Developing Institutional Capacity Purpose and Perceived Outcome

The purpose for developing institutional capacity embodies the intention to engage in KT with the DDP partners and, consequently, improve the overall quality of the university. However, AU did not consider establishing DDPs as means to primarily assist the Indonesian partners developing their institutional capacity. The data showed that only three out of seven AU participants mentioned the purpose of developing institutional capacity for the Indonesian partners in their discussions. In contrast, 12 out of the 20 Indonesian participants (i.e., IU-A and IU-B participants) discussed the purpose of developing their universities’ capacity through the DDP partnerships. Among the Indonesian universities, the purpose translated into the outcome of institutional capacity development in delivering quality educational services as a result of KT from their DDP partners. This institutional capacity development outcome was apparent in the responses of 14 out of the 20 Indonesian participants. The similarities and differences among the participating universities’

purpose for developing institutional capacity and outcome of capacity development shall be explored in this section.

4.2.2.1 Lack of priority on partner’s capacity development from the Australian university

In general, AU did not prioritise capacity development as a major purpose for establishing DDPs. Six out of seven AU participants believed there was little opportunity to share knowledge with the Indonesian DDP partners. “There are possibilities [for KT], but it’s fairly limited” (AU Lecturer 1). KT to the Indonesian partner universities was not entirely ruled out, but it was seen as incidental. DDPs were not seen as a key means for developing the Indonesian partners’ capacity. From the three AU participants discussing capacity development for DDP partners, one of them stated:

It’s also in the back of our mind that we’re to basically provide some capacity development or staff training. If they [Indonesian partners] say,

“We’ve got academics whom we want to upgrade to PhD.” We want to be very much on their radar. (AU Faculty Officer 2)

The above excerpt showed AU’s key means for developing the Indonesian partners’

capacity was recruitment of the Indonesian universities’ lecturers for AU’s PhD programs. A key consideration in this capacity development was how to finance the PhD studies of the Indonesian lecturers, “So then a lot of these [PhD studies] should come down to who-pays-for-what” (AU Faculty Officer 2). Therefore, the purpose for developing institutional capacity, as envisaged by AU, was associated with the revenue generation in the form of international post-graduate student fees.

On the capacity development outcome, no AU participant reported institutional capacity development outcome from partnering with IU-A and IU-B, as represented by the following quote. “There has been nothing ... which has had really big impact on what we’re trying to do” (AU University Executive 1). All AU participants believed there was no knowledge acquisition from the Indonesian partners that impacted its institutional operation.

4.2.2.2 Indonesian universities’ capacity development aspirations

For both participating Indonesian universities, having DDP partnerships was perceived as a means to acquire knowledge from the partner universities and develop their institutional capacity. This view was supported by 13 out of the 20 Indonesian

participants. Nevertheless, what the Indonesian universities sought to acquire from their partners differed as illustrated by the two subsequent excerpts representing each Indonesian university.

We want to also learn from them [DDP partners], looking at what accreditation that they have, and basically try to take some good qualities that they have and try to adopt it over here. (IU-B Lecturer 1)

We hope there will be transfer of knowledge or experience which has been done there [by the. DDP partner] ... so that IU-A can also develop and learn... That’s why what is important is how our curriculum here matches with the curriculum of DDP partner. (IU-A Lecturer 1)

The main similarity between IU-A and IU-B’s purpose for developing institutional capacity was their expectation to engage in KT with the DDP partners. In the above excerpts, the notion of KT could be seen from expressions like “learn”, “take some good qualities”, and “try to adopt.” In conjunction with IU-B’s aim to be internationally-accredited as mentioned in Section 4.2.1, IU-B Lecturer 1’s excerpt above indicated that the university sought to acquire knowledge regarding the DDP partners’ experience in obtaining international accreditation. As represented by the preceding statement from IU-A Lecturer 1, the majority of IU-A participants (six out of 10) also stated that their university wanted to acquire knowledge from the DDP partner, particularly in the area of curriculum development, as the university sought the DDP partner’s recognition for its curriculum.

The Letter of Agreement between IU-A and AU (LOAA) further clarified how the curriculum recognition by the DDP partner could facilitate KT for IU-A.

The parties agree that some modification of the curriculum in each of the courses involved may be beneficial, in order to assist articulation and credit transfer... To that purpose, they will encourage the sharing of relevant curriculum material and the sharing of information on teaching methodology (LOAA, article 8.1).

In the DDP partnership, there was a process of validating each partner university’s existing curriculum to ensure equivalence for the granting of dual degrees (see also Section 2.3.1). This process was often referred to as curriculum mapping by the participants. Based on the above excerpt, the curriculum mapping process required modifying the curriculum and reviewing the course purpose, course content, and

teaching-learning approaches. This curriculum mapping process could enable IU-A to acquire knowledge about its DDP partner’s curriculum content and teaching materials, as claimed by IU-A University Executive 2.

...when we match the curriculum one to another, it is actually also a part of the process of knowledge transfer, in the sense that the university can share the materials we use to teach... and in regards to the content (IU-A University Executive 2)

The above excerpt exemplified the importance attached to the curriculum mapping process by the majority of IU-A participants as an activity that could enable KT process through the sharing of teaching materials and content of the curriculum.

Given there was an emphasis on sharing curriculum materials and teaching methodology in the above document and excerpt, the curriculum and teaching-learning approach units of analysis could be seen as potential areas for KT processes to take place. As evidenced in the interview and document data, there was a consistent support for the institutional capacity development purpose among the Indonesian participants across organisational levels and between the Indonesian universities, which resonated in the reported outcome.

Most of IU-A participants (eight out of 10) reported that the DDP allowed them to benchmark their university’ practices against AU’s best practices. “Firstly, benchmarking, we get a better idea about... how internationally recognised universities like AU runs this kind of [computer studies] program. It is to encourage ourselves also keeping up with the pace” (IU-A Lecturer 2). Based on IU-A Lecturer 2’s explanation, IU-A participants became aware of the latest educational practices applied by AU through the DDP partnership. For instance, through the curriculum mapping, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, IU-A’s School of Computer Studies that ran the DDP partnership acquired curriculum knowledge from AU. This curriculum KT process involved discussing the curriculum with AU and interpreting the suitability of applying components of AU’s curriculum at IU-A, as shall be further analysed in Section 4.3. Subsequently, IU-A’s School of Computer Studies applied the knowledge, while simultaneously measuring its quality improvement outcomes overtime against AU’s standard practices. Therefore, most of IU-A participants were encouraged to develop the university’s quality in delivering educational services and keep up with the international best practices.

The majority of IU-B participants (six out of 10) claimed that IU-B also had access to the best practices applied by its DDP partners by benchmarking its own quality indicators against the DDP partners’. “For IU-B, [the outcome is] improving our quality, benchmarking our programs...” (IU-B University Executive 1). IU-B Faculty Officer 1 provided an example of how benchmarking assessment practices benefited her university.

For assessment... by having [DDP] partners, eventually we have to copy their best practices. For instance, when a student submits an assignment, he has to include... the cover sheet of the assignment. When the lecturer wants to give feedback, there is a certain form for that. This practice is not common yet in Indonesia but we eventually learn... to keep up with the standards of our partners. And to reach our dream to be a world class university, we need to apply the best practices... (IU-B Faculty Officer 1)

As IU-B had an ambition to become a world-class university (i.e., internationally-accredited university), it had to comply with the international standards and practices. By having DDP partnerships with many internationally-accredited universities, most of IU-B participants believed that their university learned about the DDP partners’ standard assignment cover sheet for students, which included an acknowledgement from the student that the assignment was free from plagiarism, and standardised feedback form for lecturers for marking students’ assignments.

These practices of using assignment cover sheets and feedback forms, while common in many international universities, was a rarity among Indonesian ones as claimed by IU-B Faculty Officer 1. By comparing its practices with the DDP partners’ best practices and subsequently applying those practices, as perceived by the majority of IU-B participants, IU-B developed its capacity in preparation for the international accreditation process.

To summarise, in relation to the first research question on the purposes for establishing DDPs, developing institutional capacity was an important purpose for establishing DDPs among the Indonesian universities, but less important for the Australian university. Developing the Indonesian partners’ capacity as envisaged by AU was incidental and could be implemented through recruitment of Indonesian lecturers for its post-graduate programs. In contrast, both IU-A and IU-B similarly prioritised developing their institutional capacity through KT from the DDP partners.

More specifically, IU-A emphasised developing its curriculum in line with the knowledge acquired from its DDP partner, whereas IU-B emphasised acquiring knowledge about preparation for international accreditation.

In line with the differences on prioritising the purpose of developing institutional capacity, the capacity development outcome between the Australian and Indonesian universities also showed significant contrast. On one hand, AU did not experience institutional capacity development from the DDP partnerships with the Indonesian universities. On the other hand, the two Indonesian universities developed their institutional capacity through the benchmarking process with the DDP partners. In relation to the second research question, it could be concluded that institutional capacity development was an outcome of establishing DDPs for the Indonesian universities. Achieving this institutional capacity development outcome presupposed IU-A and IU-B engaging in KT with their DDP partners. The inter-university KT processes that allowed the Indonesian universities to acquire knowledge despite AU’s lack of priority on institutional capacity development for its Indonesian partners shall be discussed in Section 4.3.