minerva volume 39 issue 1 2001 [doi 10.1023%2fa%3a1010343517872] robin middlehurst -- university...

7/28/2019 Minerva Volume 39 Issue 1 2001 [Doi 10.1023%2Fa%3A1010343517872] Robin Middlehurst -- University Challeng…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/minerva-volume-39-issue-1-2001-doi-1010232fa3a1010343517872-robin-middlehurst 1/24

ROBIN MIDDLEHURST

UNIVERSITY CHALLENGES:

BORDERLESS HIGHER EDUCATION, TODAY AND TOMORROW

Developments in the domain of ‘Borderless Education’ are being shaped

by a number of factors, including the emergence of the ‘knowledge

economy,’ pressures for life-long learning, and advances in the use and

nature of information and communication technologies. This overview

categorizes some of these tendencies, and highlights some of the chal-

lenges now confronting universities and governments. The essays that

follow will reveal just how fundamental these changes are, and may yet

become.

INTRODUCTION

The traditional landscape of higher education, populated by public and

private universities, community colleges, polytechnics and specialist insti-

tutes, is changing rapidly as new providers and new forms of higher

education emerge. Identifying the range of new developments and the chal-

lenges they pose for ‘traditional’ universities and colleges is the subject of

this introductory essay.1

The emergence of new providers and provision with its new language

is part of a wider context of change in higher education and society

at large. The changes in higher education are well defined by the term

‘borderless education’, an expression coined in early 2000 by an Australian

research team.2 This umbrella term refers to developments that cross, or

1 This essay is based on data collected by two recent research projects, one commis-

sioned by the Australian Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth

Affairs, and a complimentary study commissioned by the Committee of Vice Chancellors

and Principals in the UK, supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

These are Stuart Cunningham et al., The Business of Borderless Education (Canberra:

DEETYA, 2000); and CVCP, The Business of Borderless Education: UK Perspectives

(London: CVCP, 2000), vols. 1–3.2 Stuart Cunningham et al., New Media and Borderless Education: A Review of the

Convergence of Global Media Networks and Higher Education Provision (Canberra:

Department of Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs, 1998).

Minerva 39: 3–26, 2001.

© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.



4 ROBIN MIDDLEHURST

have the potential to cross, the traditional borders of higher education,

whether geographical or conceptual. Traditional borders include national,

organizational and sector boundaries, borders of time and space and

private/public boundaries. As these borders are crossed, existing notionsof higher education become increasingly problematic. What we mean by a

university, a course or a degree may all require re-definition, along with the

roles of lecturers, administrators or librarians. Such new configurations of

higher education not only widen the conceptual frameworks in which we

have operated, but also challenge the ways in which teaching, learning,

research and community service are structured and delivered. In this essay,

I focus on the contours of borderless higher education, the nature of recent

developments, and the challenges and opportunities for universities and

colleges both in the UK and throughout the industrialized world. This

provides a backdrop for the essays that follow.

DRIVERS OF CHANGE

The parameters of change can be set out under four headings: economic

and business dynamics, social and intellectual developments, technolo-

gical developments, and changes in government policy. In reality, these

categories overlap, creating even greater impact. Over the past decade, two

key factors – increased student numbers and the increasing costs of higher

education – have driven new developments in higher education. Most

educational institutions in the Western world predict continuing demand

and competition.3 A growing demand comes from the ‘working adult’

population, including people who failed to qualify or participate in higher

education at earlier stages in their lives, and those who seek further creden-

tials or training. New professions and vocations are also fuelling demand.

Pressures for lifelong, relevant, ‘just in time’, and flexible approaches

to learning argue for diversified provision. Increasingly, institutions are

having to make strategic choices about the markets that they can and wish

to serve.

Expanding the range and flexibility of educational provision is costly,

especially since knowledge is growing exponentially. As Burton Clark

comments, ‘knowledge expansion, and specialization, and reconfigura-

tion are self-propelling phenomena’ which no university and no national

system of higher education can control.4 Even where costs of higher

3 ‘Learning for Life’, Final Report, Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy

(Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 1998).4 Burton Clark, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of

Transformation (Guildford: Pergamon Press, 1998), 130.



UNIVERSITY CHALLENGES 5

education are borne in large part by the state, it is unrealistic to assume

that governments can alone support the institutional consequences of

knowledge expansion, just as they cannot support similar demands for

healthcare. Indeed, most Western governments have sought to achievegrowth in student numbers with lower unit costs.

Pressures on institutions to control and reduce costs are sharpened by

reports that highlight low productivity and under-utilization of facilities

and staff,5 and by the characterization of traditional models of higher

education as ‘inefficient, low tech . . . a cottage industry’.6 In contrast,

‘for-profit’ education businesses, such as the University of Phoenix, point

to their ability to deliver high quality courses at lower unit cost. New

communication and information technologies (C&IT) may reduce such

fixed costs as libraries, real estate and staff, as they have reduced the fixed

costs of banking and retail services. Such alternatives may indeed prove

more attractive to governments, if lower unit costs can be achieved, if more

educational costs can be passed on to the customer, and if the educationprovided is also more responsive to perceived economic needs.

Higher education is subject both to its own economic imperatives

and to wider economic and business concerns. A recent report by the

Chatham House Forum notes several trends which have implications for

higher education.7 These include changing demographics, advances in

technology, a growing interest in cultivating intellectual capital, and the

emergence of economic ‘coupling, convergence and commoditization’,

alongside accelerated competition. Of particular significance are demo-

graphic trends. Populations are getting older in the wealthy world, and

younger elsewhere, and are forecast to rise to a global peak of perhaps 9–

12 billion by 2050. Within these populations, there will be by 2020 at leasta billion university graduates, as contrasted to a few million in 1920. They

will not only add to the stock of intellectual capital, but will also become

the informed consumers of tomorrow.

At the same time, ‘coupling, convergence and commoditization’ are all

emerging as factors in ‘borderless education’. The coupling of corpora-

tions with universities, and the development of networked interest groups

across national boundaries, have created new possibilities as well as greater

organizational complexities. Convergence implies greater commonality of

5 J. Sperling and R. Tucker, For-Profit Higher Education: Developing a World Class

Workforce (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1997).6 T. Marchese, ‘Not-so-Distant Competitors: How New Providers are Remaking the

Postsecondary Marketplace’, Bulletin of the American Association of Higher Education,

50 (9), (1998), 3–7.7 Chatham House Forum, Open Horizons: Three Scenarios for 2020 (London: Royal

Institution of International Affairs, 1998), 12–14.



6 ROBIN MIDDLEHURST

structure and process – for example, across national higher education

systems, and across business and higher education – fed by freely available

information and exchange of ideas. Commoditization is evident both in

the packaging of knowledge in different forms, and in the conception of educational packages as products that can be sold and delivered in ‘bite-

sized’ pieces. Competition for higher education institutions has expanded

beyond national borders to include international providers and ‘for-profit’

education businesses.

A knowledge-driven economy, as foreshadowed in the UK Department

of Trade and Industry’s recent White Paper, must be fuelled by new ideas

and knowledge, innovation in products and services, investment in skills

development, and the imaginative deployment of skills, knowledge and

creativity.8 Higher education is central to this agenda. Institutions are

responding to calls for more employable graduates with a range of entre-

preneurial and social skills, with the provision of increased continuing

education and training opportunities, and with a wider range of researchand consultancy services. However, these expectations place increasing

pressure on traditional universities.9 Newcomers to the higher education

market, such as corporate or ‘for-profit’ universities, can service some

of the unmet or unsatisfied demand. At present they provide a valuable

supplement to existing provision; a key issue is whether they will come to

offer a preferred alternative.

The global dimensions of a knowledge economy will undoubtedly

drive borderless education. For businesses, ‘globalization’ is described

as ‘world-wide economic integration through trade, financial flows, tech-

nology spillovers, information networks and cross-cultural currents’.10

It differs from ‘internationalization’ in scale and form. Moves towardsgreater ‘internationalization’ in Europe, for example, are aimed at inte-

grating international elements into teaching, research and community

activities.11 International activity is not new to universities, and many

have been ‘international institutions’ for centuries but, ‘globalization’ has

different connotations and is potentially more problematic. First, it may

imply moves towards standardized curricula and modes of delivery. For

example, multi-national businesses that choose to partner with univer-

sities are increasingly seeking common curricula that can be delivered by

8 Department of Trade and Industry, Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge

Driven Economy, Cm 4176 (London: HMSO, 1998).9 Clark, op. cit . note 4, 129.

10 International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (www.imf.organ) (1997).11 OECD, Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education (Paris: Institutional

Management in Higher Education Programme, OECD, 1999).




different institutions in different countries. International curriculum deve-

lopment teams are needed alongside integrated delivery systems; these

are expensive commodities. Moreover, pressures for international mobility

of labour create a need for greater co-ordination and harmonization of regulatory procedures across national governments, to ensure that qualifi-

cations and credit are portable and mutually recognized. Finally, if ‘global’

education brands are established, they may prove more popular than local

ones. The role played by national regulatory frameworks is critical to the

encouragement or discouragement of globalization.

Globalization may also be seen as a form of cultural imperialism.

Clearly, it is the curricula of the West (and particularly cultures linked

to the English language) that are being transported around the world.

However, media internationalization analysts suggest that globalization of

structure does not necessarily imply homogeneity of content.12 Instead

there has emerged a complex pattern of regional and language-specific

content, tailored to culture preferences and political sensitivities indifferent countries. Educational content is already being tailored to local

requirements, as the recent experience of the Open University in the US

suggests.

SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHANGE

The most prominent social drivers reflected within borderless education

are:

widening access and participation;

rising public expectations of customer service, with a strong focus on

individual choice and provider accountability;

increasing emphasis on self-determination and self-help for indi-

viduals and groups;

challenges to traditional notions of educational authority and forms of

knowledge; and

new patterns of interaction and relationship built on networks of all

kinds.

European governments already have clear policies for widening access

to and participation in higher education as part of their agendas for

lifelong learning.

13

Some borderless developments within UK institutions12 As noted by Cunningham et al., op. cit . note 2, 11–13.13 Department of Education and Employment, The Learning Age (London: HMSO,

1998).



8 ROBIN MIDDLEHURST

are designed to respond to this agenda. It is, however, less clear that the

recent growth of corporate universities and ‘for-profit’ education busi-

nesses is a response to ‘lifelong learning’, except in the narrow sense

of constant updating of employment-related skills.

14

The danger is thatdevelopments in borderless higher education will only serve the needs

of economically viable client groups rather than promote the interests of

social inclusion.

While provider accountability is a common feature of higher education,

customer-responsiveness and employment and business-related benefits

are likely to be even more important. Higher education institutions can

choose where to place their emphasis, but movements towards greater

responsiveness to customer needs carry obvious implications for curricula,

delivery, culture and quality assurance. Similarly, a shift in policy from

welfare and collective support to self-help – already evident in health and

employment – leaves education with particular responsibilities to develop

‘self-directed learners’. Increased use of C&IT may help to develop learnerautonomy, although institutions will have to provide appropriate levels of

support.

Challenges to educational authority may come from several direc-

tions. Different providers and purchasers will set different goals: critical

thinking and disciplinary knowledge, for example, or professional creden-

tials. Corporations may look more for Mode 2 knowledge – generated

and judged in the context of application – rather than Mode 1 know-

ledge, generated according to academic frames of reference.15 The new

‘earner-learners’ are already looking to the value of practical experience,

in preference to formal and abstract knowledge. This will emphasize the

authority of the practitioner and the student as co-contributors to thelearning experience. In this context, outcomes will be judged in relation

more to performance than understanding. Such dimensions have serious

implications for the authority of ‘traditional’ academic curricula, and for

academics as experts. Universities may seek defensively to differentiate

themselves from new providers by affirming traditional academic goals;

alternatively, they may acknowledge the authority of other forms of know-

ledge and learning and accommodate these in assessment and credit-rating

frameworks.

14 Cunningham et al., op. cit . note 2.15 M. Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science

and Research in Contemporary Societies (Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher

Education/Open University Press, 1994).




TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

In reviewing the agencies of change in higher education, the growth of

networks, made possible by developments in C&IT, is among the mostsignificant. ‘Connectivity’ is a key element in borderless education, and

the emergence of ‘smart alliances’ is part of the changing landscape. Most

commentators base their predictions of expansion, quality and access to

higher education on an increased use of new technologies.

The associated social and economic consequences of C&IT have been

widely discussed.16 Molyneux has characterized C&IT developments in

the past five years in two categories of convergence.17 The first is a conver-

gence of technologies. Print, video, audio, electronic broadcast and data

media have been converging into forms of digital storage. Second, there

is a convergence of networks: broadcast, cable and telephone as well

as Local Area Networks, Wide Area Networks, and Metropolitan Area

Networks. In the relevant industries, these technological developments

have produced considerable volatility, resulting in a number of corporate

mergers, takeovers and strategic partnerships. Traditional distinctions

between ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ are being challenged, and vertical inte-

gration is a phenomenon affecting parts of the education market as much

as the media markets.

Technology is also prompting a convergence between traditional and

distance education providers, with ‘dual mode’ institutions emerging in

the UK, Australia, USA, Canada, Malaysia and many countries in Central

and Eastern Europe.18 Tait and Mills argue that distinctions between tradi-

tional and distance providers will disappear, to be replaced by mixed-mode

education, substantially centred on C&IT. Cunningham and his colleaguesnote the impact of convergence and digitization in the media sector.19 Each

has relevance for higher education, in relation to products, services and

institutional structures.

16 See, for example, Chatham House Forum, Unsettled Times (London: Royal Institute

of International Affairs, 1996); Navigating Unchartered Waters (London: Royal Institute

for International Affairs, 1997); Open Horizons: Three Scenarios for 2020, op. cit . note 7.17 S. Molyneux, ‘Closing Address: IT and Dearing: The Implications for Higher Educa-

tion’, Proceedings of the Computers in Teaching Initiative (Bristol: Higher Education

Funding Council for England, 1997), 55–64, accessible at http://www.broadnet.co.uk/

dearing.ppz.18 Alan Tait and Roger Mills, ‘The Convergence of Distance and Conventional Educa-

tion: Patterns of Flexibility for the Individual Learner’, in A. Tait and R. Mills (eds.),

The Convergence of Distance and Conventional Education (London: Routledge Studies in

Distance Education, 1999), 1–4.19 Cunningham et al., op. cit . note 2, 14–15.



10 ROBIN MIDDLEHURST

For example, there is a challenge to existing media arising from new

(converged) forms, and a challenge for multimedia to create new hybrid

formats. A third challenge lies in the ways in which media are themselves

being transformed – although the direction of change is not always clear.Some commentators, for example, argue that the scope for interactivity,

customization and two-way communication offered by new technologies

suggests a move away from ‘mass media’ and towards ‘personalized

media’. If such predictions are correct, then the ‘industrial’ approaches

of traditional distance education providers may be at risk. Others suggest a

mixed economy where ‘commoditization’ and ‘personalization’ co-exist.

In either case, technological developments are eroding the boundaries of

previously separate sectors and businesses, creating new markets, new

combinations of products and services, and potentially, new competitors

and partners for higher education.

THE POLICY CONTEXT

In the UK, certain political themes have remained constant in policies for

higher education over the last twenty years, surviving several changes

in government. These policies include the introduction of market and

quasi-market mechanisms; demands for performance measurement, output

objectives and accountability; and an increasing emphasis on service

quality, standard setting and responsiveness to ‘customers’. Many of these

changes are captured in the concept of ‘New Public Management’.20

Present policy supports the universities’ efforts to form partnerships, to

collaborate with businesses, and to develop innovative forms of deliv-

ering education. However, the lifelong learning and skills’ agendas also

offer openings to competitors which are better resourced and equipped,

creating dilemmas for the traditional and more vulnerable universities.

Howard Newby, former President of the Committee of Vice Chancellors

and Principals in the UK, points to several challenges.21 He argues that UK

institutions are too small and insufficiently flexible in mode and mission

to compete commercially and globally. One of the biggest challenges lies

in creating new forms of professionalism among teaching staff. Others

include the need to balance regional, national and international activity, to

operate within the constraints of quality and funding regimes that poten-

tially hinder diversity and innovation, and to balance existing client groups,

20 Christopher Pollitt ‘Justification by Works or by Faith? Evaluating the New Public

Management’, Evaluation, 1 (2), (1995), 133–153.21 Howard Newby ‘Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Some Possible

Futures’, Perspectives, 3 (4), (1999), 106–113.




staff, curricular focus and research. It is against this back-cloth that the

impact of borderless developments must be seen.

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE

Studies in different parts of the world show the scale of current activity

to be large, but volatile.22 In his report for the Confederation of European

Rectors Conferences, for example, Haug highlights the ‘rapid emergence

of a whole new educational sector alongside the traditional, national, state-

regulated and often free higher education in European countries.’ The

variety of developments can be grouped under seven different headings –

corporate universities, ‘for-profit’ education, media/publishing businesses,

professional associations, educational services, virtual universities, and

‘traditional’ higher education. In reality, there is considerable overlap

between these categories.

1. Corporate Universities

There are corporate universities in Europe and parts of the Commonwealth,

but most are found in the USA, where numbers have grown from 400

in 1988 to more than 1600 in 1998, including 40 per cent of Fortune

500 companies.23 They take a variety of different forms and are gene-

rally linked to multi-national companies or other large organizations (such

as government departments or the military). At one end of a spectrum,

the corporate university represents a re-organization and re-naming of

human resource and education and training activities; at the other end,

a corporate university may represent a more wide-ranging approach to

the development of ‘best practice corporate learning systems’.24 In both

cases, business requirements are the main driver and the use of C&IT is an

important component.

In the first type of corporate university – exemplified by McDonald’s

Hamburger University – learning is driven by the need to enhance

22 See, for example, CVCP, op. cit . note 1, Case Studies Volume; knowledge@work ,

‘Virtually the Same? Universities and Colleges in the Age of New Media Learning:

Opportunities and Issues’, Report to Industry Canada (Calgary: Knowledge@Work,

1998); and G. Haug, ‘Main Trends and Issues in Higher Education Structures in Europe’,

in Trends in Learning Structures in Europe: Project Report (Brussels: Confederation of

European Union Rectors’ Conferences, 1999), 11.23 Corporate University Xchange, Survey of Corporate Universities Future Directions

(New York: CUX, 1999).24 American Quality and Productivity Centre, The Corporate University: Learning Tools

for Success (Houston: AQPC, 1997).




employee performance and productivity and to ensure consistency of

service and the spread of a common culture. Its focus tends to be upon

employees, but may extend to suppliers and customers (including small

and medium-sized enterprises). In the second type, learning is conceptua-lized more broadly, to include both individual and organizational develop-

ment. Features include education and training, but also, perhaps, research,

consultancy, best-practice benchmarking and knowledge management (as

in the case of the British Aerospace Virtual University).

The use of the term ‘university’ is often misleading, because not all of

the education and training is at a higher education level, subject coverage

tends to be narrow, and links to research are not necessarily part of

curriculum design and content. In addition, other ‘university’ features may

be absent – for example, tuition by academics, an emphasis on ‘objective’

knowledge, critical and theoretical perspectives, and lengthy programmes

linked to portable qualifications. Indeed, the use of the term ‘university’

poses challenges. In corporate contexts, knowledge and learning are oftenconceptualized and delivered differently, and the range of clients that have

access to these ‘universities’ are different. As Meister puts it, ‘the growing

interest in corporate universities . . . is being fueled by the increase in

continuous learning among working adult students, the growth in Internet-

based learning, and dissatisfaction by business leaders with the status quo

in higher education’.25

A new development, particularly in the IT industry, is the elevation

of certification (such as the Microsoft Certified Engineer programme)

as an industry currency of more value than a postgraduate qualifica-

tion in the same area. GE and Microsoft, for example, have their own

programmes which are the preferred qualification as they are portablewithin the industry and recognized across national boundaries. In the UK,

some universities already offer joint university accreditation and company

certification and some corporate universities have reported a need to design

and deliver an in-house Masters degree (albeit accredited by universities)

because of a dearth of appropriate courses in universities. A shortfall in

skilled IT staff has prompted several IT companies to enter the education

market.

The UK Report draws out features of corporate universities that appear

to be widely shared. These include:

Professional development activities that are aimed at company and individual needs,

specialist in-company departments/colleges which are staffed by a combination of profes-sional educators/trainers and practitioners from the businesses and an increasing emphasis

25 J. Meister, ‘International Webletter’, Corporate Universities Xchange, Issue II,

(1999), 1–3, accessible at www.corpu.com/newsletter .




on the use of technology for the delivery of education and training. Further notable

elements include an emphasis on competency-based training, linked to assessment of

outcomes and credit accumulation, with a particular focus on professional/vocational

subjects and training that forms a necessary part of assuring the quality of products and

services for example, through programmes offered to suppliers and customers. Wheredegrees are offered, there is generally a partnership with existing universities and in all

the education and training offered there is a strong emphasis on quality through close

attention to curriculum design, staff selection, mandatory teacher training, control of class

size and course cohorts, and rigorous evaluation of every process from student admissions

to teacher performance and adherence to curricula.26

2. ‘For-Profit’ Education

If education and training are becoming an increasingly important business

sector, and corporate universities are one manifestation of this develop-

ment, then the growth of ‘for-profit’ education is another.27 ‘For-profit’

universities and colleges must be distinguished from private ‘not-for-profit’ universities/colleges, although the distinction is becoming blurred.

The second group is familiar and has existed for many years. There is

only one private university in the UK (the University of Buckingham),

but in other countries, including the US, Malaysia and parts of continental

Europe, these institutions are more numerous and many of them already

have significant global ‘brands’.

Among the ‘not-for-profit’ universities and colleges, a number of deve-

lopments are evident. First, new private universities are being established

in several countries – for example, in Germany, Canada and Singapore.

The Malaysian government is also active in encouraging private higher

education. In 1999, Malaysia had 503 private ‘for-profit’ colleges and eight

private, ‘not-for-profit’ universities with more waiting to be approved by

the Ministry of Education; in Germany, nine new private institutions have

recently been established.28 Many of these private institutions are develo-

ping or extending their links to other universities (both public and private)

and internationally, as well as their links to companies. In all cases, the use

of C&IT is becoming increasingly important.

Among the ‘for-profit’ group, some organizations have been in exis-

tence for a long time – for example, De Vry Institutes which began in

1931. Others are more recent – for example, Jones International Univer-

sity and Capella University in the US, and the Universities of Greenwich

and Asia in Australia. This group differs from the ‘not-for-profits’ not

26 CVCP, op. cit . note 1, Analysis and Recommendations, 33.27 Capital Strategies Ltd, Analysis of Business Developments in the Education and

Training Marketplace (London: Capital Strategies, February 1999).28 CVCP, op. cit . note 1, Case Study Volume, 111.




only in their commercial status, but also in their degree of specialization

(of subjects and students). These providers also differ from the bulk of

corporate universities in that provision is directly accredited. Programmes

are offered at different levels from Associate degrees to doctorates, prin-cipally in professional and vocational subjects (business and management,

law, IT, electronics, teacher education, health-care and counselling). Most

provision is aimed at working adults, including mid-career professionals,

and is tailored closely to their needs. Some universities, like Greenwich,

also attract younger undergraduates and are thus in direct competition with

existing institutions.

Flexibility, convenience and relevance are key features of the ‘for-

profit’ education businesses which include:

Location: Phoenix has set up nearly 80 learning centres in 32 US states

on the edge of freeways or in shopping malls in order to minimize

student time lost in travelling between work and home;

Access for students: provision and support is often available on-

line (Unexus University, launched recently in New Brunswick, offers

access twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week); enrolment times

are also convenient – Jones International University enables students

to enrol every four weeks; Keller Graduate School of Management

runs a five semester year (ten weeks each) and holds all classes in the

evenings or on Saturdays;

Length and intensity of study: courses and programmes tend to be

shorter (Phoenix has courses of five or six weeks contributing to a

two-year programme) with credit accumulated for awards at different

levels. Teaching is focused and intensive and classes are small (14–15

students for face-to-face tuition at Phoenix, 8–11 students for onlineclasses);

Credit accumulation and transfer: Sylvan Learning Systems, in an

arrangement with Regent’s College of New York State, gives credit,

and transfers credits from different institutions and gives Regent’s

examinations in Sylvan’s Technology Centres across the US; and

Curriculum: ‘Learn tonight, apply tomorrow’ is a motto for curriculum

relevance. Keller Graduate School of Management offers ‘practitioner-

led management education’ where all faculty are practising profes-

sionals; Phoenix designs and delivers customized programmes for

corporations along similar lines.

‘For-profit’ education of this kind covers a spectrum of good and bad prac-tice. In Central and Eastern Europe and in South Africa, for example, there

is concern about the spread of unaccredited and unregulated ‘degree-mills’

that offer quicker and cheaper routes to degrees. Monitoring the growing




private/for-profit sectors is an important task for governments and quality

agencies.

There are many examples (some of long standing) of private providers

working in partnership with existing universities. Blight reports that in1996, more than half of Australia’s universities had a twinning arrange-

ment with a private college in Malaysia, either singly or in consortia. 29

Singapore reveals a similar picture: in 1996, private education and training

centres were estimated to have enrolled 149,000 students, with at least

100,000 of them studying for foreign qualifications. Elsewhere, univer-

sities have established private companies in order to allow them to operate

more flexibly and extend their international outreach. Several promi-

nent universities have taken this route, including Melbourne, Deakin, the

London School of Economics, Cornell, Columbia and the University of

Maryland.

In contrast, the phenomenon whereby companies take over existing

providers/provision may be a portent of things to come. In New Zealand,within the vocational tertiary sector, Christchurch Design and Art College

was taken over in late 1997 by the UK ‘for-profit’ company, Nord Anglia,

which also owns language schools in Christchurch and Auckland. In Spain,

Sylvan Learning Systems have recently purchased a 54 per cent holding in

a private Spanish university, the Universidad Europea de Madrid (UEM).

Sylvan acknowledged that this was a launch point in its initiative to own

and operate a network of major universities in international markets.30

Other ‘for-profit’ companies such as the University of Phoenix are also

beginning to extend their international reach by opening campuses in

Europe.

3. Media/Publishing Businesses

In 1997, the Australian research team considered the potential threat to

universities posed by educational developments undertaken by media and

publishing companies. By 2000, it is clear that the level of activity is

increasing, particularly among publishers, although often in partnership

with universities. In the UK, the Pearsons Publishing Group (through a

subsidiary, FT Knowledge) operates different forms of collaboration with

higher education institutions. Universities offer a variety of services to the

29 Dennis Blight, Dorothy Davis and Alan Olsen, ‘The Internationalisation of Higher

Education’, in K. Harry (ed.), Higher Education through Open and Distance Learning:

World Review of Distance Education and Open Learning (Commonwealth of Learning/

Routledge, 1999), vol. 1, 15–32.30 Capital Strategies, Ltd, The Business of Education (London: Capital Strategies, 2nd

edn., August 1999).




company including curriculum design, course administration and accredi-

tation (such as Edinburgh Business School’s distance learning MBA) with

FT Knowledge providing marketing and distribution services. FT Know-

ledge also has partnerships with Nottingham Trent University (an MA inQuality Management); with Leeds Metropolitan University; and with the

Institute of Directors: an MA in Corporate Direction and Governance.

FT Knowledge adds value by producing the materials for on-line

delivery. FT Knowledge also commissions materials from universities

(either on its own account or for clients). In these cases, commissioned

academics write the material, a university accredits the qualifications, and

the company runs its own examinations. In the US, FT Knowledge has

established a new partnership with the University of Michigan’s Busi-

ness School (to develop Internet-based short courses) and a joint-venture

company with Regent’s College to support and market the college’s

business and IT degrees internationally.

In the US, some large publishing companies are offering broader chal-lenges. McGraw-Hill has established a subsidiary, McGraw-Hill OnLine

Learning, which draws upon its catalogue to offer on-line courses super-

vised by text-book authors and other contracted academic/industry experts.

At present, these courses lead to the award of certificates and there is no

higher education accreditation. Harcourt General Publishers has similar

goals, and gained approval in August 2000 from the Massachusetts Board

of Higher Education to offer Higher Education courses. Harcourt, like the

‘for-profit’ education businesses and the corporate universities, is targeting

the working adult market and will teach a range of arts and science

subjects.31

Developments in other media areas – including broadcasting, films andnewspapers – are taking place rapidly. In the UK, ‘WorldWide Learning’,

a London-based subsidiary company of Rupert Murdoch’s News Interna-

tional, has recently been established and has acquired a significant stake in

the consortium, Scottish Knowledge. This aims to distribute content from

universities via satellite, the Web and the post, thus supporting institutions

wishing to enter the distance-learning market. News Corp has a number

of assets around the world – for example, Star TV’s satellite platforms in

Southeast Asia – which will help the company become a global carrier of

educational content.

UK television companies are also showing interest in educational tele-

vision, but this activity tends not to be organized into programme form, and

is rarely accredited. Courses are also not generally at the level of highereducation (with the exception of the Open University’s long-standing rela-

31 CVCP, op. cit . note 1, Case Study Volume, 63–64.




tionship with the BBC). In the further education sector, the BBC currently

has a partnership with the National Open College Network to give credits

for a variety of short further education-level assignments available on-

line. The BBC is also involved with developments such as the UK’sUniversity for Industry (Ufi/learndirect) and may in the future have links

with the UK’s proposed e-University. In the US, the Public Broadcasting

Service (PSB) has recently committed itself to providing a national infor-

mation service on distance learning and is working with Microsoft to offer

learning through a fusion of television and the Internet.32

4. Professional Associations

Just as companies continue to assess their ‘unique selling propositions’

and seek ways to sell their brand-name, so this kind of thinking is

spreading to professional and trade associations. An Australian body is

leading the way. Originally, the Association of Professional Engineers,Scientists and Managers (APESMA), this now aims to be ‘the Univer-

sity of Technology and Management’. The Association initially had a

partnership with Deakin University to provide courses for working profes-

sionals combining the niche areas of management and engineering. Deakin

accredited programmes from graduate certificate to MBA and Charles

Sturt University provided accreditation for a DBA. By 1999, APESMA’s

management education provision (from short courses to full qualifications)

was attracting 7,500 students a year and operations had extended to South

Africa, India, South East Asia, New Zealand, the US and the UK (where

APESMA provides materials for the Open University’s course on tech-

nology management). Delivery is mixed-mode, with programmes tailored

for international clients and to corporate needs. APESMA is applying foruniversity status in its own right – as UTM – and is expanding provision

overseas, seeking accreditation in the US and validation of its degrees in

the UK.

Another trend is the growth of specialist professional and vocational

colleges. The Australian team cites the example of Michigan Virtual Auto-

motive College (now under the wing of Michigan Virtual University –

MVU). MVU plans to have seven virtual colleges, specializing in different

industry sectors to provide courseware for all aspects of the relevant

industries, from cars to furniture. The ‘University’ is a private, ‘not-

for-profit’ corporation that will broker courses and programmes through

Michigan’s colleges, universities and private training providers. It will notoffer degrees; instead credentials will be granted by the organization that

32 Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Distance Learning in Higher Education

(Washington, DC: CHEA, 1999).




provides the courses. At this stage, it is not clear how successful this enter-

prise will be, but it is of interest as another hybrid example of borderless

education. In the UK, the idea of ‘virtual colleges’ is already developing

in the education sector (for head teachers) and in the health sector.

5. Educational Services and Brokers

The growth of higher education providers outside the traditional sector

and the emergence of borderless education in general is being supported

by an expansion of educational services and brokerages. Both corporate

universities and traditional universities rely on contracts to obtain expertise

not available in-house. Rapid advances in technology are now leading

to the concept of fully integrated electronic systems, or ‘managed

learning environments’, including learning delivery platforms, course-

ware and learning resources, testing and assessment services, manage-ment and administration tools, enabling/supporting Web technologies, and

the support services needed to facilitate implementation of programmes.

Companies such as SmartForce or Fretwell Downing already seek to

provide such services to universities (e.g., to Capella University in the US

and Ufi/learndirect in the UK).

Some companies, such as Nord Anglia, provide a wide range of

services. These include ‘Lifetime Careers’ (to run the careers’ services for

eleven local authorities); an Employment Agency (to provide lecturers to

Further Education colleges on an agency basis); and a Facilities Manage-

ment company to provide a range of services from catering, cleaning

and routine maintenance to human resources and payroll support. The

company also has a Languages Division, an Accountancy Training group,

and a School of Finance and Management which gives undergraduate and

post-graduate fast-track degrees and diplomas validated by the University

of Lincolnshire and Humberside. It has study centres in India, Hong Kong,

Singapore and Trinidad. A new alliance has recently been announced with

Oxford Brookes University for the validation of MBA and undergraduate

degrees.

IT companies are also supplying services to universities and colleges

and are themselves large-scale providers of IT training and education – an

expanding market. CISCO Systems, for example, has developed a number

of educational programmes and a network of educational institutions in

the US and in the UK to deliver them. The University of Central Englandcurrently enjoys the role of being CISCO Academy Training Centre for

Western Europe and some eighteen other higher education institutions give

CISCO training as modules within their undergraduate degrees.




Educational brokers, another form of educational service, exist in

Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Some act as intermediaries between

institutions and potential students/clients (offering guidance services, for

example), others also develop, accredit or market programmes directly.‘Not-for-profit’ institutions collaborate with ‘for-profit’ businesses and

some brokerages combine a charitable foundation with a trading company

(for example, the Open Learning Foundation in the UK).

One prominent educational broker in the USA is Western Governors

University (WGU), a ‘hollow’ organization that brokers courses delivered

by over thirty participating institutions, including universities, colleges

and private enterprises. WGU has no teachers, curriculum designers or

tutors, and assessment is contracted to Sylvan Learning Systems. WGU

concentrates on promoting competency-based assessment and testing and

providing credit for performative knowledge rather than discursive and

expository knowledge.33 It offers on-line courses (as well as courses using

other technologies: video, audio and CD-ROM); and is also working withemployers to develop new work-related competence-based qualifications.

Local centres give access for students to IT facilities and affiliated colleges

give opportunities for face-to-face tutorials. Students can take a qualifica-

tion from a single participating institution or build up credits from a variety

of sources (which WGU will then accredit). Prior experiential learning can

also be accredited. WGU has deliberately set out to challenge the tradi-

tional university programme as the only valid type of degree, but has yet

to prove itself as financially and educationally viable in terms of student

numbers and graduate performance.

In the UK, there are already several examples of educational brokers

including the proposed e-University. Scottish Knowledge is a consortiumof fifteen Scottish universities and twenty commercial companies, formed

in 1997. It operates on a ‘for-profit’ basis, marketing Scottish higher educa-

tion programmes globally (targeting North America, the Middle East and

Malaysia in particular). The company is investing in the development of

distance-learning programmes, and in some of its overseas partnerships

is also developing educational centres – in the United Arab Emirates,

five training and research institutes. Its curricula include undergraduate

and postgraduate programmes in marketing, business studies, mechanical

engineering, information technology, and (in the US) medical and health-

care. The company has been successful in gaining US accreditation for the

University of Dundee’s nursing programme.

On a larger scale, the British Government’s newly established Ufi Ltd(the ‘University for Industry’) will promote and deliver education services

33 Cunningham et al., op. cit . note 2, 46.




under the brand name, ‘learndirect’. It is funded by government and private

investment. Ufi acts as a broker between providers and customers, offering

advice and courses which are ‘accredited/branded’. Ufi (learndirect) will

operate nation-wide (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as Ufi andas Scottish Ufi, in Scotland) with a target (by 2001) of 1000 ‘develop-

ment centres’ situated to provide easy access – in sports and shopping

centres, football and rugby clubs, community centres, churches, railway

stations, libraries and in companies. Consortia made up of employers, trade

unions, voluntary groups, colleges, universities and training providers run

the centres. Ufi (learndirect) aims to cater for a wide range of learners,

from basic skills to postgraduate levels and to cover the needs of large and

small businesses including the provision of specific technical skills and

knowledge in priority areas. It is a major plank in the British Government’s

life-long learning strategy.

New forms of brokerage appear to be evolving rapidly. ‘Educom-

merce’, where online courses and information are combined with adver-tising space, is one example, with companies including Power.ed.com

or Smart Planet. Other companies, such as Uventures.com, TechEx.com

(part of IBM) and Patentauction.com are involved in brokering intellectual

property between universities, companies and government laboratories.

A third example involves access to other forms of intellectual capital

contained in libraries or museums. Fathom.com, an alliance between

Columbia University in the US, the London School of Economics,

Cambridge University Press, the New York Public Library, the British

Library, and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History will

provide access to reference books, museum exhibits and artistic perfor-

mances through the Web.Brokerages such as these offer opportunities to universities, but also

challenges to the universities. First, these new learning resources and

courses may be free, although not necessarily accredited; and access to

subject experts may be part of the service. Moreover, the resources may

be wider and deeper than those available at a single traditional university

location. Finally, companies may offer a service to individual academics

to advertise their expertise to a potentially global audience. In such cases,

academics may choose to operate solely as free-lance agents, selling their

services through such portals.

6. Virtual Universities

The term ‘virtual university’ is often used loosely to describe a range of

activities in different organizations and institutions. The term embraces a

huge spectrum – including distance learning providers which are making




use of new technologies for designing and delivering programmes (e.g., the

Universitat Obert de Catalunya), universities that are setting up consortia

arrangements (e.g., the Virtual University of the Arctic) and specialist

commercial arms of traditional universities (NYUOnline), as well asorganizations deliberately designed as ‘virtual universities’ (e.g., Jones

International University or the planned Finnish Virtual University). Partic-

ular projects aimed at developing ‘virtual capacity’ or extending opportu-

nities for on-line learning to existing students/clients are another variation

on the theme – these include Malaysia’s Cyber Campus project and Clyde

Virtual University, a consortium of five higher education institutions in

the West of Scotland. Several analysts see a great divergence between

rhetoric and reality in the hype that is accompanying these new deve-

lopments, particularly when linked to commercial aspirations.34 The only

fully ‘virtual’ institution (in the sense of offering the full range of univer-

sity services online) that has achieved accreditation is Jones International

University in the US.

7. ‘Borderless’ Developments among Universities and Colleges

Existing post-secondary institutions are responding to political, technolo-

gical and economic changes in parallel with new providers and often in

collaboration with them. Some new providers (such as ‘for-profit’ educa-

tion businesses or media-related businesses) pose challenges and potential

threats to existing universities, but arguably a more direct threat to national

universities is emerging from international consortia of universities, and

from consortia involving universities and other public and commercial

organizations.Four trends are particularly visible among existing universities and

colleges in the context of borderless developments. The first is a conver-

gence between distance-learning and face-to-face modes of teaching and

learning, with many universities moving towards dual-mode provision

either in a piece-meal, ad hoc fashion, or strategically, with government

and agency support. This is evident in Canada and Australia and more

recently, in Hong Kong SAR of China, Malaysia, Singapore and South

Africa. Estimates suggest that more than 70 UK institutions operate in

‘dual mode’.35

34 R. Mason, ‘European Trends in the Virtual Delivery of Education’, in G. Farrell

(ed.), The Development of Virtual Education: A Global Perspective (Vancouver: The

Commonwealth of Learning, 1999), 77–88.35 R. Weyers, Distance Learning Zones: Providing Global Information Support to

Distance Learners (London: British Council, 1999).




Secondly, there is visible evidence of various forms of collaboration.

Encouraged both by new technology and governments, regional collabo-

ration among existing universities is expanding and changing in several

parts of Europe. An interesting example in Scandinavia – the ‘OresundScience Region’, involves upwards of eleven universities with ten Science

parks in Sweden and Denmark, a range of private companies and local

governments. The partnership, designed to provide both research and

educational opportunities in support of economic and community deve-

lopment, is creating new organizational forms to facilitate co-operation

between universities and companies within designated fields. In the life

sciences, this is the Medical Valley Academy and in Food Sciences, the

Oresund Food Network. In the other areas of information and communica-

tion technologies and environment and construction technologies, similar

efforts are still at an early stage.

International consortia of existing universities, such as ‘Universitas

21’, are also developing. Established in 1997 initially for three years,this consortium involves research universities in the UK, the US, Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong SAR of China, Singapore and

China. ‘Universitas 21’ is positioning itself as a ‘global brand’ recog-

nizable for quality of education, student support, research outcomes, and

administrative efficiency. A collaborative degree in accountancy is being

developed, with modules provided by different members and professional

accreditation given by accountancy bodies in each country of registration.

Member universities have agreed a basis for the recognition of courses

and this will assist programmes in business studies. This consortium has

recently evolved from an informal network to a limited company registered

in the UK, and has discussed partnership arrangements with multi-nationalcompanies, including Rupert Murdoch’s News International.

Another international model, this time involving commercial partners,

includes two UK institutions, the London School of Economics (LSE)

and Heriot-Watt. LSE’s subsidiary company, ‘Enterprise LSE, Ltd.’ has

negotiated a place in UNext.com, a consortium involving the Universities

of Chicago, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon and Columbia. LSE and the US

universities will provide ‘content’ while Heriot-Watt is to provide assess-

ment expertise. UNext.com, now accredited for the award of degrees in the

US under the name ‘Cardean’, plans to offer business-related programmes

via a mixture of on-line and paper-based delivery, with English language

courses viewed as an additional possibility. Knowledge Universe (a multi-

media company) has invested in the project. Marketing, delivery of programmes, student registration and learning support and guidance are

in the hands of the company, UNext.com.




This example illustrates a third trend among existing universities – their

increasing commercialism and involvement in business ventures. A fourth

trend shows universities becoming more closely involved in creating or

tailoring courses to the needs of business. The Ford Motor Company, forexample, is involved in partnerships with nearly 100 universities globally,

while Deutsche Bank and Duke University in the US have created a joint

corporate university. Initiatives may involve a single programme or depart-

ment, rather than a whole institution. One example of the former is a

London External Law degree (LLB) accredited through the University

of London and delivered through the legal training firm Semple Piggott

Rochez. Face to face contact is offered through residential weekends.

At the department level, Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG –

University of Warwick) represents a long-standing and successful part-

nership between higher education and business. Set up in 1980, WMG

operates on significant private funds and delivers internationally in South

Africa, India, Thailand, China (mainly Hong Kong SAR of China) andEurope. WMG portrays itself as an ‘educational one-stop-shop’ for busi-

ness, offering consultancy, degrees and CPD and research services that are

close to market and practically based. WMG uses modules developed by

other universities, including Carnegie Mellon in the US and Cambridge in

the UK and provides accreditation through the University of Warwick.

‘Borderless’ higher education clearly exists at all levels: local, regional,

national, and international, and is open to all types of institutions. Further

education colleges, community colleges, technikons, polytechnics and

elite universities are engaged in exploiting new markets, answering calls

for continuing professional development and life-long learning, and are

re-framing their educational portfolios in the light of developments intechnology. The University of Cambridge reveals an example of activity

among the elite universities. The university is a supplier of content to the

University of Warwick’s Manufacturing Group, and is planning an off-

shore presence in Melbourne in partnership with the Victoria University

of Technology. It is involved in a ‘Virtual University Program’ with a

Norwegian partner, an NGO, and some leading software firms. Cambridge

is also involved in a joint venture with the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-

nology to facilitate student and staff exchanges and joint research, and

in August 2000, announced a collaboration between the Judge Institute

of Management and FT Knowledge to develop and market an executive

MBA.




CHALLENGES TO UNIVERSITIES FROM ‘B ORDERLESS’ HIGHER

EDUCATION

Borderless developments pose several challenges to post-secondary insti-tutions. The first arises from the new professionalism and customer-

focused approach to education and training. This includes tailored reward

systems, training for teaching, and other focused quality assurance

arrangements. A second derives from widespread and growing dependence

upon new technologies. Questions of cost, quality, access and compat-

ibility of systems and standards inevitably arise. A third challenge lies

in the convergence between previously discrete academic territories and

organizations. For example, it is increasingly difficult to be precise about

distinctions between education and training, further and higher educa-

tion, ‘for-profit’ and ‘not-for-profit’ education. The term ‘university’ now

signals a myriad of different educational services. Boundaries of time and

space are more fluid in relation to the delivery of education, and withinorganizations, disciplinary, departmental and job-related boundaries are

also converging. Dissolving boundaries raise issues of identity, structure,

co-ordination and regulation.

As important as this, is the emergence of certain more sharply

delineated boundaries, particularly between functions and between core

and peripheral services. ‘Borderless’ developments reveal examples of

‘unbundling’ – where one university supplies one form of educational

service (e.g., curriculum design and content), while another supplies others

(e.g., assessment or awarding services). Companies may supply other func-

tions such as marketing, technology expertise, infrastructure and capital.

The educational ‘offer’ is being re-created in new forms, and specializationof function is becoming more pronounced. Universities will increasingly

need to define their core business, to decide whether they should remain

extended across the full range of residential, teaching, research, assessment

and awarding activities.

Still more fundamentally, universities and colleges may also be chal-

lenged by a wider range of educational values. More focused education,

tailored to individual or employment needs; company certification, rather

than university qualifications; and broader concepts of what counts as

valuable learning (including personal growth, experiential learning and

informal learning) present real choices to students. Some universities will

doubtless seek to incorporate this wider range of values, while others

will seek to maintain their distinctiveness by concentrating upon moretraditional, discipline-based images.




A key feature of the ‘borderless’ future involves exploiting reputation

or brand image. Both companies and institutions are seeking the leverage

of a known brand (LSE, MIT, Dow Jones, or FT Knowledge, for example)

by using it to expand opportunities in the education and training market.Where brands are weak or non-existent, efforts are made to create alliances

with brand leaders in the same or different sectors (Microsoft or IBM) or to

create a new brand such as ‘Universitas 21’. Clearly, different universities

must position themselves differently; some will find success at the local

level, others will be able to identify themselves as global players.

CONCLUSION

Alongside great variety, there is considerable volatility – and hype – in

the borderless education domain, with new arrangements and initiatives

emerging, and folding, daily. Research data on developments does notalways support the claims made, and since most developments are supply-

led, the ultimate extent of market demand remains uncertain. Much activity

depends upon favourable economic conditions; an economic downturn

may change the picture. The rapidly changing world of communications

and information technologies, the state of national (C&IT) infrastructure

and the particular financial and regulatory frameworks for higher education

in different parts of the world are also important variables.

At sector and institutional levels, moves towards borderless educa-

tion are dependent upon awareness, capability and motivation as well

as upon mission and market demand. Successful responses require insti-

tutional flexibility and speed of decision-making and relevant frame-

works for quality assurance and credit-transfer. They also depend upon

visionary Chief Executives and educational entrepreneurs. Institutions

with existing industry links, flourishing international alliances, inter-

disciplinary curricula or particular specialisms, and a strong student/

customer-centred focus already have strengths and skills to exploit. Insti-

tutions will nonetheless have to make a range of strategic choices – for

example, to focus or diversify between mass markets or specialized niches

– and will need to balance conflicting demands between just-in-time,

customized and culturally-tailored learning packages, and more generic

products.

Developments at the national level are no less important. Several coun-

tries are seriously investing in borderless developments; others such asAustralia and Canada have track records in distance learning that can

be exploited. National initiatives include participation in collaborative

ventures across sectors, investment in C&IT initiatives, and support for




particular projects and programmes. Involvement at a higher level – in re-

shaping the existing architecture of higher education (regulatory, financial,

structural) or in supporting infrastructure development (networks, stan-

dards, communications’ charges) is also evident, although truly globalframeworks have yet to emerge.

‘Borderless education’ sets many challenges to the university idea. As

we move towards knowledge-based societies, with increasing globaliza-

tion and technological advances, these challenges will increase. Of course,

present commentaries may not be good predictors of future developments.

But it seems clear that higher education is taking on new forms, and that

these new forms will have profound implications for life and learning

throughout the world.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robin Middlehurst is Director of Development in the School of Educa-

tional Studies at the University of Surrey. She has participated in major

national research projects on higher education, including ones dealing with

the policy implications of developments in ‘borderless education’. She has

undertaken consultancy work for institutions in the UK and overseas and is

currently co-director of the UK’s Top Management Programme for Higher

Education ([email protected]).

School of Educational Studies

University of Surrey, Guildford

Surrey GU2 7XH UK

E-mail: [email protected]

minerva volume 39 issue 1 2001 [doi 10.1023%2fa%3a1010343517872] robin middlehurst -- university...

Documents