MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250255288 · doi:10.26686/wgtn.16969759

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

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

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity 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
KeywordsHigher educationContext (archaeology)InternationalizationGlobalizationEquity (law)Service (business)Political scienceInternational educationPublic relationsBusinessEconomic growthMarketingEconomicsGeographyInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207