MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4250255288 · doi:10.26686/wgtn.16969759

An Analysis of Ownership Forms in Offshore Higher Education Markets: A Resource Based Perspective

2010· dissertation· en· W4250255288 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Vikash Naidoo

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiquePrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of WaterlooSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of SurreyUniversity of StirlingCurtin University of TechnologyJames Cook UniversityBrock UniversityUniversity of Western SydneyUlster UniversityDurham UniversityAustralian Catholic UniversityUniversity of LeedsRMIT UniversityUniversity of WarwickUniversity of LeicesterUniversity of East AngliaUniversity of BedfordshireIndiana Wesleyan UniversityTemple UniversityColumbus State UniversityTowson UniversityUniversity of Salford ManchesterFlorida State UniversityStaffordshire UniversityUniversity of HuddersfieldNorthumbria UniversityMiddlesex UniversityVictoria UniversitySyracuse UniversityUniversity of HullUniversity of BradfordUniversity of BristolUniversity of NottinghamThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of Central LancashireUniversity of BathUniversity of BoltonSwinburne University of TechnologyUniversity of WolverhamptonSheffield Hallam UniversityUniversity of GreenwichNova Southeastern UniversityUniversity of New South WalesHeriot-Watt UniversityUniversity of OttawaCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of BirminghamDePaul UniversityGeorgetown UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of East LondonUniversity of ExeterOxford Brookes UniversityRoyal Roads UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityNewcastle UniversityMichigan State UniversityAuburn UniversityCalifornia State UniversityOklahoma State UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaQueen Mary University of LondonNorthern Illinois UniversitySan Diego State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthUniversity of PennsylvaniaCoastal Carolina UniversityUniversity of WestminsterFlorida International UniversityUniversity of TasmaniaNorthwestern UniversitySaint Joseph UniversityClemson UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of LouisvilleUniversity of ReadingOhio State UniversityNorth Dakota State University
Mots-clésHigher educationContext (archaeology)InternationalizationGlobalizationEquity (law)Service (business)Political scienceInternational educationPublic relationsBusinessEconomic growthMarketingEconomicsGeographyInternational trade

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This PhD research seeks to consider overseas investment in a new and important context: education. Estimated at approximately US$ 65 billion and representing roughly 3% of global services exports (Alderman, 2001), trade in education services is fast becoming a global business (Czinkota, 2006). In Australia, New Zealand and the United States, for example, educational service is estimated to be, respectively, the third, fourth and fifth largest service sector export (Vincent-Lancrin, 2004). The globalisation and internationalisation of higher education manifest themselves in various forms, of which transnational education or 'offshore' programmes - those taught outside of a host academic institution's country of origin - have been experiencing rapid increases over the past decade. Most of this growth, to date, has taken place through contractual arrangements such as licensing (e.g. twinning and articulation arrangements). However, there are also a substantial number of academic institutions that are currently delivering transnational education through equity modes of entry (e.g. branch campus operations). In this context, this PhD research, using universities as the unit of analysis, seeks to understand the dynamics of transnational education - how it is happening and why it is happening - grounded in the strategy and international business literatures. In particular, the research question being addressed in this study is: What resources are associated with entry mode choice for education providers entering overseas markets? Using a multi-method research design consisting of both qualitative and quantitative analysis, seven different types of resources are specifically examined in this study: Geographical experience, Industry experience, Transfer experience, Organisational culture, Financial resources, Reputation and Learning intent. Using the resource-based view (RBV) as its theoretical underpinning, this study hypothesises that the more access to these resources an education service provider might have, the more they will favour a higher level of ownership in offshore education developments. This overall hypothesis builds on the basic assumption of the RBV that organisations in possession of resources which are potential sources of competitive advantage in a target market, would favour a mode of entry that facilitates control over and protection of the resources. This fundamental assumption of the RBV differs to that of the transaction cost approach, which typically views shared-control modes as the default mode of entry. The conceptual model developed in this study further postulates that the resource-entry mode relationship is moderated by institutional distance. The education sector in most countries is a regulated sector, where authorities monitor the quality of education. Therefore, when investing offshore, education service providers are likely to operate around some form of regulated institutional environments that are likely to affect their mode of entry decisions. From the collected 308 instances of foreign market entry of universities in the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US), Canada (CA), Australia (AU), New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland (IR), analysis is conducted at both an aggregate and geographical grouping level (i.e. UK/IR, AU/NZ and US/CA). To assess the sensitivity of the obtained results, three estimation techniques are also analysed: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Tobit and Negative Binomial regressions. To further assess the sensitivity and robustness of the observed findings for the moderating role of institutional distance, three measures of distance are analysed: World Competitiveness Yearbook, Economic Freedom Index and Hofstede (1980) cultural indices. From the different groupings and estimation techniques, the empirical findings show that support is obtained for Transfer experience, but only when using OLS estimation. Mixed support is obtained for Geographical experience, Industry experience and Financial resources. The hypotheses with respect to the other types of resources are not supported. These findings suggest that, contrary to the basic premise of the RBV, a higher level of ownership might not always be the preferred entry mode in the offshore education context. The observed findings also do not support the moderating hypothesis of institutional distance on the resource-entry mode relationship. This lack of support is consistent across all three measures of distance analysed. Several possible explanations for these observed findings are conjectured in Chapter 7. These explanations are not purely theoretical conjectures but are also enriched on the basis of the interviews conducted as part of the exploratory stage of this study. The greatest takeaway from this study is that the observed findings, which do not fully conform to mainstream international business and strategic management theories, can be attributed to context/industry specific conditions. Traditional international business and strategy research has largely focused on "for-profit" firms. Given that universities are "not-for-profit" organisations, it needs to be recognised that their international operations are different from those of regular multinational firms. These findings provide initial steps in improving our understanding of the internationalisation of the education services sector.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0040,006
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalTravaux en français237 207