Conceptualisations and Knowledge Transfer Potential

Despite a lack of clarity and significant variation in conceptualising various transnational programs (Hill et al., 2013), for this current study, distinctions are drawn between two most common types of transnational programs: franchise and dual degree programs. Even, within these two types, there is a wide variety of definitions and classifications and at times, the names are interchangeable in the literature (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007; Naidoo, 2009). For instance, DDPs are often interchangeable with articulation and twinning programs (Banks et al., 2010). This lack of common parlance is perhaps due to incongruous information in research literature as it is bound to the particular national locus and unclear regulation from governments and universities engaged in these programs (Knight, 2010; Yang, 2010;

Ziguras, 2008). However, definitions in the subsequent paragraphs will be used to place boundaries for the current study. Presumably, dual degree and franchise programs have different objectives, modes of operation, and different levels of KT potentials.

In franchise programs, a foreign university (in this case the Australian university) gives license to a local (Indonesian) university to deliver the foreign university’s course under agreed conditions (Knight, 2007; Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). The agreement may specify the class size, contact hours, lecturer qualification, and role of the foreign university in quality assurance (McBurnie &

Ziguras, 2007). Although theoretically franchise programs are bound by regulations in both local and foreign countries, in practice more attention is given to the regulations of the foreign countries as the diploma is issued by the foreign university (Knight, 2007; Naidoo, 2009). Franchise programs are normally profit oriented and do not require the students to study onshore at the foreign university (Naidoo, 2009;

Tierney, 2010). They are often criticised as a negative example of HE

commodification and managerialism, where academic qualifications are granted as quickly as possible to maximise profit using uniform teaching approaches and materials, irrespective of the local context (Altbach, 2004; Healey, 2008; Ziguras, 2008). Therefore, they have limited potential for KT and capacity development because the local partner only acts as a student recruitment agent and supplier of the necessary manpower and facilities on the foreign university’s behalf (Altbach, 1999).

DDPs, as defined in Chapter 1, have been advocated as an ideal transnational program in facilitating KT and the ensuing capacity development for the developing country universities (Bashir, 2007; Vincent-Lancrin, 2007; Wächter et al., 1999).

Students in DDPs commence their studies at the local university which is then followed by a period of study at the foreign university (Umboh et al., 2007).

Compared with franchise programs, DDPs have the added advantage of facilitating student mobility to the foreign university campus to finalise their studies (Healey, 2008). Moreover, the two partnering universities each grant their degrees to graduates of DDPs (Delisle, 2009; Naidoo, 2009). Given that two qualifications from two countries are granted, the programs theoretically have to comply with the regulations of both countries (Knight, 2007). To qualify for an Indonesian degree, students are required to take compulsory subjects under Indonesian curriculum (Umboh et al., 2007). The Indonesian Ministerial Regulation Number 26 in 2007 concerning international partnership requires that at least 50% of the courses to be completed in Indonesia to qualify for an Indonesian degree (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 26 Tahun 2007). In DDPs, it is more likely for the curricula, teaching materials, and teaching-learning approaches to be jointly developed by the partner institutions (Delisle, 2009). This opportunity to jointly develop the programs, along with other types of cooperation stemming from the initial program development, such as joint research and joint publications, can facilitate KT between the partners, which leads to the local university’s improved capacity (Bashir, 2007; Vincent-Lancrin, 2007).

In some DDPs, it is possible that the curriculum is not jointly developed;

rather, the partner universities validate each other’s curriculum (Bennell & Pearce, 2003; Li, Faulkner, & Yan, 2011; Mercer & Zhegin, 2011). For validation, the partner universities already have their own curricula in the same discipline. When they form DDP partnerships, the universities agree to map out the equivalence in

their curriculum contents and quality to ensure that the credits obtained by local DDP students transferring to the overseas partner can be recognised. For example, after a curriculum mapping process, an Indonesian university’s electrical engineering curriculum is deemed of equal quality and comparable content with its Australian counterpart and vice versa. Therefore, after finishing the first two years in Indonesia using the Indonesian university curriculum, the Indonesian students can continue the rest of the studies at the Australian partner university using the comparable Australian university curriculum to obtain the dual degrees. Table 2.1 summarises the different features of dual degree and franchise programs.

Table 2.1 Comparison between Franchise and DDPs

Features Franchise Program DDP

Curriculum Foreign university Jointly developed or validated

Diploma Foreign university Local and foreign universities

National Regulation Foreign Local and foreign

Country of Residence during Study Local Local and foreign

Joint development and validation of curriculum can transfer knowledge through DDPs. In validation, while mapping the content of each other’s curriculum, the partner universities engage in intensive communication to understand each other’s curriculum. They become aware of their curriculum’s strengths and weaknesses and, consequently, may rectify the content of their curriculum in light of the partner’s suggestions. Hence, the transferred knowledge is related to the curriculum content (Coate, 2009). In joint development of curriculum, the partner universities may gain knowledge in curriculum design, which incorporates several steps as noted by Stefani (2009): (1) determining the general aims of the course; (2) determining the learning outcomes; (3) planning the assessment; (4) planning the content of curriculum; (5) planning the teaching-learning approach; (6) compiling resources and reading materials; and (7) planning the evaluation of the course to improve it. When DDPs’ curriculum is jointly developed by the universities, the exchanged knowledge may incorporate all of the aforementioned aspects.

Consequently, the Indonesian university may gain a sustainable capacity to design curriculum not just for that particular DDP as the knowledge about curriculum design can be applied to other programs, compared with knowledge about the curriculum content for a particular field of study obtained from a validation process.

One perplexing issue in DDPs is the granting of two diplomas from two different universities for the same amount of time it takes to earn a single degree.

The Indonesian regulation does stipulate that it is possible for a student enrolled in DDPs to also obtain the foreign qualification in addition to the Indonesian qualification (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 26 Tahun 2007). The guideline for Indonesian-French double degree by the Directorate General for HE (DGHE) clearly acknowledges and expects the granting of dual degrees from Indonesian and French universities (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2010). In this government initiated DDP, Indonesian and French universities offer DDPs for master and doctoral levels for Indonesian lecturers. For example, after a study period of two years, a student can qualify for a French Master Recherche and an Indonesian Magister Sains in biotechnology. The guideline further requires that the curriculum of the DDP is specifically tailor made, distinguishable from the regular curriculum offered in single-degree classes.

Despite the abovementioned jointly developed and tailor made curriculum for DDPs, Yang and Yao (2007) found that the curriculum of an Australian-Chinese Master of Business Administration (MBA) program was mainly imported from the Australian university without much alteration to meet the Chinese students’ needs, despite the universities’ promotion that their curriculum was the most suitable for the Chinese context. In another study involving Australian and Chinese DDPs, Heffernan et al. (2010) noticed that there was no meaningful opportunity to jointly develop the content of curriculum between the partnering universities, thus undermining the KT opportunity. The findings of these studies inform the current study regarding the discrepancy between what is advocated as ideal practices in DDPs and what is actually found in empirical studies. While the potential for KT can be found in DDPs, understanding the purposes that have motivated universities to open the programs can assist in determining how KT is prioritised by the partner universities. This is further discussed in Section 2.3.2.

As noted earlier, being a subset of transnational programs, investigation on DDPs is often not separated from other types of transnational programs in the research literature (see Courtney & Anderson, 2009; Heffernan & Poole, 2004;

2005). Therefore, in the subsequent sections, pertinent studies that discuss transnational programs in general are also used to inform this present study, which

focuses on DDPs. In some instances, the term dual degree programs is used interchangeably with the generic concept of transnational programs. Necessary information is provided when the reviewed literature specifically discusses a particular transnational program distinct from the DDPs.