The international branch campus and institutional social capital: Exploring the spatial dimensions of capital in transnational higher education

• In Event: Roundtable Session (Wednesday V)
  In Refereed Round-Table Session: Higher education and internationalization: Recruitment and challenges in Asia, Africa, and North America

Proposal

Transnational education, defined in this context as the movement of institutions, academic programs, and providers between countries, has been around for decades and can take several forms (Knight, 2016). International branch campuses (IBCs) have experienced exponential growth within the last few decades (e.g. Altbach, 2016; Becker, 2009; Knight, 2016; Wilkins, Balakrishnan & Juisman, 2012; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). Empirical research is lacking when it comes to the social implications for both the institutions engaged in transnational higher education through the development of IBCs and the students participating in these degree programs. The students studying at international branch campuses are both local and international, undertaking an international education without venturing overseas. How valuable is an international degree earned at home? How do the spatial dimensions of their engagement with their degree-granting institution affect them both during their degree program and after completion?
The purpose of this study is to understand how students who have studied and are curently studying at an IBC narrate their experiences and expectations from transnational higher education, particularly focusing on the development and manifestation of institutional social capital and students’ ability to use this social capital in their specific local contexts. Through semi-structured one-on-one interviews and focus group interactions with current students and alumni of an American IBC in Singapore, it is found that enrollment is mostly a feature of lack of access to one of the local universities, which hold the highest status in the Singapore context. However, informants see the American style of education as both an escape from a stifling local education system, as well as something that differentiates them from their peers from local institutions. Informants highlighted that Singapore’s education system was one reason for their inability to access a local higher education institution, as they did not cope well with the hyper-competitive, high-stakes characteristics of their earlier schooling. The development of a strong alumni group in Singapore is highlighted as a way to increase the value of the degree in the Singapore context. As the alumni group expands through more branch campus graduates, informants suggest that holders of the degree will be taken more seriously and will be considered the “real deal,” furthering the possibility of social mobility despite lack of access to an elite local university or other social capital through other networks.
The data suggest that there is spatial variation in institutional capacity for providing social capital between home campuses and branch campuses. However, there appears to be a sort of “grassroots” institutional social capital being produced and activated. Students have defined their institution themselves, through both being cheerleaders for the benefits of their education in their local context and being “examples” for each other in Singapore. This “membership in a group” that provides members with “backing of the collectively-owned capital, a credential which entitles them to credit” (Bourdieu, 1986) is taking place on the ground in Singapore and is being concertedly cultivated by graduates to increase the relevance of their degree in their local context. This “grassroots” institutional social capital is tied to the “institution” of the American university, but with uniquely Singaporean characteristics being cultivated by the students and graduates.

Author

• Christopher William Kohler, University at Buffalo