quality, profit, and the public good tensions in cross-border delivery of higher education

Quality, Profit, and the Public GoodTensions in Cross-Border Delivery of Higher Education

Kevin KinserDepartment of Educational Administration and Policy Studies

University at Albany

State University of New York

Quality

• Standard– Pre-defined criteria: Implicit or explicit

• Measurement– Data collection and reporting

• Assessment– Judgment: what is good

Quality Assurance

• External evaluation• Community norms• Public confidence

• Who is evaluating?• Whose norms?• Which public?

Quality Insurance?

Profit

• Revenue – Expenses = Surplus

• Fee-based, unsubsidized = Private

• Shareholder/owner compensation = Profit

Distinction: Home or Cross-Border location?

Public Good

• Higher education should contribute to the realization of significant public ends (Kezar, et al, 2005)

• Benefits accrue to society as a whole

• Contemporary Challenges– expanding private sector, privatization– economic, competitiveness rationale

Public benefits in a global market?

Endemism

• Natural to or characteristic of a specific place

• Belonging to a particular people or country

• Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region

• Prevalent in a specific field, area, or environment

Organizational Endemism

• Organizations are embedded in a physical location and uniquely situated to thrive within its context

• Relationship between the geopolitical environment and the organization– structures, associations, and economic

conditions connected with a particular region

Adapted from Lane & Kinser, 2008

Endemic Higher Education

• Higher education has traditionally been geographically focused and state supported

• Borders are important– define the boundaries of institutional service

– define the scope of political sponsorship

• Legally, economically, and culturally linked to their native geopolitical environment.

Non-Endemic Academics

• Higher education operating outside of its geopolitical home base

• Requires adaptation to the new environment

• Tests resiliency of existing systems and procedures (e.g., quality assurance)

Cross-border activity

Invasive or Cultivar?

Endemic Quality Assurance

• Place of origin matters

• Establish trust in the source

• Regulate the delivery

• Importing higher education– Acceptable, creditable, valuable

• Exporting higher education– Protection of the national “brand”

Cross-Border Models

• Branch campus• Foreign ownership• Curriculum supply

• Joint venture• Distance education• Partnerships

Ubiquitously private, increasingly for-profit

U.S. Case: Regulatory Triad

• Federal oversight: Accountability

• State registration: Approval

• Accreditation review: Quality Assurance– voluntary– non-governmental– multiple agencies

U.S. “Domestic” Cross-Border

• Each state represents a distinctive regulatory environment

• Endemic higher education the norm– Public, private, for-profit institutions typically

operate in a single state

• Relatively permeable borders– U.S. Constitution Commerce clause

• Non-endemic is a private activity

U.S. Non-endemic examples

• Public– Troy University: 8 fed, 15 states; SACS– University of Toledo: 1 fed, 1 state; HLC

• Private– Webster University: 1 fed, 20 states; HLC– Western Governors Univ: 1 fed, 48 states; NW, DETC

• For-profit– Strayer University: 60 fed, 15 states; MSA– Kaplan College/Univ: 33 fed, 20 states; HLC, ACICS,

ACCSCT, DETC

Quality Confusion

• Triad pressured by non-endemic higher education– States serve as inconsistent regulators

• limited control of exporting

• variable oversight of importing

– Multiple accreditation options provide conflicting standards; compliance concerns

– Feds unconcerned with locations

Why Private Matters

• Control separated from geography

• Financial incentives and market pressures encourage expansion

• Public good competes with private benefit

• Quality assurance as operating expense– Argument for legitimacy

“A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

Quality and Legitimacy

“A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

Quality and Legitimacy

“A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

Quality and Legitimacy

“A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.” (Suchman, 1995)

Quality and Legitimacy

International Implications

• Permeable borders encourage non-endemic activity

• Public institutions not distinctive from private, for-profit

• Borders remain barriers to state oversight• Endemic quality assurance may not adequately

address non-endemic functions• Even in a robust regulatory environment, non-

endemic institutions can control the process

Conclusion