572899

research-article2015
JSIXXX10.1177/1028315315572899Journal of Studies in International EducationKnight

Article
Journal of Studies in International Education
2015, Vol. 19(2) 107121
International Universities: 2015 European Association for
International Education
Misunderstandings and Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Emerging Models? DOI: 10.1177/1028315315572899
jsi.sagepub.com

Jane Knight1

Abstract
Internationalization has transformed higher education institutions and systems
but there is much confusion as to what an international, binational, transnational,
cosmopolitan, multinational, or global university actually means. There is no
standardized model for an international university, nor should there be, but a deeper
understanding of different types of international institutions is necessary. This article
examines key characteristics of three generic models or generations of international
universities. The classic model or first generation is an internationalized university
with a diversity of international partnerships, international students and staff, and
multiple international and intercultural collaborative activities at home and abroad.
This is the most common model. The second generation is called the satellite model,
which includes universities with satellite offices around the world in the form of
branch campuses, research centers, and management/contact offices. Internationally co-
founded universities constitute the third and most recent generation of international
universities. These are stand-alone institutions co-founded or co-developed by two
or more partner institutions from different countries. This article elaborates on the
three models, provides examples of international co-founded institutions, identifies a
number of issues and challenges, and poses the question as to what the next model
of international universities might look like.

Keywords
internationalization, higher education, university, international, intercultural, models,
satellite and branch campus, co-founded, partnerships

1University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Jane Knight, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West,
Toronto, ON M5S 1V5, Canada.
Email: jane.knight@utoronto.ca
108 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Introduction
What is an international university? Ask any group of university senior leaders, stu-
dents, teachers, scholars, or policy analysts this question and there would be a diver-
sity of responses. Even though international is a term used by a large majority of
higher education institutions, it means very different things. Most institutions would
apply it to their collaboration with partners in other countries and participation in
regional or global networks. Many would point to the international and intercultural
make-up of their student body and faculty/staff. Others would refer to their off-campus
research and teaching centers in different parts of the world. Some would refer to the
international and intercultural dimension of their institutions mission and goals,
whereas others would specifically describe their efforts to internationalize academic
programs and research initiatives. And there are those who would use international to
describe their perception of the world class nature of their institution. More recently,
educators suggest that the term has come to represent internationally co-founded and
co-partnered new independent institutions. This is not an exhaustive list, but it serves
to show the myriad of ways the term international university can be interpreted. It also
demonstrates that the term is a catch-all phrase for almost any international dimension
of a university.
To complicate the understanding of international university, different labels are
being used by higher education institutions to describe their international/intercultural
orientation or dimensions. Terms such as multinational university, cosmopolitan uni-
versity, transnational university, global university, and binational university are also
being used in practice and in the literature (Knight, 2014b). No wonder there is some
confusion about just what an international university means.
The focus on the internationalization of universities during the last two decades has
undeniably led to universities wanting to be known as international institutions. This can
be seen as a positive move. But the irony of the situation is that internationalization when
seen as a process of change or transformation is a means and not an end unto itself (de
Wit, 2011; Knight, 2008). So the intent of internationalization is not to become known
as an international institution per se, but to use the integration of international, intercul-
tural or global dimensions into the goals, functions and delivery of education as a means
to improve or achieve academic objectives of the institution or socio-cultural, economic,
or political goals of the country/region. More recently, as internationalization matures at
the institutional level, there is an increasing interest in measuring the internationalness
or internationality of a university by a set of indicators (Brandenburg et al., 2009). This
can lead to both positive and negative consequences, unless care is taken on the develop-
ment and use of appropriate indicators. Using quantitative data can provide helpful
information to an institution but when only outcome indicators are used the transforma-
tive process of internationalization can be ignored.
The current emphasis on framing internationalization in terms of outcomes is add-
ing a new and important dimension to the debate. If measuring outcomes helps clarify
and focus on the academic benefits of internationalization, it will be adding value.
However, the tendency is to use quantitative data to measure concrete results or out-
puts, which is not as useful or meaningful as assessing outcomes and the eventual
Knight 109

impact. The discussion on indicators is a reminder that inputs, process, and outcomes
collectively help to deepen the understanding, implementation, and impact of interna-
tionalization at the institutional level. It is prudent to keep in mind that the outcomes
of internationalization will only be as strong as the inputs and the process, and the
three need to be examined together.
The purpose of this article was to introduce three generic models of international
universitiesclassic, satellite, co-foundedin an attempt to clarify the confusion
around the use of the term. The intent is to examine the defining characteristics of each
model. The discussion focuses on the distinguishing characteristics of the three generic
types and does not attempt to dissect the differences between the terms international,
multinational, binational, or global. Such an exercise is complex due to nuance of
meaning according to different disciplines, the biases of the English language, and the
difficulty of translating subtle differences into other languages. Thus, international
university is the operative term in this article.
Important to note is that terms describing higher education institutions as world
class or internationally recognized universities are not addressed because they deal
more with perception and branding issues than the substantive nature of an interna-
tional university. The term world class is closely linked to the global ranking and
league tables. For instance, the Times Higher Education (THE) has prepared its own
ranking of the top 10 most international universities in the world (Crook, 2014). The
ranking is based on three specific measures of what THE calls an international out-
look. The indicators are (a) the proportion of international students at each university,
(b) the proportion of international faculty, and (c) the proportion of an institutions
research papers that are published with at least one author from another country. While
these are relevant indicators, they represent an extremely narrow approach to defining
an international university and do not represent the richness and diversity of activities
undertaken by higher education institutions to become more international and intercul-
tural. This categorization of an international university has very limited use.

Emerging Models of International Universities

In light of contemporary higher education developments, three models of international
universities are proposed. These are not mutually exclusive models but represent an
attempt to differentiate the approaches taken and shed light on the very popular and
overused term of international university. The first model is labeled the classic model
as it refers to an institution that has developed multiple activities and partners, both at
home and abroad, and involves a broad spectrum of intercultural and international
academic, research, service, and management initiatives. The satellite model is the
second category and refers to those institutions that have concentrated on developing
off-campus research centers, international branch campuses (IBCs), and offices for
alumni relations, student recruitment, or consultancy purposes. The third type, which
is the most recent development, is the international co-founded model. These are new
stand-alone independent institutions that have been co-founded or co-developed by
two or more international partners. Important to emphasize is that the three models are
ideal types, interpreted to mean generic types not optimal types, meaning that they
110 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

do not represent the entire perspective of international universities and furthermore

they are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. Models are useful to deepen the analy-
sis of a particular phenomenon and to raise further questions and issues.
The models can also be referred to as generations as there is a general time line
dimension to the emergence of the different types with the classic being developed
over many years and the co-founded model being the most recent development.
However, it is important to repeat that they are interrelated. For example, the classic
model may evolve and add dimensions of the satellite model. The co-founded model,
which is characterized by being co-developed by international partners, may in time
evolve into the classic internationalized model or even a satellite networked model.

Classic ModelA University With Multiple International Partners and

Activities
Today, a common characteristic of universities is collaboration with international part-
ner universities, research centers, and non-governmental and governmental agencies.
These partnerships span a diversity of academic and management initiatives, including
academic student/scholar mobility, joint program development and delivery, collab-
orative research projects, benchmarking, professional development, and so on. The
number of bilateral or network-based collaborative initiatives has soared in the last
few years. This is a result of the internationalization mandate of universities around
the world. The most recent International Association of Universities (IAU) Global
Survey on Internationalization (Egron-Polak & Hudson, 2014) shows that the leader-
ship in 69% of the responding institutions attributes high importance to international-
ization. In terms of change in the past 3 years, 30% report that it has substantially
increased in importance; 27% report that over this period, internationalization has
remained very important; and for another 31%, it has generally increased in impor-
tance. This is strong testimony to the significant role that international and intercul-
tural dimensions have in higher education institutions today.
Most of the international partnerships are motivated by academic benefits, yet there
are some that are driven by status building or commercial rationales. Nevertheless, for
whatever reason, it is common practice for universities to be internationally engaged
with multiple partners for a diversity of activities both on campus and abroad. Taking
into account the developments during the last three or four decadesnot the century-
old traditions of international cooperationthese can be labeled as first-generation
international or internationalized universities. This is by far the most common inter-
pretation and use of the term international university.

Satellite ModelOverseas Offices, Research Centers, and Branch

Campuses
An important new development is the number of universities that are establishing a
presence in other countries of the world through satellite research centers, branch cam-
puses, and contact offices for alumni support, recruitment of students and professors,
Knight 111

Table 1. Distribution of IBC by Region.

Location of IBCs by region 2009 2011 Planned

Middle East 55 55 1
Asia 44 69 31
Europe 32 48 3
Latin America 18 10 0
North America 8 10 1
Africa 5 18 1
Total 162 200 37

Source. Adapted from Lawton and Katsomitrous (2012).

Note. IBCs = international branch campuses.

development and monitoring of projects, fund/friend raising, and other related activi-
ties.The branch campuses are stand-alone independent brick and mortar campuses or
can be located in rental premises in an education city type of arrangement. However,
the contact/representative offices are often embedded in a local partner institution or
co-located in the offices of an international education office from the home/sending
country. In other cases, the contact offices can be situated in a national embassy affili-
ated building along with other university representative offices.
The main feature of this model is that the university has strategically planned and
developed a series of research, teaching, or management offices in targeted countries
around the world. To date, European universities are very active in establishing the
management-oriented contact offices and seem to be less likely to develop a branch
campus, although France is the exception, while United States, Australia, United
Kingdom, and India are more oriented to establishing branch campuses for teaching
and increasingly research purposes. However, the landscape of satellite operations is
changing rapidly and the scenario may look quite different in the next 5 years.
The growth of IBCs over the last decade has been steady and impressive. The 2012
report from the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) indicates that in
2004, there were only 24 reported IBCs but by 2009, the number jumped to 162, and
by 2011, there were 200 operating with another 37 planned. Furthermore, it is a com-
mon assumption that not all IBCs have been included in the OBHE report and the
actual number of IBCs is much higher. Table 1 illustrates the number of reported IBCs
located in each region of the world according to the 2012 OBHE report.
Table 2 shows the number of IBCs established by the top five source/sending coun-
tries. Collectively, these five countries are responsible for about 75% of all IBCs in the
world.
Given the popularity of IBCs and the reported positive impacts, the growth from
2011 to 2014 has continued and the forecast for future expansion is positive (McNamara
& Knight, 2014). There is significant variation in how universities establish and oper-
ate IBCs (Wilkins & Huisman, 2012), research centers, and contact offices around the
world; thus, the satellite model is a generic term and does not indicate a standardized
or common approach.
112 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Table 2. Top Five Source Countries of Branch Campuses.

Source countries 2009 2011

United States 78 78
Australia 14 12
United Kingdom 13 25
France 11 27
India 11 17
Total 127 = 77% of total IBCs 159 = 75% of total IBCs

Source. Adapted from Lawton and Katsomitrous (2012).

Note. IBCs = international branch campuses.

A university with three or more overseas satellite campuses or offices is often

referred to as an international networked university. For example, New York University
calls itself a Global Networked University with campuses in Shanghai, Abu Dhabi,
and New York and 11 research centers around the world (see http://www.nyu.edu/
global). Another example is Monash University from Australia which has a campus in
Malaysia, a joint graduate school in China, a learning center in Italy, a research center
in India, and an affiliated campus in South Africa (see http://www.monash.edu.au/
about/world/).
Universities, with these types of overseas outreach offices, research centers, and
IBCs, constitute the satellite model of international universities and can be described
as second-generation international universities. Satellite centers are expected to
increase in number in the next years and diversify in types of activities.

Co-Founded ModelInternationally Co-Founded/Co-Developed

Universities
A more recent development is the founding of new independent universities involving
one or more foreign partner institutions. This type of international higher education
institution differs significantly from the international branch campus model because
they are not operating as satellite operations of a parent institution. These are indepen-
dent internationally co-founded or co-developed institutions licensed by the host
country but developed through international collaboration (Knight, 2014b).
There are many examples: Singapore University of Technology and Design),
Nazarbeyev University in Kazakhstan, German University of Technology in Oman,
and Sino-British University and the Xian Jiaotong Liverpool University in China.
These are known as co-founded/co-developed international universities and can be
interpreted as the third and most recent generation. While each example is slightly dif-
ferent, a key common element is that academic partners from different countries have
been deeply involved in the establishment of the new institution. Given the relatively
recent development and diversity of these internationally co-founded universities,
brief profiles of a selection of these institutions are provided to illustrate the different
approaches used in a variety of countries.
Knight 113

Brief Profiles of Co-Founded International Universities

Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore
The SUTD was established in 2012 as Singapores fourth autonomous national univer-
sity. It was developed in close collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) and has a management team including former academics from both MIT and
Singaporean institutions. Zheijang University (ZJU) from China is identified as the
second key partner in the founding of the institution to ensure that best practices from
the East and West are used.
MITs partnership with SUTD involves development of the undergraduate core
curriculum, co-teaching of subjects, student exchanges, recruitment of SUTD faculty,
and the establishment of a major co-located research center known as the SUTD-MIT
International Design Centre (IDC). ZJUs contributions include the design and deliv-
ery of elective courses, thereby infusing elements of Chinese culture, history, and per-
spective into SUTDs education experience. Student exchanges, joint design
competitions, and research are other areas of collaboration with ZJU.
In terms of accreditation, SUTDs three core programs have been accredited by
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in the United States and
the Engineering Accreditation Board in Singapore. The qualifications offered include
both double degrees and a single degree from SUTD depending on the individual pro-
gram. For example, a 2-year double masters degree from MIT and SUTD is offered
and a double degree provided. The essential feature of this co-founded international
university is the full participation of its partners in the initial conceptualization of the
institution, through to the development of the core and elective courses, to the imple-
mentation of the teaching and research priorities. For further information, see www.
sutd.edu.sg/

The German University of Technology in Oman (GUTech), Oman

The GUTech is another fascinating but quite different example of a co-founded or
third-generation international university. In 2007, by special decree from the Sultanate
of Oman, GUTech was established as a privately owned Omani university. Its primary
partner in the planning of the university was Rheinisch-Westflische Technische
Hochschule (RWTH) Achen from Germany. The approach to teaching and research is
firmly based on the German Humboldt model of higher education. The curriculum for
their major programs has been designed and delivered in close collaboration with the
German partner.
The university and its programs have been accredited by the Oman Academic
Accreditation Agency, while the programs that have originated from Germany have
been accredited by German quality assurance and accreditation agency. Joint research
between GUTech and RWTH plus local industrial partners is underway.
This approach has some unique features. One would expect that because it was co-
founded in collaboration with RWTH Achen, it would be more like a branch campus
114 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

of RWTH Achen. This is not the case. It is Omani owned and accredited and only
offers Omani degrees. Significant support is offered by the German government in
several ways: (a) supporting RWTHs role in program design and delivery, (b) offering
scholarships for Omani students to continue graduate studies in Germany, and (c) pro-
viding resources for German language teaching in the university. This type of co-
founded institution is often referred to by the Germans as a Binational University
model, given that the two governments worked closely together, and expertise from
both countries was instrumental in the design and establishment of this institution. For
further information, see www.gutech.edu.om/

Xian Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU), China

The XJTLU, established and approved by the Ministry of Education in China, is
another independent university established by two existing partner institutions
Xiaotong University of China and Liverpool University in the United Kingdom.
Established in 2006 and located in Suzhou Dushu Lake Higher Education Town in the
Shuzhou Industrial Park, it shares common academic and service facilities with other
institutions located there. It is now developing its own campus. At a time when the
branch campus model was popular, this is an early experiment in establishing a new
model of a co-founded international university (Feng, 2013). For further information,
see http://www.sbc-usst.edu.cn/en/

Nazarbayav University (NU), Kazakhstan

NU was established in 2010 as the flagship university of Kazakhstan. It bears the name
of the president of the country and has received generous government support in all
aspects. NU is the only university in Kazakhstan that has the status of an autonomous
educational organization. NU considered several different models of international col-
laborationthe branch campus model, the binational model, and the education city
model.
The approach they adopted is unique and is based primarily upon partnerships with
well-known universities around the world. Partner universities from the United States,
England, and Singapore were carefully selected to collaborate on developing the
undergraduate and graduate programs for the seven different schools which make up
NU. Arrangements differ with each partner but the nature of the collaboration ranges
from assisting with academic staff recruitment and hiring, advice on curriculum devel-
opment, regular quality assurance monitoring, joint research, and full program deliv-
ery. Because partners have different roles to play in the development of the particular
school with whom they are working, it is impossible to make generalizations about the
nature of the collaboration, the quality assurance methods, and even the qualification
offered.
At the current time, only one school offers the qualification of the foreign partner,
the remaining schools offer NU credentials. Double degree programs and qualifica-
tions are under consideration. The senior management team members have been
Knight 115

recruited from universities and organization from all regions of the world. It is the
intention of the Ministry of Education that NU serves as a model of innovation and
good practice for the other universities in the country. This is an example of a co-
developed institution more than a co-founded international university. For further
information, see http://nu.edu.kz.

Sino-British College (SBC), China

The SBC, established in 2006, represents yet another approach. The University of
Shanghai for Science and Technology (USST) has collaborated with a consortium of
nine British institutions to establish a new legal entity called the Sino-British University
which is approved by the Ministry of Education in China. The college is housed on the
Fuxing Campus of the USST. It offers a wide variety of programs that are taught in
English and offer a British credential (Zhuang, 2009). The staff include local teachers
(including USST staff), fly-in faculty from the nine British Universities, as well as
other international expatriate professors located in Shanghai. It appears that the nine
U.K. institutions act much like a branch campus of their home institutions but what
makes the college different from regular international branch campus setups is that a
new legal entity has been created between one Chinese university and a consortium of
nine British. For further information, see http://www.sbc-usst.edu.cn/en/

Hammid Bin Khalifa University (HBKU), Qatar

Qatar is well known for its Education City owned and operated by the Qatar Foundation.
Education City houses 10 branch campuses from universities in the United States,
England, and France. In 2011, the Qatar Foundation announced the establishment of a
new national university in Education City, the Hammid Bin Khalifa University
(HBKU). This is not a branch campus, it is a Qatari University that offers graduate
programs and works in close cooperation with the branch campuses already located in
Education City. The collaboration with international partners, not limited to those
within Education City, make this a co-developed model of an international university.
It remains to be seen if it will offer double/joint qualifications with its international
partners or only HBKU credentials. It is considered to be a private university because
it is owned by the Qatar Foundation not the government per se. For further informa-
tion, see http://www.hbku.edu.qa/en/

Transnational Limburg University (tUL), Belgium and The Netherlands

Another, rather unique but older example of a co-founded international university is
the establishment of the transnational University Limburg (tUL). It is a partnership of
two universities in two countries: the Universiteit Hasselt (UHasselt) of Belgium and
Maastricht University (UM) in the Netherlands. Discussions for the development of
this year started in 1988, and it was officially established more than a decade ago, in
2001. The university is described as an independent institution separate from its two
116 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

founders. The fact that the university included transnational in its name was very
uncommon in 2001 and illustrates that the fundamental aspect of a co-founded inter-
national university is not that new. The benefits of this university are based on using
the expertise of the two partners and developing interdisciplinary teaching and research
which would not have been possible without collaboration. One of the most interesting
features is that it does not have an independent campus. The university is located
within each of the founding institutions and has a rather complex management struc-
ture. More than a decade after its establishment, the university is still operational but
with rather small enrollment numbers. For further information, see http://tul.edu

Other Examples
Other interesting examples of co-founded/co-developed international universities
include Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, which is a graduate-level research
intensive university located in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. It started operations
in 2011 and is part of the Masdar Citya carbon-free city experiment. It worked very
closely with MIT during the design phase and continues close collaboration with them
on both program design and delivery, and joint research initiatives. Interesting to note
is that MIT collaborates very closely with both Masdar and SUTD but has clearly
decided not to lend its name to any institution. Instead, it is presented as a byline in the
university logo similar to the logo of SUTD.
China seems to be very interested in promoting international co-founded indepen-
dent institutions. More recent examples of co-founded international universities
include the Duke Kunshan University which is a joint project between Duke University
and Wuhan University with Kunshan providing the funding and campus. Another
example is New York Shanghai which was co-founded between East Normal University
and New York University. Shenzhen, a purpose built special economic zone city just
north of Hong Kong, is actively positioning itself as an ideal location for international
academic exchange. It is promoting the establishment of co-founded international uni-
versities in Longgang, the special region designated by the Shenzhen government as a
university city. Planning for future collaborations and the establishment of new co-
founded institutions are underway between Tsinghua University and UC Berkeley,
Beijing Institute of Technology and Moscow State University, Jilin University and the
University of Queensland, and Hunan University and the Rochester Institute of
Technology. These partnerships are responding to the invitation to set up small-scale
specialized institutions focusing on areas relevant to Shenzhens employment needs.
They are in the planning stage and not yet confirmed. Important to note are the Chinese
government regulations that require a foreign university to collaborate with a domestic
higher education institution. This is a key factor, influencing the development of inter-
national co-founded universities in China and differs from other countries that do not
legally require this kind of collaboration between a domestic and foreign institution
(Fazackerly & Worthington, 2007).
The Germans have been most active in the past decade, developing their own model
of international universities. They did not adopt the popular branch campus model but
Knight 117

instead developed a binational university model, which emphasizes close cooperation

between the German and foreign governments to jointly establish a new institution
(Geifus & Kammeuller, 2014). While all of their nine binational universities have
German in the name of the university, each institution is slightly different, given that
the political, economic, and cultural context of each partner country differs. Thus, the
Vietnamese German University which is a publicly owned university differs in gover-
nance, management, and funding from the German University in Cairo, which is a
private institution established in 2006 and which now has a branch campus in Berlin
yet another twist to the co-founded model of an international university.
These examples of third-generation international universities have all been co-
founded or co-developed based on international collaborations with university in dif-
ferent countries. But, there are significant differences among them. While many have
been recently established, some are almost a decade old which shows the innovation
of countries that saw beyond first- and second-generation models.

Issues and Challenges

Apart from the common challenges facing most universities related to a host of issues
such as funding, improving quality, responding to the needs of community and labor
market, student and staff recruitment, research funding, there are other issues that are
more specific to the co-founded model of international universities. These include
governance models, intercultural partnerships, accreditation, awarding of qualifica-
tions, staffing, language, host country regulations, and sustainability.
There is no doubt that approaches to university governance differ dramatically
from country to country. The role of university governing boards is normally to chart
policy and overall direction within the regulatory, cultural, and political context of the
host country. When partners from different contexts collaborate to establish a new
institution, including an appropriate governance policy, there are bound to be issues
that need attention. It is not only host country regulations that influence decisions
about who sits on the board, and how they are appointed; it is the differences and simi-
larities of values, norms, and assumptions of governing a higher education institution
that can present significant challenges.
Accreditation of programs is another critical area. In collaboratively designed pro-
grams involving double/multiple degrees, accreditation can become complicated as
quality assurance requirements from each institution/country are normally involved.
Meeting the requirements of two accrediting bodies can mean a heavy drain on human
and financial resources as accreditation is becoming more of a cumbersome bureau-
cratic exercise which can help assure quality but not necessarily improve quality.
Given the current obsession with world rankings, international accreditations are very
attractive, especially for professional programs. This can mean yet another round of
self and external evaluations, and the result usually contributes more to status building
than capacity building for the institution. In short, accreditation of multiple partner
founded institutions is important but can also be a burden and involve a major invest-
ment in effort and resources. A new model of accreditation of co-founded institutions
and collaborative programs is sorely needed.
118 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

A feature and perceived benefit of both satellite and co-founded models of interna-
tional universities is the presence of an international group of academic staff. This
includes local teaching staff from the host country, international expatriate staff, and
fly-in faculty from partner institutions. This culturally rich mix of academic staff (and
often student body) offers many opportunities for cross-cultural exchange of knowl-
edge, insights, and values. It can also introduce challenges in the classroom when
different assumptions and academic practices are in conflict. This relates to group
work, plagiarism, attendance, workload, and negotiation for grades. While these issues
can be successfully addressed, they are often neglected until a problem occurs. More
attention to these issues is required to ensure that culturally diverse classrooms, cam-
puses, and faculty/management teams provide benefits not problems.
Who awards the qualifications and whether it is a single, joint, double, or multiple
qualification is an increasingly important and controversial issue. While institutions
and students alike welcome double/multiple degrees, there is an array of issues related
to the legal requirements for qualifications awarded by partner institutions. Even more
important is the ethical issue and integrity of awarding two or more qualifications for
the workload of one program. The debate of double counting credits resulting in two
or more credentials (one qualification from each partner institution) will continue until
appropriate legislation and practice are established, which either permit joint degrees
(one qualification with the names of all partner institutions included in certificate or in
an attachment) or alternatively ban double/multiple degrees that are based on double
counting of credits. The debate on whether double degrees offer double benefits or
double counting of credits continues (Knight, 2011). Of course, there are models that
exist when the double degree accurately represents the workload of two separate pro-
grams and qualifications but this arrangement is not the norm.
A solution needs to be found, which allows co-developed/delivered programs to
flourish but respects the integrity of what an earned university qualification represents.
One approach worth consideration is the development of an International Affiliation
Transcript attached to a single degree certificate, which identifies the international
nature and partners of the program and includes where and how many courses /credits/
internships were completed by students with each international partner. This clearly
indicates that it is an international collaborative degree and correctly places the empha-
sis on the joint design and delivery of the programnot on the number of qualifica-
tions offered. The proposed International Affiliation Transcript or a similar document
is particularly important for co-founded/co-developed international universities,
which offer double or multiple degree programs because it ensures the integrity and
recognition of the qualifications offered and does not raise the question of whether
discount double counting degrees are provided.
These are examples of only a few academic issues that international universities
can face. Of course, there are financial, regulatory, technical, and political issues that
also need to be addressed. Given the current appetite for international collaboration
and the fast pace of internationalization of higher education, it is of fundamental
importance that appropriate solutions, high standards and good practices are devel-
oped. It is prudent to continue to monitor the unforeseen issues and unintended
Knight 119

consequences both positive and negative of the changing landscape of international

universities.

What Is NextEdu-Glomerate Model?

If there was a crystal ball showing the future of international universities what would
the next generation look like? Who knows? One far-fetched idea worth considering is
the notion of edu-glomerates. The idea of edu-glomerates builds on the recent phe-
nomenon of education hubs, academic cities, or higher education zonesall of which
bring together a diversity of international and local education providers, including the
three generations of international universities and private professional training estab-
lishments (Knight, 2014a).
An edu-glomerate extends the concept of international universities, education hubs,
or cities by offering students an opportunity to mix and match courses from a variety
of local or international providers using a common and recognized credit system
(Knight, 2013). Such a credit system can be specific to the edu-glomerate or based on
an existing national or regional academic credit system. The key factor is the provider
of the academic qualificationnot the provider of the course work. The edu-glomer-
ate could validate completed course work (both face-to-face and virtual, that is,
Massive Open Online Courses - MOOCs) and offer its own credential under a national
licensing scheme. Alternatively, individual providers could establish their own prereq-
uisites for conferring their degree based on accepting completed course work from
other providers. In this scenario, the franchising of the credential is more important
than franchising the academic program itself. It would help avoid the current practice
of double counting credits/workload for multiple degrees. This is a type of market-
place of local and international universities which caters to students individual inter-
ests and builds on the interdisciplinary nature of higher education and the new forms
of online learning.
Edu-glomerates may sound like science fiction and a long way from todays reality.
A couple of decades ago, the same could have been said about branch campuses or
education hubs or even MOOCs. Stay tunedthe only constant these days in interna-
tional education is innovation.

Last Words
This article addressed the question of what is an international university. There is
much confusion as to what an international, binational, transnational, multinational, or
global university actually means. In fact, it is not the term that is important but the
model or approach that is used. There is no standardized model, nor should there be. A
cookie cutter or standardized approach to international universities neglects the criti-
cal importance of cultural, social, economic, political, and academic context of the
host country and the nature of the international academic partnerships. This article has
suggested three different models or generations of international universities. Within
each approach, there are variations. The classic model is an internationalized univer-
sity with a diversity of international partnerships, international students and staff, and
120 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

multiple collaborative and intercultural activities. The satellite model includes univer-
sities that have established satellite offices in different countries of the world in the
form of branch campuses, research centers, and management/project offices. The most
recent generation of international universities are co-founded or co-developed by two
or more partner institutions from different countries. The three proposed models of
international universities are a work in progress. This article and suggested typology
is only a first step toward developing a clearer understanding and framework for the
analysis of the evolving and innovative models of international universities.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Brandenburg, U., Ermel, H., Federkeil, G., Fuchs, S., Groos M., & Menn, A. (2009). How to
measure the internationality and internationalisation of 65 higher education institutions:
Indicators and key figures. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Measuring success in the internationalization
of higher education EAIE occasional paper 22 (pp. 65-76). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
European Association of International Education.
Crook, R. (2014). The 100 most international universities in the world 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/the-25-most-international-universities-in-
the-world/2010783.article
de Wit, H. (2011). Trends, issues and challenges in internationalization of higher educa-
tion. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Centre for Applied Research on Economics and
Management, Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of higher education: Growing
expectations, fundamental values (IAU 4th Global Survey). International Association of
Universities. Retrieved from http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/IAU-4th-GLOBAL-
SURVEY-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.pdf
Fazackerly, A., & Worthington, P. (Eds.). (2007). British Universities in China: The reali-
ties beyond the rhetoric (An Agora Discussion Paper). Agora: The Forum for Culture and
Education. London, United Kingdom.
Feng, Y. (2013). University of Nottingham Ningbo China and Xian Jiaotong-Liverpool
University: Globalization of higher education in China. Higher Education, 65(4), 471-485.
Geifus, S., & Kammeuller, S. (2014, Summer). Transnational, bi-national, international? The
German approach. Summer 2014; European Association For International Education,
Amsterdam, pp. 17-19. Retrieved from www.eaie.org/dms/pdf/publications/forum/forum-
extracts/2014_Summer_Forum_extract/Transnational%20education%20%7C%202014%20
EAIE%20Summer%20Forum.pdf
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Knight 121

Knight, J. (2011). Doubts and dilemmas with double degree programs. In Revista de Universidad
y Sociedad del Conocimiento [Review of the University and the Knowledge Society], 8(2),
235-248.
Knight, J. (2013, Fall). From Multi-national universities to Education Hubs to Edu-glomerates?
IIENetworker Magazine, p.42.
Knight, J. (2014a). International education hubs: Student, talent, knowledge models. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Knight, J. (2014b). What is an international university. In A. Glass (Ed.), The state of higher
education 2014 (pp. 139-143). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Lawton, W., & Katsomitrous, A. (2012). International branch campuses: Data and develop-
ments. London, UK: Author.
McNamara, J., & Knight, J. (2014). Impacts of transnational education on host countries:
Academic, social/cultural, economic and skills impacts and implications of program and
provider mobility. London, England: British Council/German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD).
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in
higher education. Higher Education, 64, 627-645.
Zhuang, L. (2009). The challenges facing Sino-UK transnational education: An institutional
experience. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 1, 243-255.

Author Biography
Jane Knight is a professor at the Ontario Institute of Education, University of Toronto. She
focuses her research, teaching and policy work on the international and intercultural dimensions
of higher education at the institutional, national, regional and global levels.