knowledge
economy in order to increase economic growth, provide workers for industry, and to develop
human resources within the nation to attract more business. Since Singapore’s independence the
government has directed higher education in relation to economic development and specifically
toward meeting the needs of the nation (Mok, 2011; Tan, 2006). More recently in 2009, the
Global Schoolhouse initiative was further directed to meet industry needs and connect education
to jobs (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2012b). The Integrated Circuit Design program was
developed in response to a Singapore Economic Development Board survey that identified a
need for higher education to prepare workers for the IC Design industry. Professor S. identified
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 81
the government’s promotion of the integrated circuit design industry as a primary reason for the
development of the M.Sc. in Integrated Circuit Design (personal communication, November 6,
2012). The Ph.D. in Integrated Circuit Design expanded out of the M.Sc. and addresses the
need of providing additional researchers and faculty for the industry. The Biological Sciences
Ph.D. also meets a need in Singapore’s economy. The biological sciences are an area of
economic development in Singapore and the partnership of KI with both major universities
(NUS and NTU) as well as the Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR)
furthers this sector. In these ways, the Singaporean government directly influenced the
development and implementation of the NTU international joint degree programs in this study.
The Singaporean government exerts direct control over the higher education sector
through regulatory and financial means, and its interventionist role is a key factor in
understanding the criteria used to select international partner institutions for joint degree
programs at NTU. The government’s focus on creating an educational hub in Singapore has
been the driving factor in the development of international collaboration in Singapore for the last
decade. The provision of funding to students for specific areas of study and funding via grants
for the development of industry related programs that meet the nation’s economic goals (as set
by the ruling party) plays a driving role in the development of international joint degree
programs at NTU and in Singapore. The programs in this study were successfully established
because they were both in growth areas for the economy, biological/biomedical sciences and
integrated circuit design, and the partners were prestigious institutions approved by the
Singaporean government. By designing programs that would conform to the government’s view
of the higher education economy, the professors and schools were able to garner funding and
gain approval for each program. Without this approval and financial support, neither program
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 82
would have been established. Thus the role of government in Singaporean higher education is
vast and should not be underestimated. The next section reviews the research questions for this
study.
The Research Questions
The interview protocol was designed to answer the following research questions:
What criteria are used to identify and evaluate potential institutional partners for international
joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological University?
Sub-Questions:
• How are potential partners identified?
• What factors are considered in the evaluation of suitability of the partner for an
international joint degree program?
• How, and by whom, are international joint degree programs initiated?
The research framework for this study is based on Knight’s (2008) thematic challenges to
the creation of international joint degree programs as well as the questions provided in the
American Council of Education’s Guidelines for developing international partnerships which
align with the three thematic areas (Van de Water et al., 2008). The themes are: Academic
Alignment, which surfaced in this research as academic prestige or quality of the partner
institution, institutional alignment in terms of program focus and institutional mission, and the
financial aspect of each program; Mobility and Language, which was less prominent in the data,
appeared in reference to student travel for the program, faculty travel for the program, cultural
exchange and ensuring English language ability; Recognition and Legitimacy, which emerged in
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 83
the data in terms of recognition of the partner institutions by the Singaporean government, by the
academic community and by relevant industries.
How are potential partners identified?
In this case study, both partner institutions already had a presence in Singapore. The
Karolinska Institute had an existing research partnership with A*STAR, a governmental research
organization in Singapore, and the Technical University of Munich had established a joint degree
program with the National University of Singapore and a branch campus offering a small number
of programs in Singapore. The presence of both institutions in Singapore indicates that there was
an existing acceptance and recognition of both KI and TUM by the Singaporean government.
This approval and support of the government for both partner institutions addresses common
Recognition and Legitimacy concerns. Neither institution would have been approved to set up
partnerships within Singapore without being deemed appropriate world-class institutions that
would assist in the growth of Singapore as an educational hub. As discussed in chapter two, the
purpose of the Global Schoolhouse initiative was to strengthen the knowledge economy and
meet the nation-building goal of becoming a regional educational hub by attracting world-class
universities from around the globe to establish programs or campuses within Singapore, attract
additional foreign students to study in the nation, and increase creativity and innovation in
Singapore’s higher education system (Singh, 2012; Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b). Further, the
Singaporean government encourages collaboration, specifically joint degree programs, between
Singaporean universities and international universities to foster educational development within
the nation (Mok, 2011). Selecting an existing exchange partner is a common way to develop
joint and double degree programs (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Kuder & Obst, 2009;
Obst et al., 2011). The first steps in international partnership building involve gathering
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 84
information and having initial conversations about the possibility of collaboration (Tillman,
2007; Van de Water et al., 2008). By expanding an existing partnership much of this process is
eliminated as the research about the institution is already completed and there is a foundational
relationship. Although neither partner had an existing relationship with NTU, the institutions
had been vetted by the government via their existing partnerships and presence in Singapore and
thus the negotiations regarding joint degrees with NTU could focus more on the academic
program itself.
The Karolinska Institute had an existing partnership with A*STAR, which is a
government agency for science, technology, and research and is designed to foster “world-class
scientific research and talent for a vibrant knowledge-based and innovation-driven Singapore”
(Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 2009a). A*STAR was established as a statutory
board by the Ministry of Trade and Industry in 1991 to further the science and technology fields
in Singapore with the aim of developing a knowledge based economy (Ministry of Trade and
Industry, 2012a). The agency oversees 14 research institutes, six consortia and centers, and
supports Singapore’s economic development by focusing on human, intellectual and industrial
capital (Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 2009a). As a statutory board of the
Ministry of Trade and Industry the research agency is part of the Singaporean government and
partners with postsecondary institutions, research institutes, and industry partners internationally.
To develop talent in science and technology research, A*STAR has a graduate academy that
offers scholarships and fellowships from the undergraduate level to post-doctoral research
(Agency for Science, Technology and Research, 2009b). Karolinska Institute had already been
endorsed by the government via its existing participation in A*STAR, a statutory board of the
Ministry of Trade and Industry.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 85
TUM Asia was established in Singapore in 2002 and has continued to expand its
education offerings over the last decade. The support of the Singaporean government via the
Global Schoolhouse Initiative made it possible for TUM Asia to establish a campus and
numerous partnerships in the Singaporean context. Mr. C. at TUM Asia referenced the Global
Schoolhouse Initiative and the Singapore Economic Development Board when asked about the
Integrated Circuit Design programs with Nanyang Technological University and TUM Asia’s
role. He stated:
basically they picked top universities in different specialties and then brought them here
to help grow the market in Singapore. You know, it’s hard to set up a campus in another
country, it takes resources and time. And TUM has offices in other parts of the world but
mostly they are information places, no programs are offered there (Mr. C, personal
communication November 8, 2012).
The validation and support of the Singaporean government plays a major role in the
success of educational operations within the nation (Singh, 2012). Without this support it is
possible that TUM Asia would simply be a global relations office in Singapore rather than a
branch campus offering degrees both in partnership with local institutions and on its own. In a
recent response to a parliament member’s question regarding the Global Schoolhouse Initiative,
the current Minister of Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang stated that the initiative had
helped grow the economic sector. Minister Lim said that the focus of the Economic
Development Board and the Global Schoolhouse Initiative was adjusted in 2009 “towards
building industry-relevant manpower capabilities and helping to attract, develop and retain talent
for our economy” (Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore, 2012b). In this response Minister
Lim referred to TUM programs specifically as being tied to industry needs in Singapore. Mr. C.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 86
directly linked the creation of the programs in Integrated Circuit Design to industry needs
identified by the Economic Development Board of Singapore. Both Dr. N. and Dr. S. stated that
the existing presence and relations in Singapore of Karolinska Institute and Technical University
of Munich made the process of developing their respective programs easier. Both KI and TUM
were established institutions with good academic reputations and rankings and an interest in
Singapore, as well as recognized universities in the academic community. As such, there was
less concern regarding the legitimacy of either school as a potential partner for a joint degree
program.
What factors are considered in the evaluation of suitability of the partner for an
international joint degree program?
The second sub-question for the study addresses the factors that Nanyang Technological
University considers when evaluating the suitability of a potential partner for an international
joint degree program. Although all respondents stated that there was not a university guideline
for development of international joint degree programs, there were several commonalities among
the primary factors considered for each program. The interviews revealed that there were three
primary reasons for selecting a foreign institution for a partnership of this type: alignment
between the universities; academic quality, prestige, and rankings of the partner; and the
partner’s pre-existing presence in Singapore.
Alignment between the Universities.
Alignment refers to similarities in type of university or type of program but also includes
willingness to work together for the program. The Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences was created out
of the relationship between Dr. N. and his colleague at KI. One of the motivations to create the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 87
partnership was to collaborate with a world-renowned university in the field of biological and
biomedical sciences. Karolinska already had roots in Singapore via A*STAR, but its reputation
as a great medical university was similarly important as the School of Biological Sciences was
seeking to grow and develop related programs (Dr. N., personal communication, November 6,
2012). Further, both partners were interested in designing the program to be beneficial to
students. Dr. N. stated that “the intention is that the student will not have to do double work”
even while needing to meet the requirements of both institutions (personal communication,
November 6, 2012). The program has a board of directors that was created to review issues as
they arise. Continued joint collaboration regarding the program is centered on helping students
succeed in the program. Dr. N. noted that NTU was somewhat flexible in the negotiations
because Karolinska had limitations regarding the thesis portion of the degree due to regulation by
the Swedish government. Because Singapore had more flexibility in this regard the thesis
portion of the degree is completed in Sweden and is built around Karolinska’s regulations. Dr.
N. stated that although any degree program has to be approved by the Ministry of Education,
in Singapore there is actually a lot of freedom for the university to decide and make
changes…it’s determined by regulations that are internal to the university and the way it
works here is that any such regulation can basically always be changed so you can make
an exception, provided you have the highest approval and it doesn’t break any general
rules (personal communication, November 6, 2012).
This illustrates the willingness of NTU to work within the limitations of Karolinska’s
government regulations to create the program. Additionally, the ongoing presence of the board
of directors to manage unexpected issues, as well as the ability to work effectively together is
key to continuing the partnership. Dr. N. shared that the first couple of students are nearing
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 88
graduation from the Ph.D.; the first in the summer of 2013, and that the board has discussed the
administrative issues that developed as students progressed through the program for the first
time. Shared motivations and interests lead to more successful international university
partnerships (Jie, 2011). The shared goal of making the program student friendly while meeting
both institutions regulations was a factor in the negotiations for the joint Ph.D. program in
Biological Sciences.
In the partnership between the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and the
Technical University of Munich the technical focus of both partners was a key point in the
collaboration. Dr. S. stated “the collaboration between the two universities was quite natural. I
guess both of the universities are, both are technically inclined…we start off like…almost the
same kind of…link with the industry” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). Dr. S.
revisited this link between the two schools throughout the interview. The Integrated Circuit
Design program, with its required internship and inclusion of both industry and academic
professors, is based on the technical focus and links with industry that both schools foster in their
respective regions. Although the program had to meet the master’s requirements of NTU, its
format is different from the traditional academic calendar with module style courses. To
facilitate bringing in faculty from Germany and industry professionals to teach some courses the
program adopted the modular course structure. By condensing the courses the faculty members
would only need to be in Singapore for two or three weeks at a time rather than entire semesters.
The common goal of designing a program with strong industry connections facilitates this type
of arrangement. TUM Asia markets its programs to students and the public by highlighting its
industry focus as well as the lecturers from prestigious universities and expert industry leaders
(TUM Asia, 2012). The School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at NTU also promotes
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 89
its industry connections and focus in school publications. The school’s general brochure begins
with a quote from Prime Minister Lee that states that Singapore’s goals are centered on
developing a “research intensive, innovative and entrepreneurial” economy (Nanyang
Technological University, January 2012). The brochure then connects each of its programs to
this nation-building goal. This shared technical and industry focus facilitated the development of
the Integrated Circuit Design programs.
The creation of the M.Sc. program was described by Dr. S. as a sort of white paper
written within the school and then sent for administrative review. He said that “during this time,
[the administration] would be asking, ok…will this program clash with some other program
within the university?” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). There was a clash with a
part time evening master’s program in Integrated Circuit Design but ultimately that program was
redesigned and merged with other master’s of science programs to create a generalized evening
program and make room for the new joint degree with TUM. The NTU administration deemed
the joint M.Sc. program more appropriate for the focus in integrated circuit design than the part
time evening program, which had originally been designed for working students. Reorganizing
the part time program allowed for the collaboration to move forward.
Like the Ph.D. in Biological Sciences, the IC Design programs both have governing
boards that oversee admissions decisions and other academic issues as they arise. This type of
board facilitates continued collaboration throughout the implementation and maintenance of the
program. Although all participating interviewees stated there was not a singular process or
format for international joint degree programs, it is notable that all of the programs in this study
have a similar type of governing body to ensure continued joint decision making and
management. Ms. H., an NTU graduate school official, shared that this was a generic structure
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 90
mutually agreed upon by both NTU and its partner universities as a way to manage program
collaboration (personal communication, March 20, 2013). Mr. L. stated that this structure was
common among joint degree programs at NTU as a method of addressing program issues in a
collaborative manner involving all stakeholders. He stated that a governing board structure
might be encouraged by the legal office but was not required for these programs by his office
during his tenure (personal communication, March 14, 2013). The governing board structure
allows for continued negotiation and joint administration of these programs, which is important
for maintaining shared goals while managing international collaborations (Jie, 2011). The
second commonality among criteria for the development of international joint degree programs
was academic quality, prestige and rankings, a discussion of which follows.
Academic Quality, Prestige and Rankings.
The academic quality and prestige of the potential partner institution emerged as a theme
in the interviews with both Dr. N. and Dr. S. Both professors referred to their respective partner
institutions as leaders in their field and thus an appropriate or natural institution to select for a
partnership. Dr. N. shared that Karolinska is a very well known and prestigious medical
university that even decides “on the [Nobel] prize in medicine and physiology” (personal
communication, November 6, 2012). He also noted that the School of Biological Sciences at
NTU is not as established as KI because it was founded in 2001. Partnering with a well-
established and respected medical research university benefits the School of Biological Sciences
and NTU by increasing the renown of both the school and the university. Further, Dr. N. said
that having an overseas degree in Singapore is prestigious for Singaporean students and by
creating a joint program with an internationally respected university NTU was creating a local
and economically efficient way for Singaporean students to get international exposure and earn
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 91
an overseas degree. The benefits of international joint degree programs include expanded
educational offerings as well as personal development and enrichment for students (Asgary &
Robbert, 2010; Brookes & Becket 2011; Culver et al., 2011; Council of Graduate Schools, 2010;
Obst & Kuder, 2012; Rauhvargers et al., 2003). Dr. N. views the joint degree program as
expanding the offerings for local students in economic terms as well. He said that not all of the
very bright Singaporean students could afford to leave Singapore and pursue an entirely overseas
education and that the Ph.D. program offered a way for these students to earn this degree without
large costs due to the funding provided for students. In turn, the nation benefits from this
because these students make international connections but still remain mostly in Singapore,
increasing the likelihood that they would choose to work and live in Singapore (Dr. N., personal
communication, November 6, 2012). Dr. N. said that Singapore benefits from the development
of these types of partnerships because the programs are able to attract local talent to remain in
the nation, thus avoiding brain drain (personal communication, November 6, 2012). Singapore is
a small nation that has focused on developing a knowledge economy. Human resources are the
major component of this economy and thus retaining talent is an important factor. The
government has refocused on providing higher education for local students since the election of
2011 (Waring, 2013). When asked about accreditation, Dr. N. did not see this as a concern and
said that once the Presidents of KI and NTU had signed off on the agreement the program
became accredited by both institutions.
Dr. S. addressed rankings directly when asked about academic and institutional factors.
Dr. S. said, “TUM is quite highly ranked…in Europe. They are probably considered the top few,
so, for us I think [academic and institutional factors were] not an issue because they are already
highly ranked” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). This high ranking eliminated any
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 92
concern regarding academic and institutional factors at TUM because there is already a level of
academic legitimacy and prestige associated with high rankings. Global rankings were also a
factor in international collaboration in general, according to Dr. S. He said that the
encouragement for international collaboration was “because of ranking. Yeah, because right now
NTU is pushing the ranking within the global…prospective of it. So that’s why all this
international collaboration is important…to help increase visibility” (personal communication,
November 6, 2012). TUM Asia espouses its high rankings within its publications. The Fall
2012 digest for TUM Asia included an article that announced the Technical University of
Munich’s continued high rankings within the Shanghai international rankings in order to promote
its Asia programs (TUM Asia, 2012). Professors N. and S. both view partnering with a highly
ranked, academically respected institution in another country as a method for improving the
quality and reputation of the programs at NTU. International double, combined, and joint degree
programs can contribute to status competitiveness and prestige (Knight, 2009). These programs
not only bring name recognition in other regions of the world, they also increase faculty
collaboration between partner institutions and increase academic capacity by diversifying
academic programs (Knight, 2008; Michael & Balraj, 2003; Obst & Kuder, 2012). Further, the
partnering of Singapore’s major universities with prestigious, highly ranked institutions in other
countries contributes to the nation-building goal of developing Singapore as an educational hub
(Knight & Morshidi, 2011; Mok, 2011; Sidhu et al, 2011a).
While both NTU professors refer to the prestige of the partner institution in the creation
of the international joint degree programs, there were some differences between programs in
relation to power dynamics. Karolinska Institute is more than 200 years old and determines the
winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology. KI is highly ranked and extremely
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 93
prestigious in the medical field. Due to this prestige, NTU was more flexible in the initial
negotiations in order to ensure the development of the program. Additionally, NTU took on
financial responsibilities for the students from NTU to participate in the program (Dr. N.,
personal communication, November 6, 2012). In order to leverage the prestige and recognition
of the Karolinska name, Nanyang Technological University allowed for additional
accommodations to establish the partnership. The Technical University of Munich is also a
prestigious and highly ranked institution, however, it is very technically focused and not as
powerful in terms of international recognition. In the development of the M.Sc. in Integrated
Circuit Design Professor S. did not report the same level of accommodations. NTU was flexible
in terms of the modular design for the program and the willingness to reorganize a part time
program in order to create the joint program. A notable difference is that TUM Asia handles
much of the administrative work of the M.Sc. program (Dr. S., personal communication,
November 6, 2012). While the prestige from the TUM name is still recognized and respected by
NTU, it evidently did not warrant the same level of compromise as the negotiation with
Karolinska for the Ph.D. program. Overall, prestige and rankings are an important factor in the
selection of partners for international joint degree programs at NTU; however, the level of
prestige affects the flexibility and willingness of the NTU faculty and administration in terms of
accommodations and compromise in the development of the programs.
Presence of the partner institution in Singapore.
As addressed earlier in this chapter, the role of the Singaporean government in the higher
education sector is a driving factor in the development of international collaboration in
Singapore over the last decade. Efforts such as the Global Schoolhouse Initiative and Singapore
Education attracted world-class universities to establish branch campuses and programs, conduct
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 94
research and partner with Singaporean universities to offer joint programs (Mok, 2011; Sidhu et
al., 2011a, 2011b). In the case of the three joint degree programs in this study, both partner
institutions had already established a relationship with government agencies prior to
collaborating with NTU. The presence of Karolinska Institute at A*STAR and the Technical
University of Munich in Singapore as a branch campus was a key component in the creation of
both programs that must be addressed further.
Dr. N. referred to the presence of Karolinska Institute in Singapore numerous times
beginning with his discussion of the partnership KI had with A*STAR, an important government
research institute. When asked about the importance of KI’s location in Sweden, he stated that
the country itself was not a primary factor but, “the fact that…Karolinska Institute already had a
presence and interest in Singapore and developing relations within the biomedical science
research sector here, I think…that made it easier” to establish the program (personal
communication, November 6, 2012). Having a presence in Singapore eased the creation of the
Ph.D. program in Biomedical Sciences because KI had already been approved by the
Singaporean government via its relationship with A*STAR, a part of the Ministry of Trade and
Industry, as a recognized research university. Further, Dr. N. stated that,
Karolinksa had identified Singapore as a country and institutions here as a main sort of
focus in international relations. And of course because Singapore is strategically located
here in Asia, close to China and the…considerable emphasis on biomedical life science
research and so on (personal communication, November 6, 2012).
By developing the research partnership with A*STAR and having a faculty member
identified as a coordinator of KI’s relationships in Singapore, the process of developing the
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 95
Ph.D. program was about finding the right fit and negotiating the details of the collaboration
rather than establishing the legitimacy of Karolinska as a potential partner institution.
TUM Asia’s presence in Singapore was a primary driver in the development of the
Integrated Circuit Design programs. TUM approached NTU’s School of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering to create the program. The regional location of TUM in Germany was
not a factor in NTU’s consideration for the Integrated Circuit Design program but rather the
existing interest of TUM in Singapore was important, “in the case of TUM, they want to be
known here in Asia” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). Expanding on existing
partnerships is often easier than creating new ones as many of the logistics regarding recognition
of the partner university have already been alleviated in the establishment of the first program.
Again, the presence of TUM Asia in Singapore and its existing collaboration with the National
University of Singapore had established TUM Asia as an appropriate partner in terms of
government recognition and the legitimacy of the institution. Dr. S. said that the Ph.D. program
in Integrated Circuit Design was brand new and, “it developed because some department up
there that wants international collaboration with different university and because of that the
easiest way is to [expand] existing collaboration between the partnering university and TUM is
one of them” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). The Integrated Circuit Design
Ph.D. program was part of a multi-program agreement between NTU and TUM to set up joint
technical Ph.D.’s between NTU’s School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and TUM
Asia, which is expected to lead to even more joint programs via long-term expansion of the
partnership (Nanyang Technological University, 2009d). The encouragement for international
collaboration is most efficiently met by creating additional programs with an already established
partner as this removes much of the tedious work of determining whether the potential partner is
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 96
an appropriate institution with which to engage in partnerships. Although international
collaboration and joint degree programs are encouraged via funding, they still must be initiated
and negotiated prior to being approved. The next section discusses how the participating
programs were initiated.
How, and by whom, are international joint degree programs initiated?
International joint degree programs are initiated in two primary ways at Nanyang
Technological University: by faculty on the basis of existing relationships or by an institution
approaching NTU with a potential partnership. Regardless of the initiating party, all participants
agreed that the details surrounding the programs are largely handled at the faculty and
departmental level. The academic concerns including program purpose, administrative issues
regarding coursework, thesis and examination, as well as the appropriateness of the partner for
that specific program (largely determined by academic quality and reputation) are decided by
faculty and formalized by the higher levels of the university administration.
Faculty Initiation
Professor N. and a Swedish Colleague from Karolinska Institute developed the joint
Ph.D. in Biological Sciences. Professor N. described the start of the program as growing from
his contact with the Swedish professor who serves as a “kind of representative coordinator for
Singapore relations at Karolinska” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). The
Karolinska professor has a lab in Singapore and divides his time between Sweden and Singapore.
Professor N. stated that they “just discussed generally what could be done to start collaborations
and interactions between NTU and Karolinska” (personal communication, November 6, 2012).
What began as a conversation regarding possible collaboration between the two schools became
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 97
a more detailed set of discussions regarding the joint Ph.D. program in Biological Sciences,
ultimately culminating in a draft of the implementation agreement. Professor N. stated that the
details were “really handled, I mean, the hands on work coming out with the agreement and
negotiating was departmental” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). He noted that, of
course, the legal departments for both schools reviewed and approved the draft and that the
President of NTU was the final seal of approval for the program. Because not all possibilities
could be addressed in an implementation agreement, the board of directors was created to ensure
that both parties remain involved in the administration of the program and work together to
address issues as they arise (Dr. N., personal communication, November 6, 2012). The board of
directors for the joint degree program meets annually and regularly communicates in order to
manage the program. The board includes faculty members from both schools as well as a
graduate studies administrator from each university. The first graduate of the joint Ph.D.
program should be finishing up in the summer of 2013 and Professor N. shared that the board’s
last meeting was focused on the administrative concerns related to the student’s upcoming
graduation (personal communication, November 6, 2012). Faculty members participate in the
continued joint management of the program by serving on the Board of Directors.
Mr. L. the former Director of International Relations addressed the faculty role in the
development of International Joint Degree Programs at NTU. He stated:
most of the time the way these bubble up or bubble from the side is based on
relationships, professor to professor, sometimes it’s an advisor at a previous school and
they will do a research project together and then will put in for a grant from Singapore or
other government (personal communication, November 9, 2012).
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 98
Although Mr. L’s role was to oversee international relations at NTU, the academic nature
of these programs necessitates direct involvement and direction of possible programs by faculty
members in the discipline. He noted that negotiation for research or courses is all done at the
faculty level. The International Relations office mostly served a facilitation role for final
approval and administrative involvement once faculty had already determined the academic
components. These programs sometimes arise after successful funding from a grant in which a
principal investigator and his graduate students focus on a certain area of research. Mr. L. stated
“successful proposals in the Singapore context tend to be co-proposals with leading univ[ersities]
in their field (i.e. Karolinska for biochem, TU Munich for aero engineering) and are to encourage
local Singaporeans to pursue graduate degrees” (personal communication, August 31, 2012).
The funding for the grant typically comes from the Singaporean government and the joint
program administrator works to ensure that students are enrolled, the research area is pursued,
and the grant requirements are met. Mr. L. shared that the Chief Research Officer or Provost
provides some guidance through this process (personal communication, August 31, 2012).
Faculty member initiation of joint degree programs is a common start for these types of
international partnerships (Amey, 2010; Porfirio, 2012; Stinson, 2010; Tubbeh & Williams,
2010). An existing relationship or research connection with a professor at another institution is a
common beginning for these programs (Amey, 2010; Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Obst
et al., 2011). The Council of Graduate Schools Report on Joint degrees, Dual degrees and
International research collaborations (2010) found that 58% of collaborative international degree
programs partners were selected due to known contacts at the partner institution. Similarly, the
Institute for International Education Survey on Joint and Double Degrees found that 53.9% of
these programs were created between known faculty contacts and 61.6% were a result of
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 99
expanding an existing partnership (Obst et al., 2011). As both Professor N. and Mr. L suggest,
the relationships of faculty members play an important role in establishing academic programs
between institutions.
Potential Partner Initiation
TUM Asia in Singapore initiated the programs in Integrated Circuit Design between
Nanyang Technological University and Technical University of Munich. Dr. S. explained that
TUM Asia had a joint degree program in Chemistry with the National University of Singapore
and that “they are already here and therefore they wanted to expand a little bit more and so that’s
how we got started with TUM” (personal communication, November 6, 2012). Dr. S. noted that
TUM approached NTU after looking at their programs and finding a potential match in the
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering for an Integrated Circuit Design program. Mr.
C. at the TUM Asia office stated that the “Economic Development Board of Singapore had done
studies on what is lacking in industries and how to bridge the gap in training” (personal
communication, November 8, 2012). One of these studies identified Integrated Circuit Design as
a needed area and since NTU is a technical university, TUM Asia approached the School of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering to explore the option of creating a program together to
fulfill that need. The Integrated Circuit Design programs (M.Sc. and Ph.D.) each have a board of
directors that oversee the management of the program including admissions and academic
requirements. The ICD Boards are composed of the NTU faculty chair for the program, a TUM
Asia administrator, and the Dean from the Institute of Electronics at TUM. The role of the
Singaporean government is notable in this case because TUM Asia approached NTU after the
government’s identification of Integrated Circuit Design as an area of need. The Singaporean
government actively encourages foreign universities to enter the Singaporean education market
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 100
by providing financial assistance in order to develop the economic sector of Singapore in
targeted areas (Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b).
Mr. L. also described this alternate approach in his interview. Sometimes the NTU
International Relations Office received introductions from the Singaporean government via the
Ministry of Education, or from a company or industry representative. Occasionally, a university
with an industry partner approached the IR Office directly to establish a partnership. Mr. L.
looked at the initial contact or proposal and sent it on to a suitable faculty member based on “one
central consideration: is this overseas project going to enhance the quality of teaching and
research at home?” (personal communication, November 9, 2012). If that primary question
could be answered in a mutually satisfying manner Mr. L. sent the proposal on to the faculty
member to consider. Mr. L. envisioned the International Relations Office as playing the big
picture role, considering the campus as a whole based on the university’s mission and the
president’s direction. He would then work with faculty based on the President’s vision for NTU
but he was not a vocal participant within the process once the connection had been made. A
university administrator determines support of potential partnerships from a different viewpoint
than a faculty member. This viewpoint is likely broader and considers university image,
resource availability and overarching vision for the institution (Amey, 2010; Tubbeh &
Williams, 2010). Mr. L. has experience in both Asia and the United States and made note of a
distinction he saw in an administrator’s role. He said that to be effective in an administrative
role in Asia you have to be ancillary to the process, and in his view the U.S. context is not the
same (personal communication, November 9, 2012). Mr. L. stated that in the U.S.,
administrators are professionalized in a manner that is not present in Singapore. As a result of
this difference he tailored his approach to the Singaporean context and thus allowed the faculty
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 101
members to drive the process of partnership development without much interference. Regardless
of the point of initiation, faculty contact or partner proposal, the process is centered at the
departmental level for the majority of the negotiations, only moving to the legal and presidential
offices for final approval.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the findings of this case study. First, the interviews were
described to provide the background for the findings. Next, a profile of each international degree
program and their respective partner institutions was included. An overview of the role of
government in higher education in Singapore was discussed to provide important contextual
knowledge needed to understand the findings of this study. The Singaporean government’s
encouragement and financial support of international joint degree programs (and many other
forms of international partnerships) between NTU and international universities played a major
role in the establishment of the programs in this study. The findings of this study were presented
in response to the research sub-questions. The first question asked how potential partners are
identified. Each of the partner institutions in these programs had an existing presence in
Singapore: Karolinska Institute is a partner of the Agency of Science, Technology and Research,
a government research institute in Singapore; and the Technical University of Munich
established a branch campus in Singapore in 2002 and had a joint degree program with the
National University of Singapore. The next sub-question asked what factors were considered in
evaluating the potential partner institutions for these programs. The three overarching factors
were: academic alignment between the schools and their goals for the program; the academic
quality and prestige of the partner institutions; and their presence in Singapore with an interest in
extending their programs within the nation. Finally, the last sub-question asked how, and by
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 102
whom, international joint degree programs are initiated. Programs are initiated in two primary
ways at NTU: by a faculty member or by request of the partner institution. In both cases, the
majority of the academic negotiation and development is handled at the departmental or school
level with the central administration playing a guidance and approval role.
The nation-building goal of developing an educational hub in Singapore affected these
programs directly in that both partner institutions had already been invited to, and become
established in, Singapore as a result of the Global Schoolhouse Initiative and Singapore
Education. Further, the higher education sector in Singapore is directed by the government as a
means of economic development in the nation (Mok, 2011; Tan, 2006). This case study of NTU
provides insight into the several factors that should be considered prior to entering into an
international joint degree program. The next chapter provides additional discussion and analysis
of the findings as well as recommendations for future research.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 103
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Internationalization in higher education is a continuously developing arena. The types of
international programs and partnerships have changed over the years, beginning with the
movement of scholars and students across international borders for study and research (de Wit,
2002). Today the international program landscape is varied and includes arrangements ranging
from study abroad programs to branch campuses. International partnerships are expected to
multiply in the coming years as more universities undertake new international endeavors.
International joint degree programs are one type of international partnership that focuses on the
academic center of higher education: teaching, research, and the awarding of degrees. The joint
degree program is a particularly close partnership that links the partnered institutions together on
the academic degree. As such the selection of partners for such a program is an important area
of consideration. Further, prior to engaging in any international partnership, institutions should
thoroughly consider the variety of factors included in Knight’s (2008) framework of Academic
Alignment, Mobility and Language considerations, and Recognition and Legitimacy concerns.
Institutional differences, availability of financial support, the capacity of each partner to
participate in the partnership, faculty and student participation, the role of government in each
partner institution, and the academic quality of each institution are among the numerous concerns
that should be explored prior to entering a partnership (Knight, 2008; Van de Water et al., 2008).
Summary
This study is presented in five parts. Each chapter explores a key component necessary
for the undertaking of this dissertation and is briefly summarized below. The first chapter
provided the background and purpose of this study including a brief overview of
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 104
internationalization, higher education in Singapore, the research questions, and the limitations
and delimitations of this case study.
The literature review in chapter two provided the foundational knowledge to understand
the relevant concepts in partner selection for an international joint degree program. The first
section explored internationalization in the higher education context as well as the various
strategies employed by institutions seeking to internationalize. As discussed above,
internationalization in higher education is growing and includes a variety of types of activities.
Knight (2011) warns that internationalization as a term is losing its meaning and becoming used
to describe any sort of international activity. Meaningful internationalization must be aligned
with institutional mission, purpose, and strategy or it can be problematic for institutions
(Armstrong, 2007; Childress, 2009). The different types of international partnerships explicate
the landscape of university programs. International partnerships are broadly categorized into
three types, listed from least to most committed: friendship and cooperation agreements, broad
institutional agreements, and program specific partnerships (Van de Water et al., 2008).
International joint degree programs are program specific partnerships and require a higher level
of commitment than other, more general arrangements.
The literature on international joint degree programs, including the benefits and
challenges these programs face, was described to explain the increased concerns that these close
partnerships garner. Joint degree program benefits can include broader educational offerings,
increased likelihood of research collaboration, greater academic capacity, and increased
recognition or prestige (Knight, 2008; Michael & Balraj, 2003). The challenges that joint degree
programs face are numerous: financial support is difficult, academic systems are different and
this can present a significant challenge in the development of these programs, government
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 105
regulatory concerns can be problematic, and recognition of joint programs is inconsistent
(Knight, 2008; Michael & Balraj, 2003; Kuder & Obst, 2009). Singaporean higher education
was discussed in order to comprehend the strong interventionist role the government plays in the
higher education sector. Higher education is a focus of economic development in Singapore.
The government is working to establish Singapore as an educational hub and develop a
knowledge economy due to lack of natural resources (Mok, 2011; Saha & Ang, 2010; Sidhu et
al., 2011a; Tan, 2006).
The partner selection research is examined to provide a basis for the premise of this
study. Most of the partner selection resources are not research based but rather formulated as
guidelines for the development of international partnerships. Both the ACE and NAFSA guides
to international partnerships focus on concerns regarding: accreditation, previous experience
with international partnerships, academic calendars, library and research facilities, academic
quality of the intended partner program, capacity to manage the proposed partnership,
similarities and differences between the two institutions in size, location, expertise of faculty,
and type of academic programs (Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et al., 2008). Two studies provide
a research based background for partner selection: the Council of Graduate Schools Survey on
Joint and Double Degree programs (2010); and Willis’ (2007) study of schools selecting
potential partner institutions in China to enter the market. Both of these studies found that
research about the potential partner was a key component and most concerns overlapped with the
recommendation of the guides. Finally, Knight’s (2008) framework of challenges to the creation
of international joint degree programs is described and is broadly grouped as: Academic
Alignment issues, Mobility and Language concerns, and Recognition and Legitimacy concerns.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 106
Chapter three describes the qualitative research methods used in this case study of the
Nanyang Technological University’s international joint degree programs. An embedded case
study was employed to provide a rich description of the partner selection process for
international joint degree programs at NTU. Interviews with faculty and administrators involved
in the creation of the selected joint degree programs on site in Singapore provide the bulk of the
data for this study. Following the trip, communication via email was used to clarify interview
data as needed. Document analysis of brochures and websites was used to cross validate the data
from the interviews.
The data were organized, coded, and analyzed utilizing the framework for this study.
Codes were based on the three themes of Academic Alignment, Mobility and Language
concerns, and Recognition and Legitimacy concerns (Knight, 2008). This framework provided a
categorization of the most common concerns regarding the development of an international joint
degree program. Each of the key areas recommended by the ACE and NAFSA guides to
international partnerships is included under this framework (Tillman, 2007; Van de Water et al.,
2008). Factors in each of these themes were found in the data from this study, although some
areas were of greater concern to the interviewees. The faculty and administrators in this study
discussed primarily Academic Alignment issues. Financing of the programs, the alignment of
purpose and goals for the program, and the high academic quality of the partner institutions were
the most commonly discussed topics. Recognition and Legitimacy concerns were addressed
primarily through the high academic quality and rankings of the partner institutions. The
academic prestige of the partner institutions was considered beneficial to the development of the
schools at NTU. Mobility and Language concerns were not a focus in the interviews as both
partner institutions were already in Singapore and travel for students and faculty were not a
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 107
major concern of any respondent. The next section discusses and analyzes the findings from
chapter four of this dissertation.
Discussion and Analysis
Data from the interviews and document review revealed the key factors considered in the
selection of a partner institution by Nanyang Technological University. These findings aligned
with the research reviewed in chapter two of this dissertation. Academic Alignment between the
NTU schools and their respective partner institutions was a key component in their established
programs. Karolinska Institute and the School of Biological Sciences are similarly focused on
the biological sciences. Both TUM Asia and the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
are technically focused and have strong connections with industry partners. Each faculty
member discussed the importance of having alignment in goals for the program. The shared goal
for the joint Ph.D. in Biological Sciences with Karolinska Institute was to develop a program that
would increase research collaboration and to provide an opportunity for students to earn the
degree in an efficient manner. For the Integrated Circuit Design programs, the shared focus on
industry partners and preparing graduates for jobs in the field provided the impetus for flexibility
in designing the programs and allowing for an alternative academic calendar. Further, both
faculty members referred to the academic quality and prestige of the partner institutions as
alleviating other concerns. The NTU faculty reported that accreditation and other common
recognition concerns were non-existent because the partners are well-established universities and
are considered leaders in their fields. The prestige of both Karolinska Institute and the Technical
University of Munich were attractive components of developing international joint degree
programs for NTU. NTU was flexible in development of the programs according to the level of
prestige of each institution. For Karolinska this meant additional compromises on the part of
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 108
NTU as related to the thesis portion of the Ph.D. and the funding of students. For TUM, it meant
that NTU revised an existing master’s program and TUM Asia took responsibility for
administrative duties. Additionally, the presence of each partner in Singapore made the
collaboration process easier because each school was established as an appropriate potential
institutional partner based on their existing partnerships with the National University of
Singapore and the Agency for Science, Technology, and Research. As a result, the development
of each program was focused more on the details of new partnership regarding classes, thesis,
and structure. The underlying theme throughout the data was that these programs were
developed because the partners were considered prestigious and were in Singapore and seeking
to expand their activities in the nation. NTU valued the prestige of the partner institutions and as
a result the development of these particular programs in high demand areas was relatively
smooth. The NTU faculty members did not begin the development of these programs out of a
desire to create international joint degree programs generally but rather they seized the
opportunity to partner with KI and TUM Asia. As a result, there was not a strategic process
regarding the selection of an appropriate partner institution.
The Academic Alignment factors proved to be the most vital areas of concern in this
study. Mobility and Language factors played a minor role in these partnerships as both partner
universities were already established in Singapore and had an interest in developing additional
programs in the region. The opportunity for students to travel to Sweden and Germany is an
attractive component of these programs and for the Ph.D. students, travel is funded by the
program. Recognition and Legitimacy concerns for these programs were alleviated by the
prestige and rankings of the partner institutions. Both partner schools are well known and highly
ranked in their respective fields as stated above. Neither professor expressed concern regarding
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 109
the recognition of these programs. Each respondent continuously referred to the academic
ranking and prestige of the partner institution. For each school at NTU this ranking and prestige
was a driver for involvement in the program.
The role of the Singaporean government in the development of so many international
partnerships within the city-state is undeniable. In this case study, both partner institutions were
considered to be expert institutions in their respective fields. This prestige is one reason both
Karolinska Institute and the Technical University of Munich were welcomed into Singapore’s
developing education hub. One of the primary goals of the Economic Development Board in
developing both Singapore Education and the Global Schoolhouse Initiative was to draw foreign
‘world class’ institutions into the Singapore higher education market to enrich it and assist in the
development of the city-state as an education hub (Sidhu et al., 2011a, 2011b; Mok, 2011). As
such any institution invited to set up a campus or participate in research and education
partnerships is considered by the government to be a ‘world class’ institution that will assist in
the development of Singapore’s own higher education system. The TUM Asia administrator
directly referred to the Global Schoolhouse Initiative as a reason for the development of the
TUM Asia campus. The encouragement, recognition and support of the Singaporean
government provided the necessary elements to establish the TUM Asia campus, which remains
the only branch campus of the Technical University of Munich. All of the respondents referred
to financial support in some way. Financial support for international joint degree programs is
one of the biggest challenges to the development of these degrees (Knight, 2008; Kuder & Obst,
2009; Obst et al., 2011). Joint degrees are not income generating programs and are often costly
due to the necessity for travel and higher tuition rates. In Singapore, there is funding for such
programs if they meet nation-building goals in terms of producing graduates in identified areas
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 110
of need. Mr. L. identified that the most successful proposals were those in collaboration with a
recognized university in a specific field of need (personal communication, August 31, 2012).
The Global Schoolhouse Initiative provided funding for a target group of ‘world class’
institutions to facilitate the growth of the higher education sector and meet both social and
economic nation building goals (Mok, 2011; Sidhu et al., 2011b). The focus on higher education
as an area of economic development in Singapore has meant that it is very well funded and has
not seen the funding problems of other higher education systems (Tan, 2006).
Beyond the general higher education policies of the Singaporean government it is
important to understand how the university and the government interact. As noted above,
Nanyang Technological University was originally founded as Nanyang Technical Institute (NTI)
to educate engineers for the developing nation in 1981 (Nanyang Technological University,
2012d). Ten years later NTI merged with the National Institute of Education (NIE) to form
Nanyang Technological University. In 2006, NTU became an autonomous institution (Nanyang
Technological University, 2012d). A parliamentary act established NTI in 1981 and later, on the
basis of a government committee report converted NTI into the second comprehensive
university, NTU (Tan, 2006). Even though NTU is now autonomous the founding documents of
the institution are parliamentary acts by the governing party that maintains strong influence in
the higher education sector via financial subsidies directly to the universities and to students
(Tan, 2006). All of the respondents in this study discussed the government’s financial subsidies
to students as an important part of their programs. Mr. L. connected the financial support
available in Singapore to the existence of international joint degree programs at NTU. Without
the government’s continued financial investment in higher education and its support and
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 111
encouragement for international collaboration with well regarded universities it is likely that the
joint degree programs in this study would not exist.
Although the informants in this study did not speak to direct government control of the
university, financial influence is a strong motivator and faculty are trained to write grants to earn
funding. When money is available for specific projects or programs there is an incentive to
design a program to qualify for funding. Further, faculty members with a record of obtaining
grant money are usually considered valuable to the university. By establishing funding for these
types of endeavors at the autonomous universities, the government creates a system that values
collaboration with recognized and well-regarded institutions in specific fields. Additionally, the
seemingly manageable and faculty-centered process of establishing a joint degree program at
NTU alleviates one of the primary barriers to faculty engaging in international partnership
building (Dewey & Duff, 2009). Also, the presence of both KI and TUM in Singapore addresses
another barrier to international partnerships: cultural differences. Heffernan and Poole (2005)
discuss the partnership building process and highlight the role that culture plays in developing
communication, commitment and trust. Both KI and TUM had already established partnerships
with Singaporean entities and had developed an understanding of successful collaboration in the
Singaporean context. KI’s partnership with A*STAR and TUM’s joint degree with NUS were
both in areas of economic development for the nation: biomedical science research and industrial
chemistry respectively. Addressing needs in the economy of Singapore is a successful strategy
for securing funding from the government. The programs in this study also address similar areas
of economic growth for Singapore. By focusing the programs on areas of need and
understanding the culture and process of establishing partnerships in Singapore, both partner
institutions were prepared to effectively create additional collaborations in the nation.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 112
Recommendations
The selection of partners for international joint degree programs at Nanyang
Technological University is affected by alignment of the partners, ability to finance programs,
and the interventionist role of the Singaporean government in higher education. These three
findings illuminate areas of consideration for any institution considering developing an
international joint degree program. Given the particularly strong role of the Singaporean
government it is helpful to explicate recommendations that are specific to the Singaporean
context as well.
General Recommendations for Practice
The alignment of partners in an international joint degree program is imperative to the
successful establishment of the program. International joint degree programs are program
specific partnerships and must have a common focus (Van de Water et al., 2008). Partnerships
with shared goals and motivations are more likely to be successful (Jie, 2011). For the programs
in this case study the focus on the development of researchers and further research collaborations
between the two partners, as well as the production of workers for a needed industry aided in the
development of the degree programs. When faculty and administrators are considering an
international joint degree program a primary concern should be ensuring that both partners have
the same goals for the program.
Financing programs in education is a major area of concern. In this study, financial
support was available from the government. This alleviated one of the primary barriers to the
successful development of international joint degree programs. In developing future programs, it
must be determined how and from where funding will be secured. Further, if the funding arises
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 113
from a grant or from student fees, a plan should be in place for how the program will handle the
ending of grant funding or insufficient enrollment of students.
National context is another necessary consideration when partnering across borders. In
this case, the government took an interventionist role in higher education and determined the
development of these international joint degree programs. Prior to the development of any
international joint degree program the role of the government in the partner institution must be
thoroughly considered. The creation of the international joint degree programs in this study was
facilitated by government support, but it is also possible that government regulations could
hinder the development or recognition of an international joint degree program in other
circumstances. The government’s involvement in the higher education sector could also affect
the type of research that graduate students can undertake in joint programs. The positives and
negatives associated with the role of the partner institution’s government must be thoroughly
considered prior to establishing an international joint degree program. Cultural differences,
although not highlighted in this study, can greatly affect the interaction between the participating
institutions and should also be investigated.
Sustainability of international joint degree programs was not a focus of this study.
However, through the interviews regarding the NTU programs some recommendations regarding
sustaining existing programs emerged. All programs in this study have a governing board that
oversees admissions and academic and student issues as they arise. This structure includes
representatives from both schools and is written into the implementation agreements for the
programs. It is not possible to foresee all issues that may arise with programs when designing
them and thus it is imperative that a method for addressing the academic and administrative
issues that occur when managing a multi-institutional program. Shared goals and alignment
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 114
between partners are determining factors in the successful establishment of programs and a
primary way of ensuring that both partners remain committed to the vision for a program is to
continue to communicate regarding the management of the program.
It is also clear from this study that there is a dearth of shared information or guidelines
regarding the development of international joint degree programs. As such, it would be useful to
create a template repository or archive that could be utilized by administrators considering
developing an international joint degree program. Even within Nanyang Technological
University there were no set guidelines for developing these programs. Given that joint degrees
often arise out of faculty contacts and desire to work together, this type of repository would
provide great assistance to professors seeking to create an international joint degree program.
Singapore-Specific Recommendations
Singapore’s interventionist role in higher education is a pervasive factor in this case
study. The government enabled the development of the joint degree programs in this study by
setting a nation-building focus on higher education and providing funding for international
collaboration and programs focused on meeting industry needs. In addition to the
recommendations above and due to this omnipresent role of the Singaporean government in
higher education, there are specific recommendations that are useful for practitioners considering
a partnership in Singapore.
The most successful partnership proposals at universities in Singapore are those in which
the partner institution is well known in the field of the partnership and the proposed area of study
is considered useful in the national context. Thus a program will be most successful if the
partner institution is highly ranked in the field of the program and that field is considered a
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 115
growth area for the Singaporean economy. In this case both Karolinska Institute and the
Technical University of Munich were considered to be leaders in their respective fields prior to
entering Singapore. Further, both programs are in industries that are a focus in the economic
growth of the nation. A practitioner wishing to enter the Singaporean higher education market
should research the areas of industry that the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Singapore
Economic Development Board are focused on prior to proposing a joint degree program.
Because this focus changes over time, it is important to keep up to date with the government’s
announcements and policies. In the case of Singapore, these fields are largely science and
technology focused. By tying the program to areas of growth the partnership will be more likely
to be approved and garner funding within Singapore. The ranking and prestige of the partner
institution is very important and should not be overshadowed by the field. As discussed in the
previous chapter, NTU has been flexible in its arrangements with both of these partners in order
to garner their prestige and renown for the up and coming school’s programs. The level of
flexibility is directly related to the level of prestige of the partner institution. Even in an industry
of growth in Singapore, a little-known program from another nation would be unlikely to be
approved.
The growth of higher education in Asia is booming with numerous cities developing
education hubs and many universities seeking partnerships in the region. Singapore, with its
interventionist government role in higher education could be a good place to begin establishing
relations in Asia especially if a university is looking to enter the Chinese higher education
market. While many schools seek to partner with schools in China, the government there is more
restrictive when it comes to educational endeavors. Partnering in Singapore could be a useful
experiment with partnerships in Asia in that the government plays a strong role but partnerships
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 116
are encouraged and may be easier to establish. The experience of establishing and managing a
joint program in Singapore could prepare participating faculty and administrators to later partner
with a Chinese institution.
Future Research
This study provides one perspective of the factors considered most important in selecting
and evaluating partners for three international joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological
University. The findings indicate that the role the government of Singapore plays in higher
education has a major effect on the development of these programs due to the economic
development goal of building an educational hub. Additional research on the selection of
partners for international joint degree programs is warranted to enrich the body of research
beyond the context of Singapore.
One avenue for future research could examine the selection of partners for international
joint degree programs in a nation without the goal of developing an educational hub. This
dissertation has illuminated the strong role of the Singaporean government in higher education
and its affect on the development of the international joint degree programs in this study. As
such the findings of this study may not be applicable in other settings. The goals for joint degree
programs would likely be different without the encouragement of the government to build the
nation and address shortages in industries in Singapore. It may also be useful to study an
institution that has numerous international joint degree programs with some partners in countries
similar to Singapore that are working to develop education hubs in their region as well as other
partners in countries with less governmental participation in higher education. The comparison
of multiple programs at the same school but with partners in different national contexts could
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 117
further illuminate the role that governments play in establishing international joint degree
programs.
A second area for future research should include a larger study with more focus on the
specific reasons for selecting a partner. The existing surveys on joint and double degree
programs ask why partners were selected with options such as: a relationship between faculty
members, an existing exchange partner, and a region of interest for the institution. A deeper
survey of such programs could include other options that more directly correlate to the issues
that arise in these partnerships under the themes of Academic Alignment, Mobility and
Language, and Recognition and Legitimacy. Further, the exploration of why institutions engage
in international joint degree programs rather than some other form of less committed
international partnership could deepen the understanding of institutional internationalization
strategies.
A third area for research should study international joint degree programs that have
ended. This should include how partners were selected, how the program developed and why it
ended. This would provide more information regarding the reasons that international
partnerships fail in the higher education context. Information regarding the breakdown of such
partnerships could provide a deeper understanding of the concerns that must be taken into
account prior to creating new international joint degree programs.
Finally, in future research finding a participating institution that is eager to contribute to
the study and willing to provide internal documents and information that can enrich the findings
is important. Access to a research site is often difficult to obtain but without full access, the
findings are limited to the representation of the institution provided by informants and public
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 118
documents. Perhaps study of an institution in a nation with less governmental involvement
would allow for more open access to institutional members and documents.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the factors considered when selecting and
evaluating potential partner institutions for an international joint degree program at Nanyang
Technological University. Although there is no single process for the development of
international joint degree programs at NTU there were numerous similarities among the
participating joint degree programs. The primary concerns for selecting and evaluating a partner
institution are based on alignment between the programs in terms of purpose and goals for the
joint degree. Partnering with a university that is well known and highly ranked in the particular
academic discipline of the program is of key importance. Prestige and ranking of the partner
institution alleviate most other concerns regarding academic quality and make the partner an
attractive option for NTU programs. The government’s focus on developing an education hub in
Singapore through inviting world-class institutions to establish programs and partnerships in the
city-state is a major driver behind the development of the joint degree programs in this study.
The partner institutions had already established a presence in the nation and as such were
previously approved by the Economic Development Board and Ministry of Education in
Singapore. In conclusion, the factors considered by NTU in selecting Karolinska Institute and
the Technical University of Munich as partners for joint degree programs were minimal and
focused on the academic nature of the designed programs rather than concern regarding the
suitability of either KI or TUM Asia for partnerships.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 119
References
Agency for Science Technology and Research. (2009a). About A*STAR. Retrieved on January
25, 2013 from: http://www.astar.edu.sg/AboutASTAR/Overview/tabid/140/Default.aspx.
Agency for Science, Technology and Research. (2009b). A*STAR graduate academy. Retrieved
on January 25, 2013 from: http://www.a-
star.edu.sg/AboutASTAR/ASTARGraduateAcademy/tabid/74/Default.aspx.
Agency for Science, Technology and Research. (2012). Partnerships. Retrieved on April 1, 2013
from http://www.a-
star.edu.sg/Partnerships/ASTARCollaborations/tabid/172/Default.aspx
Altbach, P.G. (2008, Winter). Globalization and forces for change in higher education.
International Higher Education, 50, 2-4.
Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and
realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290-305.
Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2011). Higher education’s landscape of internationalization. In P.G.
Altbach (Ed.), Leadership for world-class universities: Challenges for developing
countries (pp. 108-127). New York: Routledge.
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. Report prepared for UNESCO. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Amey, M.J. (2010). Administrative perspectives on international partnerships. New
Directions of Higher Education, 150, 57-67.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 120
Armstrong, L. (2007). Competing in the global higher education marketplace: Outsourcing,
twinning, and franchising. New Directions for Higher Education, 140, 131-138.
Asgary, N., & Robbert, M.A. (2010). A cost-benefit analysis of an international dual degree
program. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 317-325.
Becker, R. (2010). International branch campuses: New trends and directions. International
Higher Education, 58, 3-5.
Beerkens, E. (2002). International inter-organisational arrangements in higher education:
Towards a typology. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 297-314.
Bologna Process (2010) About the Bologna process. Retrieved on April 5, 2012 from:
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/about/
Brandenburg, U. & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher
Education. 62, 15-17.
Brookes, M., & Becket, N. (2011). Developing global perspectives through international
management degrees. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(4), 374-394.
Childress, L.K. (2009, January). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions.
Journal of Studies in International Education, doi: 10.11771028315308329804
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The world factbook: Singapore. Retrieved April 16, 2012
from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html
Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Joint degrees, dual degrees, and international research
collaborations: A report on the CGS graduate international collaborations project.
Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 121
Culver, S.M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K.P., & Dooley, J.E. (2011). Collaborative dual-
degree programs and value added for students: Lessons learned through the Evaluate-E
project. Journal of Studies in International Education, doi: 10.1177/1028315311403934
Culver, S.M., Warfvinge, P., Grossman, C., & Puri, I.K. (2011). Evaluation of engineering
double-degree programs in Sweden: results of the Lund Focus Groups. European Journal
of Higher Education, 1(2-3), 220-232.
de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States and Europe: A
historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Dewey, P., & Duff, S. (2009). Reason before passion: faculty views on internationalization in
higher education. Higher Education, 58, 491-504.
European Commission (2010). About Erasmus Mundus.
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/programme/about_erasmus_mundus_en.php
European Commission (2011). The EU-USA Programme.
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/bilateral_cooperation/eu_us/programme/about_eu_usa_en.php
European Consortium for Accreditation (2012). Organisation.
http://www.ecaconsortium.net/main/about-eca/organisation
Heffernan, T., & Poole, D. (2005). In search of “The Vibe”: Creating effective international
education partnerships. Higher Education, 50, 223-245.
Hyde, J. (2009). A case study examining the changing nature of an American land grant public
research university in response to the forces of globalization. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest, ISBN 1109292872.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 122
Jie, Y. (2010). International partnerships: A game theory perspective. New Directions for Higher
Education, 150, 43-54.
Jie, Y. (2011). Comparison of the partner institutions’ perceptions of the cross-border higher
education program and the impact on program implementation: Case studies of two
Sino-US business management programs. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest. UMI 3464588
Jordan, E. J. (2011). Creating and maintaining a student-centered culture at an international
branch campus: A case study examining the roles of faculty, staff, and students at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas Singapore campus. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest document ID 2553471901
Karolinska Institute. (2012). A medical university: KI in brief. Retrieved on April 4, 2013
from:\http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=600&l=en
Knight, J. (2004) New rationales driving internationalization. International Higher
Education. 34, 3-4.
Knight, J. (2006). Crossborder education: An analytical framework for program and
provider mobility. In J.C.Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (pp. 345-395). Netherlands: Springer.
Knight, J. (2008). Joint and double degree programmes: Vexing questions and issues.
Toronto: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, Ontario Institute for Studies I
n Education, University of Toronto.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 123
Knight, J. (2009). Double- and joint-degree programs: Double benefits or double counting?
International Higher Education. 55, 12-13.
Knight, J. (2011, Winter). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher
Education. 62, 14-15.
Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in internationalization of
higher education. In D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & J. Adams (Eds.). Sage
handbook of international higher education. (p.p. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing.
Knight, J., & Lee, J. (2012) International joint, double, and consecutive joint degree programs. In
D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & J. Adams (Eds.). Sage handbook of international
higher education. (p.p. 343-358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Knight, J., & Morshidi, S. (2011). The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs:
Focus on Malaysia. Higher Education. 62:593-606.
Kuder, M., & Obst, D. (2009). Joint and double degree programs in transatlantic context: A
survey report. Institute of International Education.
Lee, M. H. (2010). Internationalizing universities: Comparing China’s Hong Kong and
Singapore (1996-2006). In D. W. Chapman, W. Cummings, & G.A. Postiglione (Eds.),
Crossing borders in East Asian higher education (pp. 283-315). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lizarraga, M.I.C. (2011). Rationales shaping international linkages in higher education: A
qualitative case study of the ASU-ITESM strategic alliance. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from repository.asu.edu on February 12, 2012.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 124
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G.N., & Seng, M.S.Y. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in
international education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17 (2/3),
90-99.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Michael, S.O., & Balraj, L. (2003, November). Higher education institutional collaborations: An
analysis of models of joint degree programs. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 25(2), 131-145.
Ministry of Education (2012). Post-Secondary Education. Retrieved on April 3, 2012 from:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/index.php#universities
Ministry of Education (2013). Post-Secondary Education. Retrieved on April 27, 2013 from:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/
Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2012a) About MTI: Agency for Science, Technology and
Research (A*STAR). Retrieved on February 12, 2013 from
http://www.mti.gov.sg/AboutMTI/Pages/Agency%20for%20Science,%20Technology%2
0and%20Research%20%28A_STAR%29.aspx?tag=Statutory%20Boards
Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2012b). News room: Minister Lim Hng Kiang’s written reply to
parliament questions on EDB’s Global Schoolhouse initiative. Retrieved on February 1,
2013 from: http://www.mti.gov.sg/NewsRoom/Pages/Minister-Lim-Hng-Kiang%27s-
written-reply-to-Parliament-Questions-on-EDB%27s-Global-Schoolhouse-initiative.aspx
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 125
Mitchell, D.E., & Nielsen, S.Y. (2012). Internationalization and globalization in higher
education. INTECH: open science, open minds. doi 10.5772/48702
Mok, K.H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing hierarchies, organizational
hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education
Policy. 26(1), 61-81.
Nanyang Technological University (2009a). About SBS. Retrieved February 3, 2013 from:
http://www.sbs.ntu.edu.sg/AboutSBS/Pages/AboutSBS.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (2009b). IC Design (Joint NTU-TUM MSc Programme).
Retrieved February 9, 2013 from:
http://www.eee.ntu.edu.sg/ProspectiveStudents/MSc/Pages/NTU-TUM_ICD.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (2009c). Nanyang Technological University and
Technical University of Munich joint Ph.D. programme. Retrieved March 12, 2013
from: http://www.eee.ntu.edu.sg/ProspectiveStudents/Pages/NTU-TUM-
JointPh.D.Programme.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (2009d). Joint Ph.D. programmes with TUM. Retrieved
on March 16, 2013 from:
http://www2.ntu.edu.sg/ClassACTStaging/Sep09/campusnews/6.asp
Nanyang Technological University (2010). Global NTU, Joint Programmes. Retrieved July 25,
2012 from: http://global.ntu.edu.sg/joint/Pages/default.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (2012a). Academics: Colleges and schools. Retrieved August
2, 2012 from: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/academics/Pages/CollegesSchools.aspx
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 126
Nanyang Technological University (2012b). Our vision and mission. Retrieved July 25, 2012
from: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/AboutNTU/CorporateInfo/Pages/visionmission.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (2012c). Prospective Students. Retrieved August, 2, 2012
from: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/ProspectiveStudents/Pages/default.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (2012d). Our history. Retrieved April 28, 2013 from:
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/AboutNTU/CorporateInfo/Pages/OurHistory.aspx
Nanyang Technological University (January 2012). School of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering: Fostering Innovative Research Success Together [Brochure]. Singapore.
Nanyang Technological University School of Biomedical Sciences (n.d.). NTU-KI joint Ph.D. in
biomedical sciences. Retrieved February 9, 2013 from
http://www.sbs.ntu.edu.sg/Graduate/Course/Documents/NTU-KI%20Joint%20Ph.D..pdf
Nickel, S., Zdebel, T., & Westerheijden, D.F. (2009, March). Joint degrees in European higher
education: Obstacles and opportunities for transnational programme partnerships based
on the example of German-Dutch EUREGIO. Center for Higher Education Development.
Retrieved on April 4, 2012 from:
http://www.jointdegree.eu/uploads/media/Che_Joint_Degrees_in_European_Higher_Edu
cation.pdf
Obst, D., Kuder, M., & Banks, C. (2011). Joint and double degree programs in the global
context: Report on an international survey. Institute of International Education.

SELECTION OF PARTNERS 127
Oleksiyenko, P. A. (2010). Academic Partnerships in the Age of Globalization: Exploring
Policies for Cross-Border Collaboration in Hong Kong. Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
12.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Pembleton, D.J. (2011). Crossborder management education alliances: Case study of the Sasin
graduate institute of business administration in Bangkok, Thailand. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved on December 28, 2011 from conservancy.umn.edu.
Porfirio, V.G. (2012). Internationalization strategies in traditional higher education institutions
across the United States. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 28, 2013 from
sage.edu.
Rauhvargers, A., Bergan, S., & Divis, J. (2003). United we stand: The recognition of joint
degrees. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 342-353.
Saha, J.M., & Ang, D. (2010). Challenges and opportunities in the in-employment education
market: A Singapore perspective. In C. Findlay & W. Tierney (Eds.), Globalisation and
tertiary education in the Asia-Pacific: The changing nature of a dynamic market (229-
254). River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Scott, P. (2000, Spring). Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21
st
century.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(3), 3-10.
Sidhu, R., Ho, K.C., & Yeoh, B. (2011a). Emerging education hubs: The case of Singapore.
Higher Education, 61, 23-40.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 128
Sidhu, R., Ho, K.C., & Yeoh, B. (2011b). The global schoolhouse: Governing Singapore’s
knowledge economy aspirations. Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific, 36, 255-271.
Singapore Economic Development Board (2011). Global schoolhouse. Retrieved on May 4, 2012
from:http://www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/education/global_school
house.html
Singh, N. (2012). The market for branch campuses: UNLV Singapore and the role of the

government in defining its market. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

Stinson, B.L. (2010). International education partnerships: A case study of two universities in
the United States and South Africa. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
UMI 3427005.
Tan, J. (2006). Singapore. 159-186. In Higher Education in South-East Asia. Asia-Pacific
Programme of Educational Innovation for Development, United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2006.
Technical University of Munich. (n.d.). TUM at a glance. Retrieved on April 1, 2013 from
http://www.tum.de/en/about-tum/our-university/
Tillman, M. J. (ed.). (2007) Cooperating with a University in the United States: NAFSA’s Guide
to Interuniversity Linkages. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA: Association of International
Educators.
Tubbeh, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Framing issues of international education. New
Directions for Higher Education, 150, 7-16. doi:10.1002/he.
SELECTION OF PARTNERS 129
TUM Asia (2012, October-December). Digest: TUM Asia. Singapore: Office of Corporate
Communications German Institute of Science and Technology.
TUM Asia (2007-2013). About TUM Asia. Retrieved on April 1, 2013 from
http://tum-asia.edu.sg/about-tum-asia/
Van de Water, J., Green, M. & Koch, K. (2008). International partnerships: Guidelines for
Colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Waring, P. (2013). Singapore’s global schoolhouse strategy: Retreat or recalibration? Studies in
Higher Education. Doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.754867
Willis, M. (2007). Suggestions and procedures for choosing a Chinese institution of higher
education as a partner. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 18(2/3), 9-43.
Witt, M.A. (2011). Shifting tides in global higher education: Agency, autonomy, and
governance in the global network. Peter Lang Publishing: New York, NY.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study investigates the selection of partner institutions for international joint degree programs at the graduate level utilizing Knight’s (2008) challenges to the development of such partnerships which are: Academic Alignment, Mobility and Language concerns, and Recognition and Legitimacy concerns. This study focuses on the criteria used to identify and evaluate potential institutional partners for international joint degree programs at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Specifically, the initiation of international joint degree programs, the methods for identification of potential partner institutions, and the factors considered to evaluate the suitability of the partner for international joint degree programs are explored. An embedded case study of three graduate joint degree programs in the sciences at NTU was used to answer the research questions. Faculty and administrators at both NTU and one of the partner institutions, Technical University of Munich, Asia, were interviewed regarding the development of the programs. Document review was completed utilizing public documents including program and school brochures and websites. The findings of this study indicate that the predominant concerns when selecting a partner institution at NTU were: program focus and school type

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Establishing and marketing an international branch campus: a case study of Savannah College of Art and Design Hong Kong

PDF

Increasing international student application and enrollment to a branch campus

PDF

Third culture kids and college support: a case study

PDF

The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution

PDF

Examining the market entry strategies of a university's international expansion into a developing country

PDF

Leadership for the 21st century: effectiveness of mentorship in the development of senior leaders for U.S. higher education

PDF

The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China

PDF

The market for branch campuses: UNLV Singapore and the role of the government in defining its market

PDF

Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

Cross-cultural training of expatriate faculty teaching in international branch campuses

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study

PDF

African American airmen and the CCAF degree: a mixed methods study conducted on joint base Pearl Harbor-Hickam

PDF

Undergraduates in the developing world: study abroad program management in sub-Saharan Africa

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Reflective practice and the Master of Public Administration degree

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

Recruiting faculty abroad: examining factors that induced American faculty to work at branch campuses in Qatar's Education City

Asset Metadata

Creator Brown, Jennifer (lauren)

Core Title Selection of partners for international joint degree programs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/26/2013

Defense Date 05/14/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag international collaboration,international higher education,joint degree programs,OAI-PMH Harvest,partner selection,Singapore

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Diamond, Michael A. (committee chair), Robison, Mark Power (committee chair), Riley, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email brown.jenniferlauren@gmail.com,jb26@hawaii.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-300032

Unique identifier UC11293419

Identifier etd-BrownJenni-1852.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-300032 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BrownJenni-1852.pdf

Dmrecord 300032

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Brown, Jennifer, Lauren

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA