What makes for a successful international education hub?

GLOBAL

Transnational education (TNE), intended as “all types of higher education study programmes, or sets of courses of study, in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based”, has emerged over the past 20 years or so as a critical aspect of higher education internationalisation.

TNE has demonstrated its potential to widen access to quality international education for students who might not be able or willing to travel internationally. Despite the exponential growth of international student mobility over the same period, the percentage of internationally mobile students has remained constant at about 2%-3% of the total world tertiary education population.

TNE has also demonstrated its capacity to help meet skills and training needs in countries where demand might outstrip supply, reduce brain drain by training and retaining talent locally, enhance the quality of local tertiary education systems through the transfer of good practice, charting more environmentally conscious models of internationalisation, and support international education at times of crises as during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is therefore unsurprising that the international education community has seen significant growth of TNE across the board, including the number and type of education providers offering TNE, as well as the number of countries involved in TNE provision either as receiving or sending countries.

Growing TNE is now an integral part of sending and receiving countries’ internationalisation strategies, with traditional receiving countries of TNE now also starting to export national qualifications.

Importantly, we are at a particular historical juncture where both traditional receiving and sending countries of international students are seeing TNE as the solution for their different and opposite concerns.

The main receiving countries of international students see TNE as a means to alleviate national concerns about high levels of immigration, while the main sending countries see TNE as a means to halt brain drain and even start attracting international students themselves.

In connection with this growth, dedicated education hubs have emerged, and are continuing to emerge, in different regions of the world, aimed at attracting the services of quality foreign education providers and helping to meet the growing demand for quality international education ‘closer to home’.

Education hubs can play an increasingly strategic role going forward in an international context where it is possible to see a trend towards the regionalisation or ‘de-globalisation’ of international student mobility, and where a growing number of countries are seeking to leverage inbound TNE to train and retain talent locally.

A comparative overview

All international education hubs share the core rationale of boosting the local and national economy by attracting international investment in the form of international students, and academic infrastructure and expertise to support capacity development.

There may also be additional specific motivations depending on the broader socio-economic context in which education hubs operate. For example, some hubs cater specifically to expatriate communities, especially those developed within free trade zones that attract multinational companies, such as the hubs in Dubai (for example, Knowledge Park and International Academic City, among many others), Ras Al Khaimah Academic Zone (UAE) and Incheon Global Campus in South Korea.

Other hubs aim specifically to support urbanisation plans, particularly those related to greenfield projects such as EduCity Iskandar, Malaysia; Uniciti International Education Hub in Mauritius and Education City in Qatar. Other hubs have the goal of mitigating brain drain, especially those in traditional sending locations of international students, such as Hainan Li’an International Education Park in China, as well as EduCity Iskandar and Incheon Global Campus.

The ownership and funding source for hubs can vary. Some, like Ras Al Khaimah Academic Zone, Hainan Li’an International Education Park and Incheon Global Campus are fully owned and financed by governments, through a combination of central and local government funding.

Some others are owned and funded by investment companies supported by government, such as the TECOM Group in Dubai and Iskandar Investment for EduCity in Malaysia. Other hubs are fully owned by private entities, such as the Medine Group for Uniciti in Mauritius and the Qatar Foundation in Qatar, although, while Uniciti is exclusively funded by the Medine Group, the Qatar Foundation Education City receives significant public funding support.

The level of support and incentives for foreign providers to operate in different hubs can vary significantly. Typically, more generous incentives and support are associated with hubs supported by public funding, such as Education City in Qatar, the Hainan International Education Park and Incheon Global Campus.

In these cases, teaching facilities are fully provided by the hubs, with various favourable financial arrangements, such as free rental for the initial years of establishment or subsidised rental fees.

Generally, all hubs, although to different extents, provide some shared facilities, such as student housing, student services, leisure activities, libraries and food halls. Students may directly pay for these facilities or, in some cases, providers may cover the cost based on student enrolment.

Hubs may offer additional services to providers, such as assistance with marketing, recruitment, visa support, industry engagement, obtaining operational licences and academic accreditation. Some hubs and government entities may also provide scholarships for both national and international students to support their studies with providers based in the hubs.

Hubs located in free trade zones usually have more favourable regulations, not only for trade-related aspects like taxation but also for academic regulations. In the UAE, foreign providers operating in the free trade zones of Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah are exempt from federal-level accreditation.

The Hainan International Education Park is the only place in China where foreign providers are allowed to fully own their branch campus, without having to partner with a local institution. Similarly, while foreign providers operating within the Incheon Global Campus must undergo accreditation by the national accreditation authority, the process is less burdensome compared to the accreditation process for Korean universities.

Different delivery models

The accepted delivery models might also vary. The most common model for all hubs is the branch campus model. Some hubs accept different delivery models such as smaller teaching centres, or franchise arrangements with local providers. Uniciti in Mauritius can deliver education programmes directly on behalf of foreign providers using their pool of local lecturers.

At one point, EduCity Iskandar established its own EduCity College to offer franchised programmes. Education City in Qatar is the only hub that has been proactively encouraging a multiversity model, whereby students can take courses offered by different providers in the hub and have these recognised towards their degrees. Hainan International Education Park also intends to encourage this multiversity model as it develops further.

Different hubs tend to attract foreign providers from different prominent sending countries, usually due to geopolitical and historical connections. For example, Uniciti in Mauritius hosts primarily providers from France, the UK and India. EduCity in Malaysia has so far attracted providers from the UK and Singapore. Meanwhile, Education City in Qatar and Incheon Global Campus have primarily sourced their foreign provision from the US.

The hubs with a wider diversity of sending countries are those of Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah, although there is still a predominance of traditional TNE-sending countries such as the UK, the US and Australia. All hubs generally have plans to diversify the origin of their TNE providers going forward.

The process of attracting foreign providers to operate in an education hub can also vary in terms of selectivity. Generally, the higher the government investment, the more selective and centrally driven is the process for attracting and approving providers operating in the hub.

Qatar Foundation Education City is arguably the most selective, with foreign providers being proactively invited to operate in the hub according to the identified skills and education needs of the country. Incheon Global Campus is also highly selective, with a particular preference for highly ranked and research-intensive universities.

Success factors

The above comparative considerations, based on conversations with managers of education hubs and practitioners with knowledge and experience of operating in the hubs, do not point to a single best model for establishing and operating an international education hub.

Different models have their advantages and value depending on various factors, particularly the main rationale underlying the establishment of a hub and the broader operating socio-economic and regulatory context.

Based on the above comparative overview it is, however, possible to formulate a range of recommendations about the key aspects to consider in developing a successful international

education hub:

• Set out a clear rationale for the hub: It is critical to clearly outline from the beginning what the goals to be achieved with the establishment of an international education hub are, as these might require different strategies and solutions.

• Understand the motivations and needs of all key different stakeholders: It is critical to have a clear understanding of the motivations and needs of all key stakeholders upon which the successful realisation of an international education hub depends, such as TNE providers, local and international students, third party investors, local industry and the local communities.

• Develop an attractive environment for TNE providers and students: It is critical to ensure that the international education hub offers sufficient incentives to attract foreign providers and students, that is, supply and demand, in a sustainable way.

Factors to consider in this context are:

• Set-up costs: It is important to find ways to lower the financial risk or burden on providers for initial set-up, reducing the time for returns on investment.

• Ecosystem: Create an ecosystem of demand for skills and training at both ends, including, for example, K-12 and local industries and companies.

• Student experience: Factors to consider include the availability of quality accommodation, transport, leisure activity, and food options, as well as quality teaching and learning facilities, work opportunities and student finance.

• Student and work visa: How easy and attractive is the visa system for international students and international staff?

• Academic regulation: Establish a clear process for foreign providers to obtain a licence to operate and the required academic accreditation, with a view to lessening the regulatory burden as far as is possible.

These are some of the main aspects to consider when developing an international education hub. They will critically inform, and-or will be informed by the selection of the location for the establishment of the hub.

The less a hub is integrated into a natural ecosystem of demand for training and skills, and the less connected it is with services such as transport, accommodation, amenities and leisure activities, the more investment it will require to attract initial demand and supply and eventually develop the ecosystem and levels of connectedness and urbanisation required for the development of sustainable education hubs.

Dr Fabrizio Trifiró is director of Q-intled and an international education expert. The research underpinning this comparative overview was supported by funding from the British Council Viet Nam as part of a broader study commissioned by the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training, looking at challenges and opportunities for establishing Viet Nam as the next education hub in Southeast Asia. Fabrizio would like to thank Dhanjay Jhurry, Francisco Marmolejo, Nitesh Sughnani, Azizah Khalid Merican, Taner Topcu, Pyungryun Brian Yu, Dungyeop Yeon, Kyuseok Kim, Wan Ahmad Saifuddin and Vincenzo Raimo for very helpful conversations about the different hubs’ models of operation. He is also grateful to the research team that supported the British Council Viet Nam project, including Janet Ilieva, Minh Quach, Van Anh Hoang, Xuan Vang Nguyen, Hiep Pham and Lien-Huong Nguyen.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}