As transnational education grows in complexity, it is imperative degree-awarding institutions develop ways to ensure the quality of their offshore provision. Although agencies, such as the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the United Kingdom and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in Australia, safeguard standards through guidelines and reviews, it is vital degree-awarding institutions consider their own actions in the pursuit of academic quality. Although codes of conduct can guide quality assurance, this article suggests these documents are not enough to ensure quality education occurs. Offering a study of two Chinese–British transnational partnerships, this article identifies two key challenges that can affect the implementation of quality assurance at the operational level: time and cultural difference. The findings suggest that senior managers at degree-awarding institutions should consider how their structures and policies encourage and support the implementation of quality assurance at the operational level.
British Educational Research Association. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research. London, England: Author.
2.
ColemanD. (2003). Quality assurance in transnational education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 354-378.
3.
EdwardsJ.CroslingG.EdwardsR. (2010). Outsourcing university degrees: Implications for quality control. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 303-315.
4.
GowI. (2007). Removing the rose-tinted spectacles. In FazackerleyA.WorthingtonP. (Eds.), British universities in China: The reality beyond the rhetoric. An agora discussion paper (pp. 8-10). London, England: AGORA: The Forum for Culture and Education.
5.
HarveyL. (2002). Evaluation for what?Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 245-263.
HelmsR. M. (2015). International higher education partnerships: A global review of standards and practices. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
HendersonM.BarnettR.BarrettH. (2017). New developments in transnational education and the challenges for higher education professional staff. Perspective: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21, 11-19.
10.
HodsonP. J.ThomasH. G. (2001). Higher education as an international commodity: Ensuring quality in partnerships. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 101-112.
11.
HoustonD. (2010). Achievements and consequences of two decades of quality assurance in higher education: A personal view from the edge. Quality in Higher Education, 16, 177-180.
12.
HoustonD.PaewaiS. (2013). Knowledge, power and meanings shaping quality assurance in higher education: A systematic critique. Quality in Higher Education, 19, 261-282.
13.
International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies. (n.d.). The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.inqaahe.org/full-members-list
14.
KettunenJ. (2011). External and internal quality audits in higher education. The TQM Journal, 24, 518-528.
15.
KingN. (2012). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In CassellC.SymonG. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (3rd ed., pp. 254-270). London, England: SAGE.
16.
KnightJ. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33, 2-3.
17.
KnightJ. (2015). International universities: Misunderstandings and emerging models?Journal of Studies in International Education, 19, 107-121.
18.
LimC. B. (2010). Do too many rights make a wrong? A qualitative study of the experiences of a sample of Malaysian and Singapore private higher education providers in transnational quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 16, 211-222.
19.
LimC. B.BentleyD.HendersonF.PanS. Y.BalakrishnanD. V.BalasingamD. M.TehT. E. (2016). Equivalent or not? Beyond measuring teaching and learning standards in a transnational education environment. Quality Assurance in Education, 24, 528-540.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
22.
NewtonJ. (2000). Feeding the beast or improving quality? Academics’ perceptions of quality assurance and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher Education, 6, 153-163.
23.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education. Paris, France: Author.
24.
PyvisD. (2011). The need for context-sensitive measures of educational quality in transnational higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 733-744.
25.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2010). Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (October 2010 ed.). Gloucester, UK: Author.
26.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2013). Review of UK transnational education in China 2012. Gloucester, UK: Author.
27.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2017). UK quality code for higher education Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality. Chapter B10: Managing higher education provision with others. Gloucester, UK: Author.
Riad ShamsS. M. (2017). Transnational education and total quality management: A stakeholder-centred model. Journal of Management Development, 36, 376-389.
30.
SharpK. (2017). The distinction between academic standards and quality: Implications for transnational higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 23, 138-152.
31.
SmithK. (2010). Assuring quality in transnational higher education: A matter of collaboration or control?Studies in Higher Education, 35, 793-806.
32.
StellaA. (2006). Quality assurance of cross-border higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 12, 257-276.
33.
WattyK. (2003). When will academics learn about quality?Quality in Higher Education, 9, 213-212.
34.
WattyK. (2006). Want to know about quality in higher education? Ask an academic. Quality in Higher Education, 12, 291-301.
35.
WoodhouseD. (2006). The quality of transnational education: A provider view. Quality in Higher Education, 12, 277-281.
