December 20th, 2024

Developing a Safety Net for Transnational Inclusion in Higher Education

By Chayton Massic and Jayanna Killingsworth

Link to JSE December 2024 CECR Issue Table of Contents

Massic and Killingsworth JSE Dec 2024 CECR Issue PDF

Abstract: The globalized intertwinement of modern education systems has resulted in an upsurge in transnational collaborations. Existing literature suggests that transnational inclusion is in jeopardy due to its rapid and haphazard expansion prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this challenge, the aim of this research was to develop essential themes for fostering more inclusive learning spaces between Higher Education Institutions that are partnered transnationally. The researchers performed an Integrative Literature Review that sought to identify existing gaps in how inclusive interactions are currently facilitated in Transnational Education (TNE). The transnational experiences of the researchers in higher education supported an understanding that inclusion can be best enhanced through the responsible use of collaborative, technological, and financial resources. Each of these resources were explored, which led to the creation of the Safety Net for Transnational Inclusion (SNTI). By considering SNTI, institutions involved in TNE relations at the higher education level are better informed on how to cultivate a more inclusive learning experience.

Keywords: transnational, inclusion, higher education, partnerships, integrative, pandemic.

 

Introduction

Educational institutions serve as entity-based leaders capable of offering services that transcend beyond the nation in which they physically reside (Rottleb et al., 2022). It is important to understand how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) became entity-based leaders and how sustainable development can support their transnational role in the global climate crisis. As defined by the Brundtland Report in 1987, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development). Five years later, the Earth Summit called for HEIs to lean into sustainable development by enhancing policies and furthering research (United Nations, 1992). The products of these early efforts served to foster a sense of synergy between sustainable development and higher education.

At the turn of the twenty-first century, international directions for partnerships were adopted by the eighth Millennium Development Goals (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2000). These goals aimed to globalize partnerships for executing development initiatives and eradicating injustices. Subsequently, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emerged in 2015 as the guiding framework for sustainable development (United Nations). Of the 17 SDGs, two of the goals include Quality Education for Lifelong Learning and Global Partnerships. These goals resulted in institutions looking overseas to increase their potential to provide reputable educational opportunities (UNESCO, 2021). The transformative expansion of sustainable development and higher education through time is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Timeline for synergizing sustainable development and higher education at a global scale.

While advancements were made to introduce TNE opportunities at a global scale, the level of inclusivity embedded in these opportunities has yet to reach its full potential (Kopnina, 2020). In 2023, the International Panel on Climate Change publicly advocated for more inclusive spaces to foster adaptive forms of climate resilience, as these spaces would solidify existing gaps in Transnational Education (TNE) and allow HEIs to further uphold their commitment to supporting the mitigation of global climate change (Coenen et al., 2021). In order to see success in these efforts, a culture of collaboration must take form that honors and empowers a diverse array of partner experiences. A collaborative TNE culture will allow institutions to further develop their capacity building for teaching and learning within their communities (Kohl et al., 2022). Unfortunately, the emergence of TNE was inefficiently hastened by the virtualization of education prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic (Popa, 2022). As a result, efforts to optimize inclusive opportunities were left disjointed in the midst of the global climate crisis (Courtland, 2022).

The aim of this research was to address the hastened rollout of TNE by developing essential themes for fostering more inclusive learning spaces between HEIs that are partnered transnationally. For the purposes of this research, transnational inclusion serves as a branch of inclusion that is tied to the cultivation of welcoming learning spaces between two or more nations. This principality of inclusion means that the voices of the home and host institutions must acknowledge that co-leadership and equitable involvement are essential to fostering a reciprocal experience. There must be an intentional effort to embrace underrepresented voices, as such voices are more susceptible to being left out of developmental planning (Singh, 2018; Partridge & Chin, 2019). The findings of this research were used to construct a model for elevating transnational inclusion between HEIs that considers the utilization of collaborative, technological, and financial resources.

Research Methodology

Integrative Literature Review
This integrative literature review sought to develop essential themes for amplifying inclusivity within TNE partnerships. Integrative literature reviews provide the opportunity for researchers to concurrently gather existing knowledge while formulating novel approaches to a topic (Cho, 2022). With these novel approaches comes the ability to reconceptualize, allowing for a topic to undergo critical analysis (Torraco, 2016). In concert with the critical analysis performed in this methodology, the researchers of this article sought to incorporate their professional life experiences as they relate to TNE collaborations (Kolb, 2015). These experiences were accumulated in educational institutions offering global learning opportunities through virtual education modalities.

Article Selection Criteria
To encapsulate the recent global events of the COVID–19 pandemic, the article selection process sought to include articles that were published within the past five years (2018-2023) from the time of the review. Due to the importance the researchers placed on democratized educational resources, only publicly available resources from the Google Scholar Database were searched. Within this database, the following combination of keywords and acronyms were searched to capture a wide range of publications relevant to the research focus: transnational education, transnational HEIs, TNE inclusion, and transnational inclusion in HEIs. With the guidance of these criteria points, ten articles were selected for review.

Article Analysis
The results of the literature review were analyzed with three predetermined, qualitatively focused thematic keywords: collaboration, technology, and finance. Each theme represents an area of prime consideration and informs the content appropriate for contextualizing the relationships between articles (Onwuegbuzie, et al., 2012). The predetermination of these themes was influenced by a culmination of autoethnographic researcher reflections and the prominent concerns facing HEIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Upon performing the integrative literature review, it was found that the articles selected took on a diverse array of global education contexts at the postsecondary level. With respect to the presence of the predetermined themes, 100% of the scholarly articles directly mentioned the need for collaboration in TNE partnerships, 80% of the articles said the same for technology, and 60% referenced finance as being an influential area to consider when fostering productive and inclusive spaces for all partners. This means that each of the themes presented below were referenced by more than half of the article selections, corroborating the autoethnographic researcher reflections that introduced collaboration, technology, and finance to this review.

Theme 1: Collaboration
An overarching takeaway from the integrative literature review is that there must be an intentional incorporation of all partner perspectives in the systems and structures that facilitate transnational learning. This understanding was supported by a seminal piece from Tran et al. (2023), who reviewed 227 articles on higher education in transnational contexts and concluded that there are often as many as nine different partner groups involved in TNE collaborations. With a multitude of partners identified, it is important to ensure that they are each granted a seat at the table when the development of a TNE partnership is taking place (Singh & Singh, 2023). Without equitable opportunities for meaningful involvement across all partner groups, inclusivity may be compromised during the collaborative process (Rowley & Skipper, 2020).

Thompson et al. (2022) shared that a primary focus of the European Commission involves working with underutilized talent subjected to gender inequalities to promote inclusive collaboration. They added that similar focuses often emerge in group spaces such as Communities of Practice, which led them to propose the idea of assigning an institutional staff member with the role of facilitating Communities of Practice transnationally. This suggests that creating formalized channels for TNE in HEIs can foster a greater sense of inclusion for all affiliates. In striving for more collaborative TNE partnerships grounded in inclusivity, the findings indicate that intercultural and curricular processes are of paramount importance.

Interculturality
One way to embrace collaborative opportunities in TNE partnerships is to create more channels for interculturality in the planning and implementation processes. When the partnerships are intentionally intercultural, there is a strong belief that solidarity between the institutions is possible. This philosophy was promoted by Freire through the 1990’s and has continued to contextualize intercultural collaborations in recent years (Gandolf, 2023). Without context-specific sensitivities towards interculturality, TNE partnerships can appear unidirectional (Gandolf, 2023; Hampel, 2021). A unidirectionality serves to amplify the cultural presence of one TNE partner while suppressing that of another, resulting in exclusion, loneliness, and isolation for those who are underrepresented (Suguku, 2023). The emergence of these sentiments can lead to participant dissociation and retraction from engaging in interactions, thus perpetuating the exclusion of their involvement in the partnership.

Tran et al. (2023) reinforced the notion of cultural exclusion serving as a central problem in TNE by stating that, “It is the internationalization of the curricula and the development of the transnational staff that ensures proper support for the student transition and the formation of intercultural competence” (p. 121). Determining the effective balance between internationalization and context specificity in the design of a TNE partnership can result in proper support channels taking form. This balance must be achieved in many areas, one of which being the curricular realm.

Curricular
The solution to developing curricula in a way that is inclusive of all partners involves examining the design process (Rowley & Skipper, 2020). Tran et al. (2023) claimed that the curriculum must be internationalized to best reflect the experiences of all partners and ensure that skill development is optimized. One way that collaborative intercultural efforts can be applied during curriculum development is through the use of Participatory Action Learning (PAL) tools that are “useful for expanding and re-shaping the boundaries in TNE in ways that support the creation of transnational teaching teams and intercultural communities of practice” (Keevers et al., 2019, p. 2). Common curricular PAL tools include story-telling, visual-aids, role-playing, group discussions, and observations. In the context of partnership inclusion, these tools should be leveraged to support the cultivation of meaningful collaborations between partners aiming to address curricular needs.

Efforts for collaborative curriculum design have been praised by virtual internationalization experts, and efforts within the European Union are embracing the idea of innovation with respect to curriculum (Bruhn-Zass, 2023; Fumasoli & Rossi, 2021). The findings suggest that there is existing curricula designed for universal application across all transnational partnerships at the higher education level. Using a curriculum that has been created for a TNE partnership can support the introduction of inclusive sentiments that lay the foundations for ensuring that inclusion is met with a sense of belonging for new students (Tran et al., 2023). Those working in TNE relations could also turn to investing more efforts into strategic partnerships, which are geared towards promoting social inclusion through partaking in cooperative interactions (Fumasoli & Rossi, 2021). One element that plays a critical role in fostering collaborations between HEIs is technology.

Theme 2: Technology
The literature served to amplify the importance of technology in ensuring that TNE actively takes on an inclusive trajectory. With the rise of virtual communities such as e-learning platforms, videoconferencing, and other relationship-enriching tools, technology fosters spaces that are conducive to providing a sense of belonging, regardless of the geographic location in which a partner resides (Keevers et al., 2019). This new virtual landscape, which Bruhn-Zass (2023) adopts as an umbrella term for the various virtual forms of study abroad, exchange, field trips, transnational labs, or expert mobility, effectively expanded the facilitation of intercultural projects. All of these practices contributed to redefining boundaries for enhancing student learning. However, many of these technological capabilities were still limited in scope prior to COVID–19. This turning point brought on by the pandemic served as the catalyst for bringing increased forms of virtual mobility from niche to mainstream in many HEIs. In order to leverage technology in ways that increase transnational inclusion, understanding the role of accessibility and complexity is of crucial importance.

Accessibility
The technological systems and structures that guide transnational partnerships have been successful in facilitating a greater sense of connectivity through remote interaction when effectively put to use. However, Tran et al. (2023) argued that the remote nature of transnational partnerships has, in part, led to an inability for partners to access spaces where applicational skills can be acquired and enhanced. While the theoretical components of a discipline are generally acquired in the partnerships, these are not always accompanied by the applicational skills necessary to complete basic internationalized job functions outside of academia (Fumasoli & Rossi, 2021; Tran et al., 2023). This makes the potential to acquire a comprehensive learning experience inaccessible. As a result, a barrier to accessible capacity building is seen in the learning spaces. Involved parties must ensure that partners do not feel isolated from the resources necessary for holistic skill acquisition. This may involve home and host institutions acquiring knowledge of student cultures, needs, and learning styles since difficulties in understanding these could limit the successful creation of spaces that represent all participating students (Thompson et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2023). By leveraging technological modalities to make skillbuilding opportunities more accessible, TNE partnerships are able to uplift academic rigor.

The deficiencies in applicable learning outcomes that can arise in TNE have the potential to trickle into the qualifications of participating students upon degree completion. This highlights the fact that when the skill-building facets of a discipline are left inaccessible during the instructional period, their absence becomes apparent during future employment (Fumasoli & Rossi, 2021). Even when both theoretical and applicational skills have been picked up by the learner, transnational credentials are still sometimes challenging to transfer on an international scale. One of the approaches to fostering a greater sense of accessibility in career opportunities after receiving a TNE-derived skill set involves implementing blockchain technologies (Hampel, 2021; Bruhn-Zass, 2023). These technologies allow a more efficient way for educational credentials to be shared and acknowledged internationally. Collective steps must be taken to acknowledge the validity of TNE to amplify equity seen in opportunities, thus including transnational alumni in the labor market. The literature has shown that accessibility continues to be a prime consideration for transnational inclusion, and the nuanced nature of the barriers will require critical thinking for a successful prevail. Critical thinking will be especially useful when engaging with technological complexities.

Complexity
Due to the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a hasty rollout of virtualized modes of learning, technological complexity was in many ways compromised by convenience (Bruhn–Zass, 2023). The reliance on the existing forms of technology, such as emailing, video conferencing, and social media can be useful in remote connectivity but can also serve as a hindrance to synchronized teaching interactions between those in a TNE partnership (Keevers et al., 2019; Singh & Singh, 2023). There are more complex modes of learning and sharing that can also be supported by technology. For example, additional tools, such as shared cyber-spaces, have great potential but are often disregarded on the basis of convenience in set-up and integration (Keevers et al., 2019). The complexity of technology must be embraced in ways that can instill a stronger sense of belonging within TNE partners to increase the quality of their overall experience.

Furthermore, the technological shortcomings seen in TNE must be identified and resolved to foster a greater sense of inclusion for vulnerable participants (Fumasoli & Rossi, 2021). This will involve getting creative with the complexities that accompany technological resources to ensure they are optimally utilized in partnerships. As noted by Singh & Singh (2023), many traditional barriers that existed on the international level of academic relations have since been remedied through the maximization of technology. This means that it is the responsibility of the home and host institutions to ensure that present-day barriers to technology are overcome in a timely manner to prevent an accumulation of challenges. This can be especially difficult when there are ongoing concerns surrounding the utilization of technological resources.

Some researchers argue that technology at large is still difficult for students to navigate, whereas other findings suggest the hesitation to adopt inclusive technology for transnational spaces is simply due to contention between the involved parties on how it should be utilized (Keevers et al., 2019; Singh & Singh, 2023). To address this difficulty, Bruhn–Zass (2023) recommended that distance educators lean even further into technological application by adopting Virtual Internationalization (VI) practices that have the potential to allow for a more formalized and seamless use of technology. Since VI spaces often combine many technological tools and dimensions, there is the potential to alleviate issues surrounding synchronous learning spaces. After all, it has been found that leaning into the complexities of technology with an innovative lens can result in the generation of revenue (Suguku, 2023). This introduces the third major theme derived from the literature: finance.

Theme 3: Finance
The role of finance was found to be paramount in amplifying inclusivity. TNE partnerships are able to generate fiscal benefits for both home and host institutions when investments are made responsibly. There are a plethora of ways in which this is possible: through financial growth, market penetration, capacity building, skills development, and chances for cultural exchange (Rowley & Skipper, 2020). For these capabilities to be realized, adequate pools of financial resources are often required to ensure that the delivery of services and transfers of knowledge can happen in a reciprocal fashion (Tran et al., 2023). This is due to the costly overhead that many TNE programs require. Furthermore, it is necessary that financing inclusive initiatives be sustainably secured (Hampel, 2021). The need for longevity and continuity with respect to fiscal interplay introduces the idea of profit and investment being key attributes to the financial viability of transnational inclusion.

Profit
When looking at TNE partnerships, it is important to identify whether or not profiting is the primary motivation for the partnership formation. Uncovering the primary motivation of the HEIs has the potential to yield conclusions on the state of the partnership with respect to inclusivity. A study performed on a TNE partnership between the United Kingdom (UK) and China found that the financial profits of the institution are the leading factors for the transnational partnership (Rowley & Skipper, 2020). While the study did not refer to the profits generated from the partnership, it explored systemic motivations for each institution and distributed a survey to those directly involved in the partnership. It was reported that a number of commentators saw financial gain as a primary motivation for UK institutions, and the UK survey respondents also acknowledged this benefit in their efforts to engage in a TNE partnership. The Chinese government sees TNE as an arena for economic and social development, but financial gain was not mentioned by any of the survey respondents from China, as they focused more on the opportunities for academic excellence. Putting these motivations aside, a major takeaway from this study is that language barriers exist in instructional interactions, which inhibited 82% of China’s students from feeling included in the partnership offerings. Furthermore, the financial demands placed on scholars from China by the UK institution were notably significant (Rowley & Skipper, 2020). These findings correlate with the understanding that profit motivations can compromise the state of transnational inclusion.

However, this does not have to be the trend seen within TNE partnerships. In fact, when efforts to foster transnational inclusion are at the forefront of a partnership, reciprocity in profiting is possible. Hampel (2021) outlined the Triple Win scenario to show how all TNE partners can profit from the experience. The Triple Win scenario allows for host countries to increase tax revenue and acquire more skilled personnel that can support the advancement of interculturality in social systems. Meanwhile, migrants are able to elevate their standard of living, and home countries can benefit from incoming funds and investments from abroad as well as through knowledge and resource transfers (Hampel, 2021). Rowley and Skipper (2020) affirmed the premise that transnational partnerships have the potential to foster financial growth. They elaborated that this growth emerges when skill development and cultural awareness are benefiting all affiliated partners.

Investment
The above findings on profits have shown that the motivations of partners can sometimes serve as a hindrance to advancing inclusivity in TNE. The literature reviewed suggested that when gaps in inclusivity are present in a TNE partnership, it is important to ensure that any profits generated are being invested back into the partnership to supply inclusive initiatives with the financial resources needed for their successful implementations.
One way to invest in the advancement of inclusivity in TNE involves virtually internationalizing the partnership to embrace and integrate interculturality (Bruhn-Zass, 2023). This paves the way for partnership longevity, which can lead to a more sustainable profit that has been generated equitably. As highlighted with financial profiting, UK staff and faculty expressed that efforts to create transnational learning spaces in their institutions are financially driven and often lack the level of investment required for including the host institution in developmental processes (Rowley & Skipper, 2020). In this scenario, the English dominant modes of instructional delivery were not virtually internationalized in a way that was responsive to the diversity of partner languages.

There is also great potential to amplify inclusivity by investing in strategic partnerships and knowledge alliances. Strategic partnerships, mentioned previously as collaborative solutions to enhancing inclusion, offer innovative opportunities to elevate transnational projects between different institutions; knowledge alliances encompass financial opportunities from a business perspective, but they ensure that this does not compromise the ability to foster learner-centered spaces (Fumasoli & Rossi, 2021). The literature suggested that there is a fine line between intentions to partake in a transnational partnership, and researchers worry that educational imperialism could be inhibiting the incorporation of student needs into necessary practices (Tran et al., 2023). Ultimately, the fiscal benefits have the potential to prompt many countries to invest in such partnerships (Suguku, 2023), though it is important that the investments are made in conjunction with, and not at the compromise of, participant inclusion.

Discussion

The literature explored the three primary themes that were predetermined by the autoethnographic researcher reflections and the prominent concerns facing HEIs during the pandemic: collaboration, technology, and finance. As the literature reinforced, these themes are vital for the advancement of inclusivity in TNE. Furthermore, the following emerged as secondary themes based on their notable presence: interculturality, curricular, accessibility, complexity, profit, and investment. Overall, the findings support the assertion that the current state of inclusivity in TNE partnerships is in jeopardy unless all of the identified themes are used simultaneously and in conjunction with one another. Due to the sense of added urgency brought on by COVID-19, the researchers sought a way to visualize the intersections between the primary and secondary themes. This prompted the creation of the Safety Net for Transnational Inclusion (SNTI). In SNTI, the primary themes serve as the ties and the secondary themes identified serve as the strings. The dissection of the safety net is expanded upon in the subsequent sections.

The Safety Net for Transnational Inclusion
The SNTI is essentially a figurative net, as seen in Figure 2, that has been assembled with the pertinent materials necessary to address the shortcomings in inclusivity that often exist in TNE partnerships. When the safety net is used collectively, its ultimate objective is to capture the voices of all TNE partners to support their integration into the planning and implementation processes. This objective is especially important for embedding the underrepresented voices of a partnership, as their integration is often limited (Öztabak, 2022).

Figure 2: Visual Example of The Safety Net for Transnational Inclusion (SNTI).

Reflecting on the emergence of this new wave of learning, it can be argued that a lack of inclusivity in TNE is hindering the sense of belonging that people feel in these partnerships. To increase awareness on the importance of inclusivity, SNTI could be used to advocate for financial investing in more Participatory Action Learning (PAL) opportunities. The use of PAL is a way to foster collaborative co-development and enrich the relationships of partners (Keevers et al., 2019). Alam et al. (2013) found that regional hubs can serve as collaborative educational spaces that maintain intimate connectivity in a transnational context. These hubs have the ability to support PAL interaction with nearly endless restrictions when technology is used to its fullest extent. In addition to leveraging these advancements, interactive modalities and locational physicalities could be further supported by a Culturally Responsive and Transnational Pedagogy (CRTP) that is able to internationalize the instructional components of a partnership (Kim, 2024). A CRTP could be created in a way that embraces adaptivity and context specificity, as this would ultimately elevate student comprehension and program persistence. The potential for more responsive pedagogies in TNE fosters greater inclusivity and ultimately supports partnership longevity. All of these considerations are significant because when a participant feels empowered in a TNE partnership, a level of trust is gained in the space that elevates long-term confidence, loyalty, and engagement (Heffernan et al., 2018). The SNTI seeks to include partners by allowing them to thrive in the collaborative, co-creation process by providing them with the educational tools for effective knowledge-building and productive participatory action-taking. The safety net’s primary means of support are its ties – the ties of collaboration, technology, and finance.

The Ties
In order for SNTI to be effective, it must be woven with the ties needed for HEIs to provide an inclusive experience. These ties are the primary themes that have been identified in this review: collaboration, technology, and finance. The significance of these ties in the creation of the net is their potential to address the gaps that exist with respect to inclusion if used responsibly and in harmony with one another. This potential was identified through autoethnographic researcher reflections prior to the review, where it was then verified by the contents of the literature.

The structure of the safety net is supported by the intersectionalities that exist between the ties, that is, the interconnectedness of collaboration, technology, and finance in supporting transnational inclusion. A notable example was seen when The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia first began partaking in collaborative discussions with Canada on how to foster a productive TNE partnership at the turn of the twenty-first century (Bannier, 2016). These types of discussions allow for an easy transfer of various forms of knowledge and can establish baseline transparency for the motivations of each TNE partner prior to their engagement in a formalized exchange. The collaborative efforts of King Fahd University and the University of British Columbia led to the development of their own set of e-learning initiatives (Bannier, 2016).

The rate at which digital initiatives were launched in the earlier portion of the twenty-first century is incomparable to when such initiatives were relied upon during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the opportunities for virtual collaboration spaces conducive to learning have increased with the influence of the pandemic and the use of technology, we must ensure that such technologies are met with an adequate level of accessibility (Caniglia et al., 2017). This type of effort is often paired with the term digital inclusion, which signifies a branch of inclusion geared towards reviewing the status of user accessibility through a multifaceted approach that considers the intersections of race, class, ethnic background, age, gender, and disability (Parsons & Hick, 2008). One of the strongest assets of digital inclusion is the effective use of financial resources. The recent financial investments made in both Bulgaria and Thailand to support minoritized populations with telecommunication services serve as instances where financial resources have advanced digital inclusion and collaborative potential (Bailey & Nyabola, 2021; Reisdorf & Rhinesmith, 2020). In cases like these, where the ties are all mutually-enhancing, the safety net is able to capture such synergies and use them in a way that instills reciprocity in the strive for inclusivity.

As mentioned previously, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an upsurge in virtual learning spaces, which prompted a deeper level of TNE explorations and implementations (Angouri, 2023). This has opened the door to a multitude of ways that these ties can work in conjunction with one another to support the inclusion of all partners. For the advancement of transnational inclusion, arguably the single most significant initiative involves contextualizing the learning experience to the local communities of the partnered HEIs (Koehn, 2012). This initiative relies not only on the primary themes that serve as the safety net ties but also on the secondary themes that serve as the safety net strings.

The Strings
The ties for assembling SNTI are only as strong as the strings used to form them. The literature review revealed six prominent strings that serve as points of connectivity for the three ties. For the collaboration tie, we must see intercultural and curricular strings involved in connecting the systems and structures of transnational partnerships to support inclusivity. With the technology tie, accessibility and complexity strings must be appropriately understood and utilized to support this same objective. Furthermore, when assessing the financial tie, there must be careful consideration and implementation of investment and profit strings. In efforts to make the shift towards more inclusive TNE partnerships, there must be a collaborative process for choosing curricular modalities for instructional design. Historically, these partnerships would be centered around the curriculum that the home institution provides (Wilkins & Juusola, 2018). This, in turn, leaves the host institution excluded from the curriculum design and implementation process, potentially leaving their partners disconnected or unfamiliar with the instructional content.

However, institutions have the potential to build cultural and global awareness if they are able to make the shift towards internationalizing their curriculum (Wilkins & Juusola, 2018). This shift can only be successful if interculturality is seen throughout the process, as there is generally a diverse partner makeup in TNE partnerships (Allen, 2014). In the case of technological considerations, access to the technologies needed for developing a positive learning experience must be equitably provided; not only is this essential for amplifying inclusivity, but the level of technological accessibility and complexity an institution provides can also serve as a determining factor for students looking to pursue TNE (Heffernan et al., 2018). This finding shows how the foundation of a TNE partnership must be solid to sustain longevity in student enrollment.

Technology access and complexity can be further optimized when they are met with adequate financial investment. For example, investing in the technical expertise and cultural awareness of instructional staff has the potential to ease accessibility and support the achievement of contributive justice for partners (Sangwand, 2023). In terms of financial profiting, it is important that profits are only seen when there is no demand for further investments in collaborative or technological upgrades. A strategic allocation of financial resources can build trust between the home and host institutions, which solidifies the potential for partnership continuity (Trifiro, 2018). Considered collectively, the six strings serve as pivotal resources that can influence the trajectory of TNE partnerships. The SNTI serves as a mechanism for bringing awareness to the strategies necessary for elevating the quality of transnational inclusion. The ties are working to build intertie connectivity, and the strings are used in a way that lays a foundation conducive to allowing the synergies between ties to effortlessly transpire.

Conclusion

The aim of this research was to develop essential themes for fostering more inclusive learning spaces between HEIs that are partnered transnationally. The predetermination of the primary themes was influenced by a culmination of autoethnographic researcher reflections and the prominent concerns facing HEIs during the COVID-19 pandemic. These primary themes were collaboration, technology, and finance. The literature reinforced an understanding that these themes are vital for the advancement of inclusivity in TNE. The findings also paved the way for a series of secondary themes to emerge: interculturality, curricular, accessibility, complexity, profit, and investment. An overarching takeaway was that the failure to include all partners in the development of a transnational partnership could have consequential impacts on its longevity and sustainability. This impact has the potential to compromise the success of multiple SDGs that are reliant on transnational opportunities. In addressing the limitations posed by the current state of TNE, the researchers urge the adoption of SNTI, which bolsters the prioritization of inclusivity amongst all partnership affiliates. Adopting SNTI can build rapport and trust between the partners of the home and host institutions by serving to counteract unidirectional efforts. Furthermore, HEIs serve as resilient entity-based leaders in the wake of sustainable development and are equipped with the tools to adapt to changing conditions. This review can support the further research and operational advancement of transnational inclusion and higher education in a post-pandemic world.

References

Alam, F., Alam, Q., Chowdhury, H., Steiner, T. (2013). Transnational education: Benefits, threats and challenges. Procedia Engineering, 56, 870-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.209

Allen, J.F. (2014) Investigating transnational collaboration of faculty development and learning: An argument for making learning culturally relevant. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080217

Angouri, J. (2023). Transnational collaboration and mobility in higher education: Looking back –looking forward. The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and Bern Open Publishing, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.48350/183223

Bailey, L.E., and Nyabola, N. (June, 2021). Digital equity as an enabling platform for equality and inclusion. Pathfinders. https://cic.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/1662/65/cic_pathfinders_digital_equity_as_an_enabling_platform_june_2021.pdf

Bannier, B. (2016). Global trends in transnational education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(1) 80-84. https://www.ijiet.org/show-62-740-1.html

Bruhn–Zass, E. (2023). Virtual internationalization as a concept for campus-based and online and distance higher education. Handbook of Open, Distance, and Digital Education, 371-387. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_23#citeas

Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., Gross, M., Muhr, M., Beatrice, J., Keeler, L., von Wehrden, H.,  Laubichler, M., Wiek, A., and Lang, D. (2017). Transnational collaboration for sustainability in higher education: Lessons from a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 764-779. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617318383?via%3Dihub

Cho, Y. (2022) Comparing Integrative and Systematic Literature Reviews. Human Resource Development Review,  21(2), 147–151. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15344843221089053

Coenen, J., Glass, L-M., and Sanderink, L. (2021). Two degrees and the SDGs: A network analysis of the interlinkages between transnational climate actions and the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability Science, 17, 1489–1510. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-021-01007-9

Fumasoli, T. Rossi, F. (2021). The role of higher education institutions in transnational networks for teaching and learning innovation: The case of the Erasmus+ Programme. European Journal of Education, 56, 200–218. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ejed.12454

Gandolf, H. (2023). Reflecting on Freire: a praxis of radical love and critical hope for science education. [Special Issue. Theme: transnational collaborations and solidarities]. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 18, 159–173. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-023-10163-6

Hampel, A. (2021). Future International Higher Education Cooperation: Research and Academic Relations Policy Using the Example of Transnational Education (TNE). https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-72143-8

Heffernan, T., Wilkins, S., and Butt, M.M. (2018). Transnational higher education: The importance of institutional reputation, trust and student-university identification in international partnerships. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(2), 227-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2017-0122

IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

Keevers, L. M., Price, O., Leask, B., Dawood Sultan, F. K., Lim, J. S., & Loh, V. (2019). Practices to improve collaboration by reconfiguring boundaries in transnational education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.16.2.4

Kim, H. J. (2024). Culturally responsive pedagogy amid the internationalization of teacher education: Self-study of teaching international teacher candidates in U.S. teacher education program. Studying Teacher Education, 20(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2023.2228321

Koehn, P. H. (2012). Transnational higher education and sustainable development: Current initiatives and future prospects. Policy Futures in Education, 10(3), 274-282. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2012.10.3.274

Kohl, K., Hopkins, C., Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Dlouhá, J., Razak, D.A., Abidin Bin Sanusi, Z. and Toman, I. (2022). A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: A crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(2), 218-236. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2020-039

Kolb, D, A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. (2nd Edition). Prentice-Hall. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315793484_Experiential_Learning_Experience_as_the_source_of_Learning_and_Development_Second_Edition

Kopnina, H. (2020). Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1710444

Reisdorf, B., and Rhinesmith, C. (2020). Digital inclusion as a core component of social inclusion. Social Inclusion, 8(2), 132-137. doi:https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i2.3184

Rottleb, T., Kleibert, J. M., & Schulze, M. (2022). Developing successful transnational education hubs: Key challenges for policy makers (No. 4/2022). IRS Dialog. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2121813

Rowley, M. Skipper, Y. (2020). Student and staff expectations and experiences of a UK–China Transnational Education Collaboration. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(5), 1374-1387. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JARHE-01-2020-0021/full/html

Öztabak, M.Ü. (2022). International schools and educational programs: A critical analysis from a cultural perspective. In Akgün, B., Alpaydın, Y. (Eds), Education Policies in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1604-5_9

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 17(28), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1754

Parsons, C., and Hick, S. (2008). Moving from digital divide to digital inclusion. Currents, 7(2). https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/currents/article/view/15892

Partridge, D. J., Chin, M. (2019). Interrogating the histories and futures of “diversity”: Transnational perspectives. Public Culture, 31(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-7286777

Popa, S. (2022). Taking stock: Impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on curriculum, education, and learning. Prospects, 51, 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09616-7

Sangwand, T.K. (2018). Preservation is political: Enacting contributive justice and decolonizing transnational archival collaborations. KULA, 2(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.36

Singh, V. (2018). How do we include underrepresented voices in the sustainability conversation?. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.24926/ijps.v5i1.1121

Singh, I., and Singh, N. (2023). Implementing collaborative transnational teaching and learning pedagogies: A case study. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Mumbai, 96(31). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374060886

Suguku, D. (2023). Pillar of internationalization in higher education: The contribution of international collaborations and online delivery approaches to internationalization in HEIS. SHS Web of Conferences.  https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202315605004

Thomson, A., Palmén, R., Reidl, S., Barnard, S., Beranek, S., Dainty, A. R. J., & Hassan, T. M. (2022). Fostering collaborative approaches to gender equality interventions in higher education and research: the case of transnational and multi-institutional communities of practice. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.19358

Tran, N. H. N., Amado, C. A. da E. F., & Santos, S. P. dos. (2023). Challenges and success factors of transnational higher education: A systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 48(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2121813

Torraco, R.J. (2016). Writing integrative reviews of the literature: Methods and purposes. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 7(3), 62-70. https://sageprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/writing-integrative-reviews-of-the-literature-methods-and-purposes.pdf

Trifiro, F. (2018). Inter-agency cooperation in the quality assurance
of transnational education: Challenges and opportunities. Quality in Higher Education, 24(2), 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2018.1481805

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education. https://doi.org/10.54675/ASRB4722

United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/Agenda21.pdf

United Nations. (2015). The 17 goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2000). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf

Wilkins, S., Juusola, K. (2018). The benefits & drawbacks of transnational higher education: Myths and realities. Australian Universities’ Review, 60(2), 68-76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1188990

| | PRINT: print




Leave a Reply