2 • Global Connections to Global Partnerships
dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of
The increasing development of campus-based internationalism and cross-border higher education is, to a large
extent, a direct response by universities to building an economic competitive edge that is driving the national agendas
of many countries. For many nations, the short-term strategy
of tapping into the expertise, research, and knowledge
base of highly developed educational systems (e.g., U.S.,
UK, Australia, Germany, France, and so on) is preferable
to expending exponential resources domestically to gear
up. The long-term strategy is for these nations, particularly
in East Asia and the Gulf States, to develop a high quality,
sustainable higher education system domestically.
The purpose of this article is to provide continuing
higher education leaders with a comprehensive overview of
the major considerations for doing business in international
markets. The ﬁrst section will examine the driving forces
in global higher education, current trends in cross-border
programs, and a brief review of the internal and external
activities that may be part of a university’s internationalism
strategy. The second section will examine some selected
challenges for universities exploring global opportunities.
These include global resistance to distance learning, factors
inﬂuencing international student destination choices, and
the importance of responsive student services for campus
and cross-border international students. The ﬁnal section
examines the role of continuing education units in supporting a university’s internationalism strategy, internal
and external, and offers a summary of effective strategies
for managing global partnerships.
Playing on the International Stage: The
Driving Forces for Higher Education
What forces are driving this international transformation for higher education? First, the reductions in government funding for higher education in many countries has
driven colleges and universities to become more entrepreneurial (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). This is certainly true
in the U.K, the U.S., Australia, and other major international
players. These ‘Big Three’ host the largest numbers of international students and unsurprisingly are also the three
major providers of cross-border higher education (Verbik &
Lasanowski, 2007). Although institutional leaders are reluctant to articulate publicly that the pursuit of alternative
revenue sources is a primary goal for their international programs, it is certainly a driving factor for most universities.
University leaders typically offer politically correct
rhetoric that focuses on educational goals such as interna-
tionalising the curriculum, preparing students for a global
society, collaborative research, and the value of exposing
and immersing students (and faculty) among and within
a diverse multi-cultural, global society (Olcott 2008d,
2008a). Indeed, these factors are also important and valuable dimensions for visionary leaders. However, attracting
more international students who pay signiﬁcantly higher
tuition and fees is, in fact, a major motivation for many institutions. Similarly, cross-border programs are also focused
on revenue enhancement to strengthen institutional budgets.
Olcott (2008a, p. 5) sums up the challenge for institutional
leaders attempting to build international programs and
placate stakeholders on their campus. He writes:
And, if you have to redistribute existing institutional resources to even contemplate supporting
your internal or external international program
activities, who beneﬁts and who loses? The academy is made up of competing interest groups all
having a stake in institutional resources. Are you
going to take resources away from academic programs? No. Are you planning to limit faculty raises
or professional development funds? No. Are you
going to propose tuition and/or fee increases for
the ﬁfth time in four years? Not if you’re smart.
What are you going to do and how are you going to do it? Common sense suggests that your
internationalism strategy must be an extension of
your mission and long-term strategic plan. Paradoxically, the mounting pressures for universities
to secure alternative funding sources sometimes
mean common sense does not prevail.
A second factor is that the demand for higher education globally is out-pacing capacity. Paradoxically, this
demand over capacity is misleading because many qualiﬁed
students often face various barriers and obstacles such as
available resources, family obligations, employment commitments, and selecting the ‘right time’ to go to university.
The result is that despite the increasing pool of qualiﬁed
applicants, the competition among institutions for the current market is very competitive. In countries that charge
major tuition and fees, many leaders are concerned that
providing affordable and accessible public higher education
is becoming increasingly difﬁcult.
Additional factors are driving this global transformation. The growing interconnectedness of a global society
and economy is creating a more diversiﬁed and mobile
workforce (Knight, 2005; McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007).
Today’s students are seeking international destinations for
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 3
employment during their studies and upon completion.
Moreover, they are analyzing the global market for countries
that recognize their credentials and provide employment
opportunities. In Europe, the Bologna Process and the
Lisbon Declaration are collaborative initiatives designed to
create a European Higher Education Area and a European
Credit Transfer System that will (in theory) facilitate the
transfer and recognition of credentials across borders
and the mobility of students for employment with Europe
The emergence of ‘English’ as the global language of
commerce and a global society is also driving universities into the international arena. International students
are increasingly exploring foreign institutions that offer
a comprehensive English language program throughout
their university program and supported by mentors and
high quality international student services. These programs
are growing particularly in the post-graduate arena. These
students see their future employability and career aspirations intimately tied to having English in their arsenal of
skills and talents.
Trends in Cross-Border
The delivery of cross-border programs, research,
and related services is a complex enterprise for most
universities. Despite the growing number of international
providers over the past ﬁve years, emerging trends suggest
that this market will become increasingly competitive and
that host countries will focus on partnerships with foreign
institutions that can help them build their own high quality,
sustainable higher education system and economy. Some
of the current trends include the following.
Host nations (nations and/or universities hosting
foreign programs in their country) are becoming
more selective of foreign providers (Helms, 2008).
Asia, the Middle East, and Gulf States are the most
active cross-border regions yet increasingly interregional partnerships are arising in these geographical
areas Fazackerley & Worthington, 2007; McBurnie &
Cross-border research exchange is a rapidly growing
priority among nations (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007;
Quality assurance oversight agencies, internal and
external, are paying increasing attention to universities
operating abroad (Helms, 2008; Stella, 2006;
UNESCO/OECD, 2005; Woodhouse, 2006).
Competition for internationally mobile students
is growing more intense each year (Verbik &
New models of public-private partnerships are
emerging in cross-border higher education among
business, higher education, government, and
community organizations (McBurnie & Ziguras
The Dimensions of Internationalism
for Colleges and Universities
The various activities and functions that deﬁne internationalism have been categorized as either internal or
external dimensions of internationalism (Knight, 2003;
Middlehurst & Woodﬁeld, 2007). The following are key
dimensions of internationalism at home.
Internationalizing the curriculum
Study abroad programs
Internationalization of research
Comprehensive English language programs
International recruitment of staff
International faculty exchange programs
Services and extra-curricular activities for international
Bologna process and Lisbon declaration
The external dimensions of internationalism focus on
the extension of academic programs, research, technology
transfer, strategic partnerships, and related services and
activities in the international arena. A few of the key external
dimensions of internationalism (Middlehurst & Woodﬁeld,
2007) of universities include:
Establishment of branch campuses or regional ofﬁces
International distance learning programs
Recruitment of international students
Strategic alliances and partnerships with foreign
universities, private corporations, and governments
Overseas consultancy, exchange of curriculum and
learning materials, quality assurance, and validation
Staff and student exchanges
International branding, marketing, and public
relations for the institution
Joint research and publication
The scope and focus of these activities, internal
and external, vary across institutions based on mission,
4 • Global Connections to Global Partnerships
resources, strategic goals, and international experience
and expertise. The key strategic consideration, however,
is that institutional leaders build their internationalism
strategy in a coherent way that integrates the various internal
and external activities into the educational mission of the
institution. The pursuit of revenue, in and of itself, by
recruiting international students to campus or establishing cross-border programs is not a valid strategic or
mission related rationale for engaging in these activities
by institutional leaders.
Challenges for Universities
Lost In Translation: Challenges for Global
Institutional leaders often convince themselves that
distance delivery will accelerate their welcome on the
international stage. In some respects, this would be an
excellent strategy if the rest of world would just see the
value-added simplicity in this approach. The rest of the
world, however, is not quite ready to play.
China, North and South Korea, Japan, the Gulf States,
Eastern Europe, Russia, Malaysia, India, and other nations
have publicly stated they want Western technology, academic
programs, research, and technology transfer to help create
sustainable economies, develop a multi-talented workforces,
and ultimately build stable higher education systems at home
(Olcott, Papi, & Newbould, 2008).
At the same time, the credibility of these Western resources appears to be directly related to having real people
(academics, researchers, business executives, and so on)
on the ground in country (Olcott, 2008d). The net result
of these views is that the majority of cross-border higher
education is being delivered at branch campuses, corporate sites, and through unique public-private partnerships.
There are, of course, exceptions, and international students
do take online and video-based courses, but proportionally
these numbers are relatively small.
From an instructional design perspective, it is not
surprising that foreign universities and governments have
been resistant to embracing external distance learning
providers. Faculty can relate anecdotes demonstrating the
inherent challenges in teaching foreign students and the
potential for language, cultural, and social miscommunication. Online teaching exacerbates these issues and creates
a whole new range of challenges for faculty (Olcott, Papi,
& Newbould, 2008).
Technology is not culturally neutral, and even English
is contextual, like most other languages, with potential
for miscommunications. The fact is we know very little
about the interconnected dynamics of culture, language,
and social norms of academic communications delivered
via media. We have many assumptions but these do not
equate to sound teaching and learning paradigms that are
grounded in empirical research. Given that China may be
the largest English-speaking nation on the planet in the
next few years, it would seem prudent to begin addressing
these pedagogical issues now rather than later (Helms,
2008; Olcott, Papi, & Newbould, 2008).
These teaching challenges are also intimately tied to
the quality assurance measures of international programs
(Helms, 2008; Knight, 2003; Knight & de Wit, 1999; Stella,
2006; UNESCO/OECD, 2005; Woodhouse, 2006). We might
argue that we employ the same quality standards for international student programs, yet we have not accounted
for these language, cultural, and social differences. Going
international through distance education will require these
issues to be addressed in systematic and meaningful ways.
This can only be accomplished through research and
the development of new pedagogical models. Visionary
leaders who desire to play on the international stage will
take the necessary time to ensure these issues have been
Factors Affecting International Student
As competition for international student markets
increase, competing institutions will conduct more sophisticated analyses of the factors that inﬂuence student
choice. Perhaps historically institutional reputation and
quality may have driven where international students
desired to study abroad. Today, however, the increasing
mobility of students globally suggests that additional factors will become increasingly important. This does not
suggest that institutional credibility, brand, and quality are
less important in the global market. Rather it suggests that
these composite factors will play a more inﬂuential role in
student choices in the immediate future.
Verbik & Lasanowski (2007) reported the following
factors that are increasingly inﬂuencing student destination
choices for international study.
Institutional and program reputation
Social and cultural opportunities of institution,
country, and region
Financial assistance and employment opportunities
during and following program completion
Streamlined immigration and visa requirements and
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 5
Comprehensive and in-depth opportunities to master
Historical linkages between home country and the
Research facilities and resources
The key, however, is predicting which combinations of
these factors will drive international student choices for the
future. More and more international students are looking
regionally rather than internationally due to increasing
costs and the proliferation of study abroad opportunities
in their region. As this market becomes more competitive,
assessing the relative importance of these choice factors
will become equally important.
The 3S Global Village on Campus:
Socialization, Support and Services
The East Asian region, for example, includes the countries of China, North and South Korea, Japan, Mongolia,
Taiwan, and eastern Russia. East Asian students comprise a
large sector of the international student populations in the
U.S. and the UK, and these numbers are likely to increase
over the next decade. What must administrators do to
ensure a quality education experience for these students
and other international students?
The socialization process is the ﬁrst major challenge.
Most East Asian students will align with their peers from their
home country or region, even when attending an institution
in the U.S. or UK. This is natural but somewhat antithetical
to creating a dynamic learning and living environment for
international students. Campus administrators, faculty, and
staff must help these students ‘reach out’ to English students
and engage in mutually rewarding intellectual, social, and
cultural activities. Most international students are thousands
of miles from home, and they need both home connections and new connections with the campus community
(McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007; UNESCO/OECD, 2005).
Universities must equally provide high levels of
personal support for international students. Counseling,
advising, employment opportunities, academic tutors, and
health services are all important ‘personal’ support issues
to these students. Moreover, university staff must educate
the local community about their international student
population and build international bridges between the
university and the community. Given the often controversial issues arising over immigration policy in the U.S. and
the UK, the university must embrace its responsibility for
ensuring their international students feel welcome in their
new living environment (Helms, 2008; Olcott, 2008d).
Developing an agenda of social activities, clubs, travel
excursions, and cultural celebrations all send a message
to these students about the value the university places on
their welfare, education, and assimilation into the local
campus and community.
Continuing Higher Education:
Navigating Uncharted Waters
at the Global Level
The interplay between the delivery of continuing
higher education (CHE) at the local and state levels versus national and international delivery creates a range of
complex challenges for most continuing education units.
This is particularly true in the U.S., where the majority of
continuing education units have primarily served students
within a speciﬁc state due to regulatory issues restricting
interstate delivery, the broader resistance to using public
moneys to fund academic delivery outside the state, and
the preference by many academic units to ensure their
programs remain within reasonable proximity to the campus. Although there are certainly a number of exceptions
to this focus on local and state delivery, new opportunities
for CHE in the global higher education marketplace may
provide increased possibilities in the future.
Moreover, historically continuing education units have
played a minor role in campus internationalism strategies
such as the recruitment of international students, internationalizing the curriculum, faculty exchange programs,
international research partnerships, and even negotiating
global program delivery. As we have seen, the number
and type of external international activities (e.g., credit
programs, noncredit programs, research partnerships,
creation of branch campuses, and multi-discipline training
programs) is growing globally.
The ﬁrst challenge facing continuing education leaders
is how to position the unit within the mainstream of campus internationalism and strategy discussions. Continuing
education leaders must be at the discussion table. At ﬁrst
glance, the reason would appear obvious. The overwhelming majority of international programs delivered abroad are
ﬁnanced on a cost-recovery, self-sustaining business plan.
These programs, similar to continuing education programs,
must pay for themselves.
Continuing education units also have vast experience
in developing partnerships for various types of credit and
noncredit programs delivered externally. These units have
worked closely with academic units, technology services,
quality and assessment units, and the various student services units who support off-campus students. Why overlook
6 • Global Connections to Global Partnerships
continuing education leaders in these discussions? A partial
answer is that global partnerships often emanate from
different places and by different players in the university.
The exclusion is not necessarily intentional; it is simply
the complexity of factors in today’s global market. One
university president noted how much more complex a
partnership negotiation with the Chinese was compared
with a new program negotiated with a school district or
This observation accentuates the fact that international
partnerships with other universities and countries usually involve the senior leadership team of the university.
The president usually is the point person in the development of these partnerships, particularly during the early
stages. In some instances, the potential partnership may
involve research exchange(s) which require key campus
administrators and faculty in this arena to participate in
the discussions. And, as Helms (2008) clearly points out,
most global partnerships have a personal ex-patriot from
the potential host country at the U.S. institution who has
been instrumental in getting initial discussions off the
ground. These personal ambassadors are often critical
and convey a level of credibility and cultural sensitivity
to potential foreign partners. If we add in the dean of the
college, the department chairperson, the vice president
for ﬁnance, institutional legal counsel, and various faculty
and governance representatives, it becomes clear that the
number of players involved is signiﬁcantly broader than
those involved in a new noncredit program or degree
program offered within the state.
The key strategy for continuing education leaders is to
engage key campus colleagues involved in various aspects
of internationalism on a continual basis, not just when a
speciﬁc program is proposed to Brazil, China, or another
country. Administrators who are left out may simply not be
paying attention to where their campuses are going, literally. CHE leaders need to ask if their units are considered
a value-added asset of the institution’s global arsenal of
services, why or why not, and by whom.
A second challenge for leaders is to recognize that
continuing education does not need to be a partner in
every global initiative. As a unit that must nominally be
self-sustaining from program revenues, it needs to be well
positioned enough to gracefully bow out of certain partnerships without alienating campus allies. Paradoxically, one
moment we worry we are not included in these partnerships, while the next moment we might vividly recognize
that a particular partnership is not in the best interests of
the unit. One primary example in today’s global higher
education marketplace might be China.
A U.S. university partnering in China absolutely must
have a Chinese partner institution as part of the agreement
(Helms, 2008). Moreover, even with the recent quasideregulation of government oversight of higher education
in China that gives more autonomy to the provinces, the
delivery of foreign degree programs must still have approval
by the Ministry of Education in Beijing.
Conversely, the delivery of noncredit, graduate, or
undergraduate programs, can be done at the provincial
level. This means that a U.S. university must enter into a
legally binding partnership with a Chinese university which
can only be authorized following campus approvals by the
president. The point is that a continuing education unit
which may often enter into legally binding partnerships
within the state (along with the academic dean of the program offered) does not have the legal authority to ﬁnalize
partnerships in other countries.
There is also a requirement in China that program
partnerships generally recycle ﬁnancial revenues back
into reﬁning and strengthening the program. Viewed from
another perspective, it is very difﬁcult to transfer moneys
out of China. Given continuing education’s reliance on
self-sustaining revenues, this is problematic in many cases.
These examples illustrate just a few of the challenges, and
China is not unique. If we consider additional obstacles
such as a general preference for face-to-face instruction
(hence the predominance of global branch campuses) over
global distance learning, cultural and language differences,
and different approaches to negotiation, expectations, and
legal systems, going global involves a complicated myriad
of issues faced by most U.S. universities.
Noncredit programs provide continuing education
units with program, pricing, and instructional ﬂexibility
to offer these program with few restrictions on locales,
duration, timeline formats, and delivery approaches (e.g.,
blended learning, e-learning, and face-to-face). One of the
fastest growing sectors of American continuing education
is in the area of graduate and post-graduate certiﬁcate
programs. Prudent universities and their continuing education units may wish to explore this market nationally and
internationally over the next three to ﬁve years. Universities that can integrate sensitive curriculum that addresses
language, culture, and geographic preferences will likely
be able to develop market niches on a global level.
A third challenge is related to the ‘international’
characteristics of the university’s continuing education
unit. Most often this is an area that few CHE units have even
contemplated. Does the unit reﬂect cultural or language
diversity in its staff, the type of and disciplines of programs
offered, in its internal and external partner organizations?
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 7
Does the unit partner with the campus international ofﬁce
(e.g., managing the English language program for the
campus)? Does the unit have any global experience? Has
the unit conducted an inventory of these attributes and addressed them in its strategic plan and how these align with
the international dimensions of the institutional strategic
plan? Last, has the unit (and institution) documented its
partnership history for managing effective partnerships and
the fundamental strategies for partnership creation and
sustainability? (Appendix A provides a summary of effective
strategies for managing international partnerships).
The dramatic increase in internationalism and crossborder higher education by universities is changing the
face of global higher education. Today, universities have
more opportunities for serving campus-based international
students and extending their programs and research on the
international stage. Students also have more choices than
ever before in navigating their educational future.
Continuing higher education has many valuable assets
and expertise for supporting a university’s internationalization strategy, particularly external initiatives. Moreover,
continuing education units have a unique opportunity to
foster stronger collaborations with the diverse campus
units that serve international students and faculty on the
At the same time, the university and its outreach units
must recognize that doing business with global partners is
not synonymous with doing business with partners locally
or across the state. More importantly for U.S. institutions,
is the willingness to embrace and understand the diverse
language, cultural, social, legal, and educational values of
their foreign partners.
We can never understand or be successful in building
global partnerships if we believe that the only rules of the
game are the ones we normally practice or the ones we
with which we are most comfortable. They do not work,
and they will not work no matter how convinced we are
they are right. In the end, this will take more than just a
superﬁcial familiarity with another country and its culture.
It means unlearning some of the strategies that work well
in our world view yet are often barriers when building
Adelman, C. (2008). The Bologna Club. What U.S.
higher education can learn from a decade of
European reconstruction. Washington, DC: Institute
for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved January
31, 2009 from http://www.ihep.org/assets/ﬁles/
Altbach, P. G., & Peterson, P. M. (2007). (Eds.). Higher
education in the new century: Global challenges
and innovative ideas. Boston: Centre for
International Higher Education, Boston College and
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Connelly, S. T., Garton, J., & Olsen, A. (2006). Models
and types: Guidelines for good practice in
transnational education. London: The Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education.
Fazackerley, A., & Worthington, P. (Eds.). (2007).
British universities in China: The reality beyond
the rhetoric. London: Agora. Retrieved January 31,
2009 from http://www.agora-education.org/pubs/
Helms, R. M. (2008). Transnational education
in china: Key challenges, critical issues and
strategies for success. London: The Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education.
Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds). (1999). Quality and
internationalisation in higher education. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Knight, J. (2003). Internationalisation: Developing
an institutional self-portrait, readings for EOTU
Project. Toronto: University of Toronto. Retrieved
January 31, 2009 from http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/
Knight, J. (2005). Borderless, offshore, transnational
and cross-border education: Deﬁnition and data
dilemmas. London: The Observatory on Borderless
McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2007). Transnational
education: Issues and trends in offshore higher
education. London: Routledge.
Middlehurst, R., & Woodﬁeld, S. (2007). International
activity or internationalization strategy? Insights
from an institutional pilot study in the UK.
Tertiary Education and Management, 13,
Olcott, D. J. (2008a). Rock n’ on the international stage:
Commentary on internationalism, cross-border
higher education and distance learning—Lessons
for presidents who care enough to do what is right.
Distance Education Report, 12(11), 5–7.
Olcott, D. J. (2008b, February). Managing international
partnerships. Strategies for success. Paper
8 • Global Connections to Global Partnerships
presented at The Guardian Higher Education
Summit, London, UK.
Olcott, D. J., Papi, C., & Newbould, D. (2008). Building
global bridges to the future: Opportunities and
challenges for cross-border distance education.
Proceedings of the 2008 European Distance
and E-Learning Network (EDEN) International
Conference. Budapest, Hungary: EDEN Secretariat.
Olcott, D. J. (2008d). Going global: Perils and promises
for open and distance education, Distance
Learning, 5(3), 81–89.
Stella, A. (2006, September). Quality assurance of
cross-border higher education in Australia.
Presented at UNESCO Seminar on Regulation in
Cross-Border higher Education: Issues and Trends:
21–22, New Delhi, India.
Thomas, E. (2007, November). Deﬁning the global
university. Position paper presented the OBHEWUN conference “Realising the Global University,”
UNESCO/OECD. (2005). Guidelines for Quality
Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education.
Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International
student mobility: Patterns and trends. London: The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Verbik, L., & Merkley, C. (2006). The international
branch campus: Models and trends. London: The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Woodhouse, D. (2006). The quality of transnational
education: A provider view. Quality in Higher
Education, 12(3), 277–281.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 9
Recommendations on Managing Effective
What are the most effective techniques?
(a) You never have a second chance to make a ﬁrst
impression. Do your homework before, not
after, you establish an international partnership.
Research your partner organization, its culture,
language, history, current partners, partnership
record, ﬁnancial stability, and how the organization
is perceived in its own country. What do they bring
to the table that you need? What are the potential
beneﬁts for both partners?
(b) Build partnerships that compliment your
organizational strengths? Does your potential
partner view these attributes as your strengths?
Why or why not? Do not attempt to be all things
to all people.
(c) Establish formative and summative performance
review processes (managerial, programmatic, and
ﬁnancial) from the outset. Presume from the start that
you will need to make adjustments, modiﬁcations
and perhaps major alterations to your partnership
strategy. Global economic, cultural, political, and
social environments can change rapidly. Can you?
How do you create sustainability?
(a) Create a diversiﬁed investment strategy—one
partner, but additional stakeholders who perceive
value in the endeavor and may invest money,
people, and time. Remember international
partnerships particularly in higher education
must be approached as a business venture.
(b) Build contingencies into your budget planning.
Every higher education budget on the planet
looks good on paper, but when it hits the real
world, the problems can start. Build your
budgets based on real costs plus inﬂation and the
projected costs of doing day-to-day business.
(c) Conduct extensive market research on your
customer(s) base. If your ﬁnancial plan is highly
dependent on student enrolment tuition and fees,
analyze the changes that are occurring in this sector
for the partnership country and surrounding region.
Students are becoming more mobile and more
selective with more higher education choices.
Collaboration and the curriculum.
(a) If your university-department is the primary content
provider, you retain control of the curriculum,
period. From a practical standpoint, however,
connecting your faculty with international faculty
in the partnership country can be beneﬁcial and
strengthen partnership collaboration.
(b) Align curriculum delivered abroad with the
process of ‘internationalizing’ the curriculum
on the campus. Developing curriculum that is
culturally, socially, historically, ethnically, and
gender accurate and sensitive are prerequisites
for all international curriculum.
(c) Diversity your delivery modes. Can you deliver a
signiﬁcant part of the curriculum via educational
technologies (distance learning)?
How do you present your partnerships to
internal and external stakeholders?
(a) Leaders must be able to articulate how the
partnership aligns, strengthens, and enhances the
mission of the university. How will the partnership
impact speciﬁc stakeholders?
(b) Beneﬁts–beneﬁts-beneﬁts. What are the beneﬁts
from the partnership? How will these beneﬁts be
assessed and by whom?
(c) Provide status reports to all key stakeholders,
particularly academic deans, faculty, and board
(d) What is your exit strategy if the partnership must
be terminated? Do you have an answer? Indeed,
you will be asked this question by multiple
stakeholders. Have you considered this from
a public relations, reputation, and marketing
Staff diversity to reﬂect the partnership.
(a) For foreign-based partnerships, hire local staff
to strengthen instruction and support services.
Take advantage of the culturally- and languagerich human resources available to support your
program and partnerships
(b) For campus-based partnerships, ensure you have
diverse staff with the communication, language,
cultural awareness, and social skills to interact
effectively with your international students.
(c) Ensure that partnership staff, faculty, and
students have multiple opportunities for sharing
comments, suggestions, and recommendations.
This should be an essential part of the partnership
and program assessment process.
Note: Sources for recommendations are Altbach & Peterson, 2007;
Connelly, Garton & Olsen, 2006; McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007; Olcott,