The purpose of this study is to identify how the meaning of autonomy and accountability changes between domestic and overseas campuses of the universities in New York State. The article confines to and examines the shift of the quality assurance mechanism between two contexts. The article argues that home campuses of the University of the State of New York (USNY) emphasize substantial autonomy and managerial, professional, and market accountability, which are mainly shaped by the state’s regulatory mode, the market and the accreditation scheme of a regional accrediting body, Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). The meanings of autonomy and accountability of the USNY’s overseas campuses are far more complex and hybrid than those within the U.S. territory mainly because of shift in the state’s regulatory mechanism, different implication of the MSCHE’s practice for the meaning of accountability, and the involvement of new regulatory bodies—authorities in host countries.
Altbach, P. ( 2007). Branch campuses and twinning: The professional obstacle . International Higher Education, 48, 2-3.
2.
Ball, S., Vincent, C., & Radnor, H. ( 1997). Info confusion: LEAs, accountability and democracy, Journal of Education Policy, 12, 147-164.
3.
Barnett, R. ( 1994). Academic community: Discourse or discord?London: Jessica Kingsley.
4.
Barnett, R. ( 1992). Improving higher education: Total quality care. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
5.
Clark, B.R. ( 1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
Clark, B.R. ( 1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, NY: IAU Press and Pergamon.
7.
Commission on Independent Colleges and University. ( 2004). Master plan independent higher education in New York . Albany, NY: Author.
8.
Dill, D. ( 2001). The regulation of public research universities: changes in academic competition and implications for university autonomy and accountability . Higher Education Policy, 14, 21-35.
9.
Goedegebuure, L.,Kaiser, F.,Maassen, P.,Meek, L.van Vught, F. A., & de Weert, E. (Eds.). (1994). Higher education \policy: An international comparative perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
10.
Gumport, P., & Bastedo, M. ( 2001). Academic stratification and endemic conflict: Remedial education policy at CUNY. Review of Higher Education, 24, 333-349.
11.
Green, M.F., Eckel, P., Calderon, L., Luu, D. ( 2007). Venturing abroad: Delivering US degrees through overseas branch campuses and programs. Washington, DC: ACE.
12.
Maassen, P. ( 2000). Governmental Policies and Programmes for Strengthening the Relationship between Higher Education Institutions and the Economy. Utrecht, Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
13.
McGuiness, A. ( 2005). The state and higher education. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic changes (2nd ed., pp. 198-225). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
Meek, L. ( 2002). Changing patterns in modes of co-ordination of higher education. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalising world: International trends and mutual observations, A Festschrift in honour of Ulrich Teichler. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
15.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. ( 2007). Student learning assessment: Options and resources. Philadelphia, PA: Author.
16.
Neave, G. ( 1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986-1988 . European Journal of Education, 23(1-2), 7-23.
17.
Neave, G. ( 1998). The Evaluative State reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33, 265-284.
18.
Neave, G., & van Vught, F. ( 1994). Government and higher education relationships across three continents. Oxford: IAU Press and Pergamon.
19.
Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’Neill, M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship and democracy. London: Sage.
20.
Rose, N. ( 1996). Inventing ours selves. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Sporn, B. ( 1999). Adaptive university structures. London : Jessica Kingsley.
22.
Salter, B., & Tapper, T. ( 1995). The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education, 20(1), 59-71.
23.
Slaughter, S. ( 1987). New York State and the politics of postsecondary spending . Higher Education, 16, 173-197.
24.
State University of New York. (2003). A plan for the State University. Albany: Author.
25.
Stella, A. ( 2006). Quality assurance of cross-border higher education, Quality in Higher Education, 12, 257-276.
26.
Trow, M. ( 1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: a comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9, 309-324.
27.
University of the State of New York. (2006 ). The board of regents statewide plan for higher education . Albany: Author.
28.
van Vught, F. ( 1994). Autonomy and accountability in government-university relationships. Paper presented at the World Bank Worldwide Senior Policy Seminar on Improvement and Innovation of Higher Education in Developing Countries, KualaLumpur.
29.
van Vught, F. ( 1995). The new context for academic quality. In D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 194-211). Oxford: Pergamon.
30.
Verbik L., & Jokivirta, L. ( 2005). National regulatory frameworks for transnational higher education: Models and trends, part 1. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
31.
Vidovich, L., & Slee, R. ( 2001). Bringing universities to account? Exploring some global and local policy tensions. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 431-53.
