Transnational Education  and Recognition of Qualifications  

One may identify three inter-related levels of concern:

1. The first level refers to the delivery mechanisms themselves and to the institutional arrangements put in place. These mechanisms may take one of the following forms:

Franchising: 

Various Programme articulations (e.g., twinning, etc.)"

Branch campus:  

Off-shore institution: 

Other examples are: large corporations which organize their own higher education institutions or study programmes offering qualifications, with neither the institution nor the programme belonging to a national system of higher education; international institutions offering "international" qualifications that are not part of a specific educational system. Finally, distance-learning describes a wide range of learning activities characterized by the separation of the learner from the teacher. These learning activities – or the framework within which they are organized – may or may not belong to the higher education system of a given country.

All these new developments in higher education share certain common characteristics and similarities, mainly in terms of the ways in which they cross the borders of national higher education systems. It is for this reason that they are usually identified by the generic phrase, transnational education.

One form of development refers to a modality of delivering an educational programme (i.e., distance education), others to ways of establishing a programme/institution (i.e., franchising or twinning/branch campus), and yet others, to ways of offering primarily continuing education to certain new groups of students. There seem to be no limits to the proliferation of such modalities or arrangements, so long as the demand for higher education continues to grow and with it the possibilities for a global market.

2. The second level of concern is that of the type of study programme or institution, i.e., the institutional or organizational arrangements resulting from the specific delivery mechanisms chosen. This can be either a new institution, a branch, or a franchised programme or course of study offering an award within an existing institution or other organization. It may, or may not, belong to a national higher education system.

3. The third level refers to the awards and qualifications awarded through transnational education: academic or professional (degrees, certificates, study credits, etc.), and to the quality of these qualifications.

Thus, the transnational institutional arrangements and delivery mechanisms described above generate a whole range of qualifications, which may be similar in many respects to those awarded by the national higher education institutions, but may also vary in certain important respects.

EXPLANATIONS FOR AND SELECT CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION

For some, transnational education may appear as a direct product of the internationalization of higher education. However, it can be argued that its appearance is linked to wider globalizing trends that go far beyond traditional international links, reflecting an emerging new world in which national boundaries are increasingly challenged by powerful, global tendencies already evident in the domain of finance and economics, and supported by new developments in information technology. There is, of course, a growing literature on the issue of globalization, and on its impact on higher education. The suggestion is that it is difficult to predict either the extent of the impact on higher education, or the institutional patterns that may emerge as a result in the future.²

By all accounts, transnational education is here to stay and cannot be disregarded in the name of past national glories or considered as a mere temporary phenomenon. As with many new developments, it can have both positive and negative effects. For many, it represents a crucial means of expanding access and of diversifying higher education provision to meet a growing demand. For others it may represent a threat to existing national programmes and qualifications in the name of increased profits and trading in education as a service on the global market.

This opinion reflects a certain view of the "purity" of education and the appropriateness of making profits from an educational activity, or a concern for quality. It should be underlined that an institution can, of course, be both profitable and of high quality, the exact opposite, or a combination of the two. Whatever the point of view, a refusal to recognize and find ways of dealing with this new phenomenon, for example by means of attempts at the national level to simply outlaw transnational programme qualifications as such, would in the short or medium term, lead to problems which would not disappear, and would be even more difficult to solve at a later date.

It is from the perspective of the anticipated permanence of transnational education that two key questions are particularly important:

i) What should the relationship between national and transnational education be?

The rapid development of transnational education has in some cases led to a growing tension between national education systems, and those study programmes and/or institutions which cross borders and are thus "transnationally mobile". These tensions arise both in relation to education that belongs to a national education system, but not to that of the country in which the institution is located, and in relation to education provided without reference to any national system. For some, transnational education is viewed as a means of improving access and of enhancing quality, especially with regard to professional education, and more generally, "widening learning opportunities without any prejudice either to the standard of the award or qualification or the quality of what is offered to the students".³ It is also considered to play an important role in further developing the internationalization of higher education and in promoting increased intercultural co-operation. Because it makes full use of the opportunities offered by the new information technologies, transnational education can be considered a natural consequence of many convergent developments in the ever more globalized world of today. Others may see it purely as an attempt by some to increase their sources of revenue through trading in educational programmes as a commodity, the implication being that while such programs may correspond to a growing demand for education in the receiving country, the way in which such programmes are delivered may generate distortions, and a whole range of educational, cultural, legal, and financial problems.

Whatever the stand, it is clear that transnational education is a recent and expanding development which has many different facets and cannot be seen from only one perspective, e.g., purely economic or purely educational and cultural in nature. One approach, which could be and indeed already has proved helpful in some countries in reducing the tension between national and transnational education, is to consider the contribution quality transnational education can make in matching supply and demand in particular areas. Another important element relates to the ongoing negotiations of the World Trade Organization related to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Basic to GATS is equal treatment related to the movement of professional and education services across national borders. In this context, Member States and their national higher education systems will be obliged to treat transnational educational offerings in the same way as national educational provision. The same questions arise specifically with regard to the relations between European Union Member States among themselves in the implementation of the appropriate General Directive.

ii) What should the relationship between sending and receiving institutions be?

Transnational education is organized and offered by means of different forms of partnerships or collaborative arrangements. These have been previously described. Whatever the form of collaborative partnership chosen, a distinction is made between the sending institution and the higher education system to which it might belong, and the receiving institution and the system to which it may belong, but which is different to that of the providing/sending institution. While such a distinction may prove operational in dealing with various matters related to transnational education, it would have certain connotations for the active/passive role of the different institutions, which would not necessarily always correspond to reality. The same institution or system might be both a "sender" and a "receiver", in different contexts, and these different roles might be difficult to distinguish. This ambiguity is characteristic at system level, but often the question is one of the recognition of a specific qualification. In that case, an institution is either sender or receiver, but not both. It is therefore for the specific purposes of the recognition of qualifications that the distinction between sending and receiving institutions shall be further used, bearing in mind that both may belong to a national education system and also operate independently of any national system. Another possible distinction would be between awarding and partner institutions, the emphasis thus being put on the ways in which the transnational arrangements are made in order to ensure the quality of higher education provision.

The two issues outlined are the consequences of the expansion of transnational education that have a direct bearing upon the academic quality of courses offered and the recognition of qualifications awarded.

The recent expansion of transnational education raises important practical issues regarding:

• the assurance of quality and standards of both the study programmes provided and the degrees awarded through collaborative partnerships;
• various legislative, cultural, linguistic, financial consequences of partnerships or other collaborative arrangements;
• the recognition of qualifications awarded through such transnational collaborative partnerships.

For UNESCO and the Council of Europe, through the ENIC Network, questions were first raised regarding the recognition of qualifications awarded through transnational education and the extent to which the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region (Lisbon, 1997) could be helpful in providing answers to these questions. And, indeed, the conclusion was that the Lisbon Recognition Convention does provide the basic normative framework for dealing with most of the important issues involved. In a strict legal sense, however, its validity is restricted to the recognition of qualifications belonging to the higher education system of one of the Parties in another Party to the Convention. In practical terms, however, the importance of the Convention goes well beyond a strict legal consideration. The Convention provides a procedural and methodological framework which can be applied to the recognition of any higher education qualification.

For the reasons set out previously, it is clear that further clarification is needed in order to make transnational education a benefit to all concerned in terms of the learning opportunities provided, the standard of the award or qualification, and the quality of what is offered to the students, in so doing making collaborative arrangements a real partnership, and therefore acceptable from the perspective of both receiving and sending institutions/systems. This need is particularly manifest in terms of academic quality, degree awarding standards, and recognition requirements. In order to deal with matters specific to transnational education, a better understanding of its practices, of its normative basis, and of its consequences for the receiving and the sending systems and institutions is needed.

Some of the providers, i.e., the sending institutions, in an attempt to address several of the issues set out above, have elaborated specific codes of practice. Worthy of mention in this respect are:

• Quality Assurance Code of Practice: Collaborative Provisions prepared, and monitored by the Quality Assurance Agency in the United Kingdom;
• Code of Ethical Practice in the Offshore Provision of Education and Educational Services by Australian Higher Education Institutions elaborated and monitored by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee;
• Principles of Good Practice for Educational Programmes for Non-U.S. Nationals is a code shared among the regional institutional accrediting bodies of the United States which, in turn, augment these Principles through additional procedures and regionally based criteria for quality. Further, several additional U.S. professional education accrediting bodies and national institutional accrediting bodies adopt codes and procedures related to educational programmes which cross borders.

These documents, of course, address the problems of transnational education from the providers' perspective. They include recommendations for higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States respectively, which have established, or are intending to establish, collaborative partnerships with institutions in other countries. Their main concerns are ensuring the quality of education provided by their institutions and the standards of awards and qualifications delivered. How to prevent any harmful effects on the reputation of higher education institutions and systems from the sending countries is thus a matter of the utmost concern.

Looking now at the situation in the receiving countries, three main possibilities have been identified:

i) no legal/normative instruments exist, and no "good practice" has been developed in dealing with transnational educational provision;

ii) legal/normative acts do exist, but as yet no "good practice" in their implementation has yet been developed;

iii) attempts to institute appropriate practices have been made, but without any legal basis.

These possibilities are in fact forms of reaction at the national level that aim to solve the problems of transnational education, whether of a legal or of an administrative nature, in terms of changes in the law, or in more practical terms. It is preferable to avoid an artificial polarization of the situation and to promote increased co-operation and exchange of information between the sending and receiving systems as a framework for action to ensure the provision of quality higher education standards and awards. The Lisbon Recognition Convention should thus be taken as the international frame of reference and the starting point for further international action.

From an international perspective, the Lisbon Recognition Convention, as mentioned, provides a wide normative and methodological framework for dealing in general terms with the recognition of qualifications awarded through transnational collaborative arrangements. The Convention is an agreement between national sovereign states, which provides an appropriate legal framework for establishing the responsibilities of the Parties in regard to the academic recognition of qualifications. It is to be hoped that the broad scope of the normative basis it provides will become even more evident during its further implementation. However, some important issues remain which need to be addressed more specifically. For instance, the Parties to the Convention are expected to consider "the great diversity of education systems in the European region", the intention being "to enable all people of the region to benefit fully from this rich asset of diversity by facilitating access by the inhabitants of each State and by the students of each Party's educational institutions to the educational resources of the other Parties, more specifically by facilitating their efforts to continue their education or to complete a period of studies in higher education institutions in those other Parties".

It is implicit in this text as well as in all the clauses of the Convention that it applies to qualifications issued under a higher education system recognized by a Party to the Convention (i.e., a State, even though several education systems can exist within a single state, e.g., in federal states). Most of these qualifications will be issued in the State to the education system to which the qualification belongs, but in some cases institutions may belong to a system different from the system of the State in which it is located. In some Parties to the Convention, there are "central authorities" which have the competence "to make decisions in recognition cases", while in others, this competence lies with "components of the Party" or with "individual higher education institutions" (Art. II.1 of the Convention).

Wherever the competence lies, it is clear that the Convention addresses the international recognition of qualifications issued under the education system of a Party to the Convention. Normally, the need for recognition arises when the holder of the qualification moves to another country for the purpose of further study or for purposes of work. The Convention does not deal with the specific recognition issues which are emerging as a result of the rapid development of transnational education. By definition, and in practice, transnational education refers to arrangements made by higher education institutions – or their constituent parts – which, although generally belonging to a particular national system, also function – as providers of education - in another country (-ies). In these cases, international mobility per se is not the question, for the student is not necessarily expected to travel abroad. Student mobility is replaced by the mobility of study programmes. Study programmes offered in this way have to function in a particular national context, i.e., in a cultural and linguistic – not to mention normative - context, different from that in which they have originated, a fact that has specific consequences in terms of content, delivery and awards. There is no provision in the Convention for such new developments, at least not to the extent to which it takes place outside of national education systems.

Year of publication: 2000