Foreign market entry mode choices in the ...

Foreign market entry mode choices in the internationalization

of higher education institutions

Dr. Harald Dolles

Visiting Professor in International Business

University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law

Gothenburg, Sweden

e-mail: [email protected]

Professor of Management & International Business

German Graduate School of Management and Law

Heilbronn, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]

of 26 ANZAM 2009

1

Foreign market entry mode choices in the internationalization

of higher education institutions

ABSTRACT

Internationalization is a major concern for higher education institutions (HEIs). Current research

investigates the drivers for internationalization by applying a macro perspective, but do not analyze

how HEI respond to those effects of globalization. Based on cases collected in the HE sector we

develop a framework of foreign market entry modes by HEIs. Those are discussed on the basis of

resource commitment, relational friction and control. By comparing our analysis with entry mode

strategies applied in the service industry we recognize that those are not generalizable to the HE

sector. We therefore conclude that the choices for HEIs are unique that further research efforts should

be devoted to analyze foreign market entry choices for HEIs.

KEYWORDS

Higher education institutions; internationalization strategies; entry mode choices; service industry

INTRODUCTION1

Internationalization is a major concern for the management of higher education institutions (HEIs).

The results of the 2005 International Association of Universities’ (IAU) study show that 73 per cent

of HEIs consider internationalization at institutional level of their universities with high priority (23

per cent with medium priority)(Knight, 2005: 13). Australia and New Zealand since long are highly

active in the export of higher education (HE) services (Oettli, 1999). During the 1990s also European

HEIs increasingly started to establish off-shore institutions and to recruit foreign students. INSEAD

e.g. opened his campus in Singapore in 2000 and established thereafter centers to promote its

programs in Abu Dhabi, UAE, India and China (http://www.insead.edu/discover_insead/who_we_are/

history.cfm, last accessed 20 January 2009). In another case, with a clear European vision towards

1 I acknowledge the support by Denise Steckstor (GGS-Heilbronn) to a previous version of this paper.

of 26ANZAM 2009

2

Easter Europe the European University Viadrina in Germany was founded 1991 in Frankfurt (Oder)

close to the German-Polish border operating faculty buildings in Germany as well as in Poland

(http://www.euv-frankfurt-o.de/en/ueber_uns/index.html, last accessed 20 January 2009).

Globalization, technology innovations, massification and new competition from private institutions in

HE are the main factors that increased the pressure for HEIs to internationalize their curriculum,

student body, faculty, staff and institutional structures. These developments and the decline in public

funding increasingly aggravate the pressure for HEIs to act entrepreneurially at a corporate level to

enter foreign markets. The benefits associated with internationalization are summarized in Figure 1.

Internationalization of the student body and faculty as well as improved academic quality are ranked

most important followed by strengthen research, curriculum innovation and international solidarity.

------------------------------------------

Place Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------------------

This research aims to contribute to a knowledge base for HEIs when making decisions on their

internationalization strategy. Thus we build on the findings by Hardy, Langley, Mintzberg and Rose

(1983, 1984) that HEIs are inundated with strategies as consistent patterns of actions: within study

programs and department developments, about research funding and approaches to tenure, concerning

teaching etc. (Mintzberg & Rose, 2003). We just do not know how strategies evolve in the HEI

setting, how they interrelate and how HEI weight tradeoffs especially in their internationalization

strategy to achieve the highest benefits to the institution. The impact of entry modes on the success of

an internationalization strategy in manufacturing was recognized as essential already by Wind and

Perlmutter (1977), followed by a stream of research on the topic, reviewed and synthesized e.g. by

Sarkar and Cavusgil (1996). As an outcome of the growing research interest in the internationalization

of the service industry (e.g. Bouquet, Hébert & Delios, 2004; Aharoni & Nachum, 2000; Clark,

Rajaratnam & Smith, 1996; Aharoni, 1993; Andersen, 1993; Vandermerwe & Chadwick 1989;

Boddewyn, Halbrich & Perry 1987) research on entry mode strategies in services emerged as central

of 26 ANZAM 2009

3

topics (e.g. the overview provided by Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006; Ekeledo & Sivakumar,

1998; Erramilli, 1990). A study of the literature, however, raises the question, whether research

findings on entry mode strategies taken from manufacturing or other service industries are

generalizable to the HE sector.

Manufacturing firms and service firms may enter foreign markets using a variety of entry modes, for

example, exports, licensing, joint ventures or wholly-owned subsidiaries. The choice of a foreign

market entry mode is usually related with the commitment of resources and the level of control

(Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006). Control, understood as the ability to influence systems,

methods and decisions (Anderson & Gatignon, 1986), is crucial as it applied to ensure achievement of

the ultimate business purpose of the investment (Dolles, 2003). In addition, resource commitment and

control appears to be significant factors determining both risks and returns especially in co-operative

agreements, the amount of relational friction between business partners, and finally the performance

of the overseas investment (Dolles & Wilmking, 2005; Barkema & Vermeulen, 1998; Barkema, Bell

& Pennings, 1996; Wurche 1994a, 1994b). Controlling the face to the customer even when entering

foreign markets only allows HEIs to provide good quality services to their students, thus protecting

their reputation and increase their international brand value. Therefore this research concerning entry

mode choices of HEIs and the implications towards commitment of resources, relational friction and

to control is important.

After briefly introducing the methodology applied and defining important terms, we develop the

drivers for internationalization in the HE sector. Further a distinction between different levels of

foreign entry mode choices for HEIs, based on resource commitment, the danger of relational friction

and the possibility to exert control is made. Then we investigate whether research results on the

internationalization obtained from service industries might generalize to the HE sector. Finally

managerial and theoretical implications of this research are addressed.

METHODOLOGY

of 26ANZAM 2009

4

The focus of this study is laid upon the institutional level of HEI and analyzes the most fundamental

decision when targeting foreign markets, i.e. foreign market entry mode choices. The following points

need to be made to capture this global development in the HE sector in research: First, international

studies on the HE sector must emphasize the political, economic, cultural and social patterns that

contour and shape modern HEIs. The second point concerns the concept of internationalization itself.

This concept refers to the growing interconnectedness, with multitude of transnational or global

economic and technological exchanges, communication networks and migratory patterns that

characterize this interconnected world pattern in HE.

The chosen methodology reflects the exploratory nature of our research and is based on the

suggestions to a systematic review by Lipsey and Wilson (2001). We searched the websites of

government and supranational institutions as well as top universities (taken from the Financial Times

Ranking) in order to gain information about drivers in the internationalization of HEI and about their

ways to access the international market. These searches yielded a number of documents, articles, and

reports that were placed in the literature pool. We applied next a qualitative content analysis in order

to identify internationalization drivers as well as different foreign market entry modes based on the

method suggested by Mayring (2000a, 2000b, 1994). This structural approach consisted of the

following steps: (1) Formulating structural categories for interpretation extracted from the literature

pool; (2) extracting definitions, examples, and rules for codification of the structural categories; (3)

compiling the data by attaching sequences out of the documents collected in the literature pool; and

(4) performing a qualitative analysis of the assembled data.

An academic literature review followed in order to provide scientifically-based evidence available to

support the preliminary composition of different foreign market entry choices for HEIs. Those articles

were added to the literature pool, too. In cases where strong scientifically-based research did not exist,

we decided to produce syntheses of research summarizing the evidence taken from practice.

Thereafter we reviewed the internationalization literature for service firms aiming to improve our

understanding of the foreign entry mode decision by service firms in different types of service

of 26 ANZAM 2009

5

industries. The purpose was to explore, whether general research findings from the service industry

can be transferred to the HE sector, or whether the internationalization process of HEIs is so unique,

that there is a need to develop a separate theory to explain the foreign market entry strategies of HEIs.

Because of this step-wise development of our research topic we provide a more thorough,

comprehensive, and precise analysis that might also serve as a basis for future research on HEIs’

internationalization processes.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR

Internationalization has dominated HEI agendas and political discussions since the early 1990s

(Teichler, 2007; Kondakci, van den Broeck & Devos, 2006; Scott 1998; Knight & de Wit, 1995;

Davis, 1992), thus leading to a growing interest in research on this topic (refer to Table 1 on the main

streams of research). Existing studies focus on the developments from supranational or national

perspectives but mainly ignore the strategic implications of HE internationalization strategies at

institutional level. Altbach (2004) and Douglass (2005) focus on the general impact of globalization

on HE systems, whereas Bourke (2000), Larsen and Vincent-Lancrin (2002), Sadlak (1998) or

Teichler (2007) emphasize international student mobility flows and corresponding political programs

such as ERASMUS / ERASMUS MUNDUS / SOCRATES in Europe. International ranking processes

make HEIs generally, and business schools in particular, sensitive to issues of reputation, status or

legitimation (McKee, Mills & Weatherbee, 2005). HEIs therefore become increasingly sensitized to

how they were evaluated in the rankings and seek to brand themselves for compete for both students

and resources nationally and internationally. International accreditation is perceived as an esteemed

stamp of program approval and the process is recognized in research as having improved the quality

of business education (Hayward, 2001; Eaton, 2000; Mayes, Heide & Smith, 1993). Only a few case

studies examined internationalization at the institutional level of HEIs, thus looking at the

establishment and enhancement of a presence overseas (van der Wende, et al., 2005; McBurnie,

2000). The 2005 IAU Global Survey Report is the only large scale survey on the internationalization

of HEIs worldwide, providing data on the rationales for internationalization and examples on the

implementation of international measures. Nevertheless of this research efforts, there is still a gap to

of 26ANZAM 2009

6

close concerning the institutional strategies of HEIs and the reasons why they opt for certain

internationalizations forms, in which sequence in time and whether they can achieve their goals

towards internationalization.

------------------------------------------

Place Table 1 about here

-------------------------------------------

DRIVERS FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION

According to Knight (1997: 6) “globalization is the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people,

values, ideas […] across borders. Globalization affects each country in a different way due to a

nation’s individual history, traditions, culture and priorities.” Beerkens (2004) adds a dynamic

perspective, when defining the globalization of HEIs, in which basic social arrangements within and

around the university to become disembedded from their national context due to the intensification of

transnational flows of people, information and resources. To integrate the two levels of aggregation,

the impact of globalization on nations as well as the increasing institutional internationalization of

HEI, we apply the following definition for our research: Globalization in the context of HE is the flow

of technology, knowledge, economy, peoples and their values across national borders, affecting each

nation in a different way. This leads to the dissociation of basic social arrangements within and

around HEIs from their national context. Internationalization strategies are considered as the way

HEIs respond to, or actively exploit, those effects of globalization.

At the same time internationalization is a driver for globalization and shapes the process through the

internationalization activities. Knight and de Wit (1995: 17) consider internationalization of HE as

“the process of integrating the international dimension into the teaching, research and service

functions of an institution of HE.” The terms ‘transnational education’ or ‘multinationalization’

(Altbach, 2004; Teichler, 2007) are often utilized in the context of international education.

Transnational education is a key element of a possible internationalization strategy of a HEI, where

international education markets are targeted by the institution. It can be defined as HE services,

of 26 ANZAM 2009

7

including programs, sets of courses or distance learning, where the student is located in a different

country than the awarding HEI (dos Santos, 2000; Teichler, 2007).

Key drivers pushing the internationalization process of HE are discussed below. These can be

distinguished into the four groups of political, economic, academic and cultural/social/technological

factors as described in Figure 2.

------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------

MARKET ENTRY MODES OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

There are several different options to target the international market in HE as illustrated in Figure 4.

The decision of the market entry mode is fundamental since it effects the institution as a whole and

needs to be undertaken carefully at the beginning of the internationalization strategy (Aharoni, 1966;

Erramilli & Rao, 1993, 1990; Terpstra & Sarathy, 1994). 70 per cent of HEIs find the implementation

of internationalization activities fraught with risks (refer to figure 3), which underpins once again the

critical importance of choosing a suitable entry mode strategy for HEIs.

------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------

The most common forms of HE internationalization are the mobility of students and scholars. Large

numbers of students study abroad for a certain period of time or a complete program including a

degree abroad. In order to cope with the increasing international demand the number of international

distance learning programs is increasing. Delivered online, they do not require the physical presence

of the students, who could even be located on a different continent. Among the contractual forms of

internationalization the partial credit recognition between two or HEIs, called ‘articulation’, is most

common. The concept of ‘franchising’ in HE involves the use more resources to enter a foreign

of 26ANZAM 2009

8

education market than articulation. One HEI (franchiser) authorizes another HEI (franchisee) in the

target country to offer the programs developed by the franchiser and to award the degree of the

franchiser. This concept is also referred to as ‘McDonaldisation’ of HEIs (Altbach, 2004; dos Santos,

2000). ‘Twinning’ is a kind of co-production agreement between two HEIs to offer joint programs

(double degree programs) where students attend parts of their studies at both institutions. These

agreements are known as double or multiple agreements between HEIs, where students are able to

obtain two or three final degrees as a result of these agreements. The establishment of ‘joint ventures’

is another option to enter a foreign education market that requires direct investment and the

commitment of resources but allows a higher level of control than contractual entry modes. Another

form of direct investment would be the establishment of a ‘branch or satellite campus’, where the new

campus offers the programs of the mother institution (Jones, 2001). An ‘off-shore institution’ is

similar to a branch, but is autonomous and does offer its own degrees (Teichler, 2007).

APPLYING EXPERIENCES FROM SERVICE INDUSTRIES FOR

HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

In comparison to research on the HE sector foreign entry mode strategies have been studied

extensively in service industries. Blomstermo, Sharma and Sallis (2006) state, that especially during

the last decade, research on how service firms enter foreign markets has accelerated. Contractor, Kudu

and Hsu (2003) argue that there are substantial differences among different types of services.

Research on the internationalization of services therefore focus specific service industries like hotels

(Gannon & Johnson, 1997; Littlejohn & Roper 1991), retailing (Burt, Dawson & Sparks, 2003;

Andersson, 2002; Dawson, 2001), financial services (Grosse, 1997) or tourism (Björkman & Kock,

1997). Ekeledo and Sivakumar (1998: 278) suggest to use the distinction between hard and soft

services “to reduce the large diversity of the service sector and uncovers useful insights about

international entry modes that extend beyond individual service industries.” This typology is

frequently applied in the research on the internationalization of service firms (e.g. by Blomstermo,

Sharma & Sallis, 2006; Ekeledo, & Sivakumar, 2003; Majkgard & Sharma, 1998; Hellmann, 1996;

Erramilli & Rao, 1993).

of 26 ANZAM 2009

9

For soft services, production and consumption happen simultaneously, as it is the case with HE. In

contrast to this, hard services are those where production and consumption can be decoupled. Thus

hard services can be stored in a tangible form such as software or R&D services (Erramilli, 1990),

which can be transferred in a document or some other tangible media. They might be standardized,

thus making mass production feasible. This is only important for a few distance learning types in the

HE sector. With soft services, where production and consumption occur simultaneously, decoupling is

not viable (Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006). For the purpose of our research we therefore assume

“educational services” might classify as soft services, whereby the key characteristic is that the

customer, in the HE case the student, is the co-producer of the service. We propose further that it

might be possible for HEIs to opt for similar internationalization strategies as soft services firms.

Sanchez-Peinado, Pla-Barber and Hérbert (2007) state that knowledge intensive HE services are

difficult to transfer on a contractual basis. Accordingly, we assume HEIs would prefer fully owned

subsidiaries in their internationalization strategies, such as branch campuses or off-shore institutions.

This would guarantee the highest level of control over program delivery, reduce relational friction and

allow the best service quality management. At the same time, a high control level demands stronger

resource commitment, especially into HR capacities, but it allows direct control over quality standards

and to correspondingly build up reputation, which is extremely important in the highly competitive

HE markets. We might therefore assume, the important assets of a HE institution’s brand value and

reputation can be transported best to the foreign students by establishing an overseas facility. Only the

strong local presence facilitates to build up personal relationships which are necessary for this type of

service (Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006). To differentiate through the personalization of the

service, the interaction with the consumers is a major success factor for service companies, as it is for

HEIs. By establishing local branches or off-shore institutions HEIs can gain insight into the local

demands of the market and are able to adjust services accordingly. Still, the choosing of a high control

entry mode bares a high commitment of resources due to the necessary capital investment.

Universities from New Zealand explained that when they established satellite campuses abroad they

of 26ANZAM 2009

10

were faced with problems of scale. The adjustment to local laws and employment conditions caused

as well difficulties for the HEIs (http://www.minedu.govt.nz/, accessed 20 February 2008).

The criteria of the service typology of knowledge intensity, used by Sanchez-Peinado, Pla-Barber and

Hérbert (2007) and other scholars (Contractor, Kundu, & Hsu, 2003; Hertog, 2000; Windrum &

Tomlinson, 1999) might also be applied to educational services. Human capital is the most important

factor for knowledge intensive services as it is the case with education. Furthermore, Vandermerwe

and Chadwick (1989) systemize services on the basis of consumer/producer interaction and the

relative involvement of products during the service delivery. Knowledge (primarily in the form of

information provided to consumers) is a key factor in Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) service-centered

perspective on marketing. They defined service as “the application of specialized competences

(knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or

the entity itself” (ibid.: 2). According to their model, knowledge can be extended to the entire service-

provision chain, and in that chain the primary flow is information to a consumer who desires it. From

their perspective, primary marketing activities include interactivity, integration, customization and co-

production. Applying this to HE services where value is defined and co-created with the student rather

than embedded in output, the goal of HE is to customize offerings for international markets and to

recognize that the student is always a co-producer, and to strive to maximize involvement in the

customization.

We might therefore claim that HEIs with the characteristics of high knowledge intensity, where value

is defined and co-created in high interaction with the student, and low involvement of products would

opt for an entry mode with high control and investment, such as fully or partly owned direct

investment options. They would less likely choose to enter a market through exporting (students,

faculty, distance learning) since this is the entry mode with the lowest level of control over the

delivery of the services abroad. However as the number of student and faculty exchange programs is

growing and a growing number of contractual agreements between HEIs is recorded (Knight, 2007)

the arguments by Blomstermo, Sharma & Sallis, 2006; Erramilli & Rao, 1993; Erramilli, 1991 are not

of 26 ANZAM 2009

11

supported in the HE sector, that soft service firms are more likely to choose high control entry modes.

In addition the Ministry of Education NZ came to the conclusion when striving towards transnational

education activities, that “perhaps the best approach, both in terms of mode of delivery and financial

risk, is seen to be twinning programmes or joint ventures with local, established partners that involve

an arrangement to offer curriculum and/or teaching without direct offshore capital investment”

(http://www.minedu.govt.nz, accessed 20 February 2008). This finding is also a clear distinction from

findings of the manufacturing industry where firms follow the different stages from exporting to

foreign direct investment (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). It addresses the purpose of our paper that

research findings from manufacturing or other service industries are not always generalizable to the

HE sector. The entry mode of a contractual agreement, such as franchising, lies in the middle of the

two ends of this axis. Figure 5 shows the different possible entry modes for HEIs and the

corresponding level of control, commitment and relational friction.

------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------

In a call for marketing practitioners and scholars to change their theoretical approach to marketing,

Gummesson (2002), recommended a reduction in the distinction between producer and consumer and

conceptualized the consumer as an “active co-producer, user, and value creator” (ibid.: 587). He

presented two “new economy” marketing theory perspectives; the first of which includes three

factors: goods, services, and information technology. “In services, customer-supplier interaction and

relationships in the service encounter stands out as the most distinctive feature separating them from

goods” (ibid.: 586). The second perspective included two sub-economies - value and networks. The

value economy focuses on the desired output and the network economy focuses on the character of

the input. Similar to the view of Vargo and Lusch (2004), Gummesson (2002) contends that in the

new economy, “suppliers both produce and consume value and exist in networks, and customers do

the same. Value is not present until an offering is used for something and experienced as satisfying a

need for somebody” (ibid.: 587). In HE this requests to develop reflection on how HEIs can provide

of 26ANZAM 2009

12

the right mix of skills and competencies for the labor market, which e.g. was one of the objectives

mapped out in the European Bologna Qualifications Framework (http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/

hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/QF-EHEA-May2005.pdf, last accessed 20 February 2008).

CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH AGENDA

Globalization in the context of HE is the flow of technology, knowledge, economy, peoples and their

values across national borders, affecting each nation in a different way. This leads to the dissociation

of basic social arrangements within and around HEIs from their national context. Internationalization

strategies are considered as the way HEIs respond to, or actively exploit, those effects of

globalization. Compared to foreign market entry modes found in manufacturing or other service

industries we developed a framework of entry modes by HEI with four distinct categories: Export

(student/scholar mobility/teaching assignments/distance education), contractual modes (articulation,

twinning, franchising), co-operative modes (joint ventures) and wholly owned forms (branch

campus/satellite campus/off-shore institution).

Knowledge intensive HE services are difficult to transfer on a contractual basis. Accordingly, we

assume HEIs would prefer fully owned subsidiaries in their internationalization strategies, such as

branch campuses or off-shore institutions. This would guarantee the highest level of control over

program delivery, reduce relational friction and allow the best service quality management. At the

same time, a high control level demands stronger resource commitment but it allows direct control

over quality standards and to correspondingly build up reputation, which is extremely important in the

highly competitive HE market. We therefore propose, the important assets of a HE institution’s brand

value and reputation can be transported best abroad by establishing a branch or satellite campus.

Empirical evidence from the 2005 International Association of Universities’ study however show, that

most HEIs prefer ‘export’ as the most common form of internationalization. Various cases describing

contractual forms of internationalization could be found through our own survey, whereas joint-

ventures are mentioned only seldom. Wholly owned branch campuses or off-shore institutions where

faced with problems of scale. The adjustment to local laws and employment conditions caused as well

of 26 ANZAM 2009

13

difficulties for the HEIs. We therefore might conclude that research findings taken from

internationalization strategies found in the service industry are not always generalizable to the HE

sector. The choices of foreign entry modes and the steps taken in the internationalization process of

HEIs are pretty much unique. This issue needs more research. Furthermore, we do not know how

successful different entry mode strategies are and which obstacles the institutions face during their

internationalization measures. However, it seems to be clear from the empirical data that HEIs will

continue to internationalize, targeting new markets, thus creating even more demand for research.

Our analysis also has important managerial implications for HEIs. First, this research shows that there

are differences between the HE sector and the service industry with regard to the selection of foreign

market entry mode. Specifically, HEIs are much more likely to choose an export or contractual mode

than the soft-service industry would opt for. Second, as it is important for HEIs to co-create value

with the students the goal of HE marketing should be is to customize offerings, to recognize that the

consumer is always a co-producer, and to strive to maximize consumer involvement in the

customization. Nevertheless, the pursuit of profit goals can lead to the loss of essential values within

the culture of the HEI, as soon as only these dominate the organization. HEIs should interrogate

themselves whether they want risk this loss. Therefore, a careful balancing of the traditional HE

values and entrepreneurial objectives is desirable.

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y. (Ed.) 1993. Coalitions and competition: globalization of professional business services.

London: Routledge.

Aharoni, Y. 1966. The foreign investment decision process. Boston: MA Graduate School of Business

Administration, Harvard University.

Aharoni, Y. & Nachum, L. (Eds.) 2000. Globalization of services: some implications for theory and

practice. London: Routledge.

Altbach, P.G. 2004. Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world.

Tertiary Education and Management, (10)1: 3-25.

Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. 2006. The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and

realities. The NEA 2006 almanac of higher education, 1-11.

of 26ANZAM 2009

14

Andersen, O. 1993. On the internationalization process of firms: a critical analysis. Journal of

International Business Studies, 24(2): 209-231.

Anderson, E. & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: a transaction cost analysis and

propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 1-26

Andersson, P. 2002. Connected internationalisation processes: the case of internationalising channel

intermediaries. International Business Review, 11(3): 365-383.

Austin, B. (Ed.) 2000. Capitalizing knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Barkema, H.G. & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: a

learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 7-27.

Barkema, H.G.; Bell, J.H.J. & Pennings, J.M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning.

Strategic Management Journal, 17(2): 151-166.

Beerkens H.J.J.G. 2004. Global opportunities and institutional embeddedness: Higher education

consortia in Europe and southeast Asia. Enschede: CHEPS.

Björkman, I. & Kock, S. 1997. Inward international activities in service firms – illustrated by three

cases from the tourism industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(5):

362-376.

Blomstermo, A.; Sharma, D. D. & Sallis, J. 2006. Choice of foreign market entry mode in service

firms. International Marketing Review, 23(2): 211-229.

Boddewyn, J.J.; Halbrich, M.B. & Perry, A.C. 1987. Service multinationals: conceptualization,

mearsurement, and theory. International Executive, 29(1): 41-57.

Bouquet, C.; Hébert, L. & Delios, A. 2004. Foreign expansion in service industries: separability and

human capital intensity. Journal of Business Research, 57(1): 35-46.

Bourke, A. 2000. A model of determinants of international trade in higher education. The Service

Industries Journal, 20(1): 110-138.

Burt, S.; Dawson, J. & Sparks, L. 2003. Failure in international retailing: research propositions.

International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 13(4): 1

Clark, T.; Rajaratnam, D. & Smith, T. 1996. Toward a theory of international service: marketing

intangibles in a world of nations. Journal of International Marketing, 4(2): 9-28.

Contractor, F.; Kundu, S. K. & Hsu, C. 2003. A three-stage theory of international expansion: The

link between multinationality and performance in the service sector. Journal of International

Business Studies, 34(1): 48-60.

Currie, J. 2003. Australian universities as entrepreneurial universities: Transformed player on global

stage. In G. Breton & M. Lambert (Eds.), Universities and globalization: Private linkages,

public trust: 179-194. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

da Silva, B.D.; Gomes, M.J.; Oliveira, L.R. & Blanco, E. 2009. The use of ICT in higher education:

Work in Progress at the University of Minho. http://www.uoc.edu/dt/20137/index.html, last

accessed 25 February 2009.

of 26 ANZAM 2009

15

Davies, J. L. 1992. Developing a strategy for internationalization in universities: Towards a

conceptual framework. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for

internationalizing higher education: 177-190. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Dawson, J. (2001). Strategy and opportunism in European retail internationlization, British Journal of

Management. 12(4): 253-266.

Dolles, H. (2003). Trust in Intercultural Co-operative Ventures between Japanese and German Small

and Medium-sized Companies. In H. Kopp (Ed.), Area Studies, Business and Culture: 372-382.

Hamburg: LIT.

Dolles, H. & Wilmking, N. (2005). Trust or distrust? China’s accession to the World Trade

Organization and its strategic implications for Chinese-foreign joint ventures. In A. Giroud; D.

Yang & A. Mohr (Eds.), Multinationals and Asia: Organizational and Institutional

Relationships: 87-109. Abington/New York: Routledge/Curzon.

dos Santos, S.M. 2000. Introduction to the theme of transnational education. In Proceedings of the

conference of the directors general for higher education and the heads of the rectors’

conferences of the European Union. Aveiro.

Douglass, J.A. 2005. All globalization is local: Countervailing forces and the influence on higher

education markets. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California:

1-26.

Eaton, J.S. 2000. Accreditation: on higher education in the United States. Santa Barbara CA: ABC-

CLIO /CHEA.

Ekeledo, I. & Sivakumar, K. 2003. International market entry mode strategies of manufacturing firms

and service firms: A resource-based perspective. International Marketing Review, 21(1): 68-

101.

Ekeledo, I. & Sivakumar, K. 1998. Foreign market entry mode choices of service firms: a contingency

perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4): 274-292.

Engberg, D. & Green, M.F. 2002. Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive

internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education

Erramilli, M.K. 1991. The experience factor in foreign market entry behavior of service firms.

Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3): 479-501.

Erramilli, M.K. 1990. Entry mode choice in service industries. International Marketing Review,

7(5/6): 50-62.

Erramilli, M.K. & Rao, C.P. 1993. Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: A modified

transaction-cost analysis approach. Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 19-38.

Erramilli, M.K. & Rao, C.P. 1990. Choice of foreign market entry modes by service firms: role of

market knowledge. Management International Review, 30(2): 135-151.

Gannon, J. & Johnson, K. 1997. Socialization control and market entry modes in the international

hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(5/6): 193-

198.

Grosse, R. 1997. The future of the global financial services industry. International Executive, 39(5)

599-617.

of 26ANZAM 2009

16

Gummesson, E. 2002. Relationship marketing and a new economy: it’s time for de-programming.

Journal of Services Marketing, 16(7), 585-589.

Hardy, C.; Langley, A.; Mintzberg, H. & Rose, J. 1984. Strategy formation in the university setting.

Review of Higher Education, 6(4): 407-433.

Hardy, C.; Langley, A.; Mintzberg, H. & Rose, J. 1983. Strategy formation in the university setting.

In J.L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization: 169-210. New York: New York

University Press.

Hayward, F.M. 2001. Finding a common voice for accreditation internationally. International Quality

Review, http://www.chea.org/international/common-voice.html, last accessed 28 February

2009.

Hellmann, P. 1996. The internationalization of Finnish financial service companies. International

Business Review, 5(2): 191-208.

Hertog, P. 2000. Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International

Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4): 491-528.

Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J.E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge

development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business

Studies, 8(1): 23-32.

Jones, G.R. 2001. Bridging the challenges of transnational education and accreditation. Higher

Education in Europe, 26(1): 107-116.

Kehm, B.M. 1999. Strategic management of internationalisation processes: problems and options.

Tertiary Education and Management, 5(4): 371-382.

Knight, J. & de Wit, H. 1995. Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: historical and

conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for the internationalisation of higher

education. A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of

America: 5-32. Amsterdam: EAIE Secretariat.

Knight, J. 2005. Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges: 2005 IAU

Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities.

Knight, J. 1997. Internationalization of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H.

de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries: 5-19.

Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

Kondakci, Y.; van den Broeck, H. & Devos, G. 2006. More management concepts in the academy:

Internationalization as an organizational change process. Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper

Series 2006/28, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.

Larsen, K. & Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2002. International trade in educational services: good or bad?

Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(3): 9-45.

Larsen, K.; Martin, J. & Morris, R. 2002. Trade in higher education services: trends and emerging

issues. The World Economy, 25(6): 849-868.

Lipsey, M.N. & Wilson, D.B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage.

of 26 ANZAM 2009

17

Littlejohn, D. & Roper, A. 1991. Changes in international hotel company’s strategies. In R. Teare &

A. Boer (Eds.), Strategic hospitality management: theory and practice for the 1990s: 194-212.

London: Cassell.

Mayes, B.T.; Heide, D. & Smith, E. 1993. Anticipated changes in the business school curriculum: a

survey of deans in AACSB-accredited and non-accredited schools. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 6(1): 54-63.

McAllister, M.P. & Turow, J. 2002. New media and the commercial sphere: two intersecting trends,

five categories of concern. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(4): 510-515.

McBurnie, G. & Pollock, A. 2000. Decision making for offshore activities: a case study on Monash

University. In D. Davis; A. Olsen & A. Bohm (Eds.), Transnational Education Providers,

Partners and Policy: Challenges for Australian Institutions Offshore: 53-66. Canberra: IDP

Education Australia.

McKee, M.C.; Mills, A.J. & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Institutional field of dreams: exploring the AACSB

and the new legitimacy of Canadian business schools. Canadian Journal of Administrative

Sciences, 22(4): 288-301.

Majkgard, A. & Sharma, D.D. 1998. Client-following and market-seeking strategies in the

internationalization of service firms. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 4(3): 1-41.

Mayring, P. 2000a. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 1(2): Article 20, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-

fqs0002204, last accesed 2009-02-04.

Mayring, P. 2000b. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundfragen und Techniken (7th

ed.). Weinheim:

Deutscher Studienverlag.

Mayring, P. 1994. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In A. Böhm; A. Mengel & T. Muhr (Eds.), Texte

verstehen: Konzepte, Methoden, Werkzeuge: 159-176. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.

McBurnie, G. 2000. Pursuing internationalization as a means to advance the academic mission of the

university: an Australian case study. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1): 63-73.

Mintzberg, H. & Rose, J. 2003. Strategic management upside down: tracking strategies at McGill

University from 1829 to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(4): 270-290.

Oettli, P. 1999. The marketing of higher education in New Zealand and Australia. In Wächter, B.

(Ed.) Internationalization in higher education - A paper and seven essays in the tertiary sector:

165-172. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags- und Mediengesellschaft mbH & ACA Papers on

International Cooperation in Education.

Sadlak, J. 1998. Globalization and concurrent challenges for higher education. In P. Scott (Ed.), The

globalization of higher education: 100-107. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher

Education and Open University Press.

Sanchez-Peinado, E.; Pla-Barber, J. & Hérbert, L. 2007. Strategic variables that influence entry mode

choice in service firms. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1): 67-91.

Sarkar, M. & Cavusgil, S.T. 1996. Trends in international business thought and literature: a review of

international market entry research: integration and synthesis. The International Executive,

38(6): 825-847.

of 26ANZAM 2009

18

Scott, P. 1998. Massification, internationalization and globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The

globalization of higher education: 108-129. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher

Education and Open University Press.

Teichler, U. 2007. Die Internationalisierung der Hochschulen. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

Terpstra, V. & Sarathy, R. 1994. International marketing (6th ed.). Fort Worth: Dryden Press.

Vandermerwe, S. & Chadwick, M. 1989. The internationalization of services. The Service Industries

Journal, 9(1): 79-93.

van der Wende, M.; Coate, K.; Kontigiannopoulou-Polydorides, G.; Liujten-Lub, A.; Stamelos, G.;

Papadiamantaki, Y. & Williams, G. 2005. International comparative analyis. In J. Huismann &

M. van der Wende (Eds.), On cooperation and competition II: Institutional responses to

internationalisation, europeanisation and globalisation: 201-234. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags-

und Mediengesellschaft mbH.

Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of

Marketing, 68(1), 1-17

Wächter, B. 1999. The internationalization in higher education: A paper and seven essays in the

tertiary sector. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags- und Mediengesellschaft mbH.

Wind, Y. & Perlmutter, H. 1977. On the identification of frontier issues in international marketing,

Columbia Journal of World Business. 12(4): 131-139.

Windrum, P. & Tomlinson, M. 1999. Knowledge-intensive services and international

competitiveness: A four country comparison. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,

11(3): 1-22.

Wurche, S. 1994. Vertrauen und ökonomische Rationalität in kooperativen Interorganisations-

beziehungen. In J. Sydow & A. Windeler (Eds.) Management interorganisationaler

Beziehungen: 142-159. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag und Gabler.

Wurche, S. (1994). Strategische Kooperation für mittelständische Unternehmen. Entscheidungshilfen

zur Auswahl und Gestaltung zwischenbetrieblicher Kooperationen. Köln: Deutscher

Wirtschaftsdienst.

Yelland, R. 2000. Supranational organizations and transnational education. Higher Education in

Europe, 25(3): 297-303.

of 26 ANZAM 2009

19

TABLE 1

Summary of Main Research Streams on Internationalization of Higher Education

Internationalization Form Author, Year Focus of Analysis Main Findings

Curriculum development Branch campus Franchise Twinning

Altbach, 2004

− Focus on the effects of globalization on HE

systems in the developing countries

− explorative analysis

− Powerful HEIs in developed countries dominate the

production and distribution of knowledge, although few

HEIs from Asia are approaching

− Staff and student mobility flows are largely directed from

South to North

− Central goal of multinational activities is to earn profit

Student mobility Bourke, 2000

− Focus on undergraduate medical education

− host country Ireland, sending country Malaysia

− In depth interviews with key personnel and

students

− Development of a model of determinants of trade in HE

(only student mobility)

Student mobility Staff mobility Distance learning Branch campus

Douglass, 2005 − general analysis of the effects of globalization

on the American HE market

− Globalization remains a potent force, but strong

countervailing forces do also have their impact on the US

HE market

Curriculum development Articulation/cooperation

Kehm, 1999

− Focus on the SOCRATES program

− Analysis of for the applications for SOCRATES

funding necessary HEIs’ European Policy

Statements (EPS)

− Interviews and workshops with key personnel

− most HEIs showed a targeted approach to

internationalization

of 26ANZAM 2009

20


Student mobility Collaborations Curriculum development transnational education

Knight, 2005

− IAU global survey report questioning HEIs and

university associations at national and regional

levels

− Data collection from 95 countries with a sample

size of 526 HEIs

− Largest internationalization survey until now

− 73% of HEIs rank internationalization as a high priority

− Especially HEIs in developed countries compared to

developing countries ranked international profile and

income generation as important rationales for

internationalization

− 82% of HEIs have an internationalization strategy in

place

− The 3 most common internationalization forms were

institutional networks, student mobility, research

collaborations

− Recruitment of fee-paying students was ranked fourth

place as priority for growth

Organization and management of HEIs

Kondakci, van

den Broeck,

Devos, 2006

− managerial approach transferring organizational

change process literature to HEIs

− explorative analysis

− Development of guidelines to internationalize the HEIs

according to organizational change literature (strategy,

leadership, organizational culture, structure, management

practices, systems, climate etc.)

Student/scholar mobility Distance learning Foreign investment

Larsen, Vincent-

Lancrin, 2002

− Analysis of challenges and opportunities

through trade in HE services for HE systems in

high income and developing countries

− Macro economic perspective on the basis of

OECD data

− international market for HE services is expected to

continue to grow

− major problems will be the recognition of foreign

qualifications and quality regulation

Student mobility Branch Campuses Curriculum development

McBurnie,

Pollock, 2000

− case study on the Australian Monash University

and its individual internationalization strategy

− 3 perspectives: entrepreneurial, academic,

quality

− internationalization strategy is central to the future of the

university

− the university successfully set up locations abroad,

increased the number of international students,

established quality reviews and achieved a positive

student performance and financial situation

Student mobility Sadlak, 1998 − Focus on global student mobility flows

− Based on UESCO data

− ¾ of all foreign study takes place in only 10 OECD

countries

of 26 ANZAM 2009

21


Student mobility HEI collaborations transnational education

Teichler, 2007

− Analysis drawing from several studies with

European and especially German focus

− Main focus on student mobility

− Supranational and national perspectives

− Internationalization of the HEIs is no longer limited to

elite universities and seen as an systematic and integral

part of the whole strategy

− Greece is the country with the highest presence of foreign

HE suppliers mainly from UK, France and the USA

Student/staff mobility Curriculum development Research collaboration

van der Wende

et al., 2005

− Case study analysis from 36 German,

Norwegian, English, Dutch, Greek, Portuguese

and Austrian HEIs

− most of HEIs participate in ERASMUS-Programme

− staff mobility is encouraged at faculty level and not

managed centrally

− all interviewed HEIs internationalized the curriculum of

their institutions including joint or double degree

programs

− all HEIs considered internationalization activities as

necessary for their institution

No specific form Yelland, 2000 − supranational perspective

− OECD data

− Most HEIs realized the importance of internationalization,

but still have to actively take more measures

− HEIs need to act more entrepreneurial

of 26ANZAM 2009

22

FIGURE 1

Ranking of the most important benefits of internationalization by HEIs

Source: Knight, 2006: 14 (on basis of 526 HEIs participating in the 2005 IAU survey)

of 26 ANZAM 2009

23

FIGURE 2

Drivers for the internationalization of Higher Education Institutions

Political � Peace & mutual understanding

� Nation building & identity

� Trade Framework GATS

� Harmonization of academic

systems in Europe (Bologna)

� Quality assurance

� Decline of public funding

� Human capital development

Academic

� Knowledge production &

publication strategies

� Professional networks and

conferences

� Research collaborations

� Research funding access

� Faculty profile and status

� Quality enhancement

� Standardization of

instructional materials

Internationalization Drivers

Economic/Competitive

� Labor market demand

� Client following

� Income generation

� Research & innovation

� Brand value and profile generation

� Foreign market entry by renowed

HEIs

� New entrants & competition by

private HEIs

� International standards &

accreditation

Social/Cultural/Technological

� Knowledge-based society

� Student/staff development

� Massification of HE

� Information access

� English as common language

� New media

� Advances in information and

communication technologies

of 26ANZAM 2009

24

FIGURE 3

Ranking of the most important risks of internationalization by HEIs

Source: Knight, 2006: 15 (on basis of 526 HEIs participating in the 2005 IAU survey)

of 26 ANZAM 2009

25

FIGURE 4

Forms of foreign market entry modes of Higher Education Institutions

− Student mobility

− Scholar mobility/

international teaching

assignments

− Distance education

− Articulation

− Twinning

− Franchising

− Joint venture

− Branch campus/

satellite campus

− Off-shore institution

FIGURE 5

Characteristics of foreign maket entry modes by Higher Education Institutions

1. Export 2. Contractual 3. Co-operative 4. Wholly owned

− Student mobility

− Scholar mobility/

international

teaching assign-

ments

− Distance education

− Articulation

− Twinning

− Franchising

− Joint venture

− Branch campus /

satellite campus

− Off-shore institution

low shared shared high

CONTROL

low low moderate high

RESSOURCE

COMMITMENT

low moderate high low

RELATIONAL

FRICTION

of 26ANZAM 2009

Foreign market entry mode choices in the ...

Documents

Transcript of Foreign market entry mode choices in the ...