This proposal addresses the call to report research into the organizational transformation of higher-education institutes. Against the background of a global trend towards neoliberalism and managerialism, the government of China is reforming its higher-education policies in order to pursue managed opportunities for decentralization, giving increased autonomy at local level while maintaining overall control and oversight of the higher-education system as a whole. This leads to tensions in both policy and practice, in particular in Transnational Higher-Education (TNHE) partnerships, where responsibility for governance, management and administration is shared between Chinese and non-Chinese institutes. These are second-tier international institutes without independent legal status. TNHE institutes are of growing political, social and economic importance in China. They have developed in response to increasing demands for mass higher education, changing employment needs, and the political imperative in China to engage with research, scholarship and leadership development on a global scale. Our proposal therefore relates directly to the fourth and sixth thematic research fields set out by Network 22: policy, management and governance in higher education; and internationalization in higher education.

Responding to changing societal conditions, including technology, social disparities and geopolitical tensions, and crisis from climate change, a global pandemic, war, energy shortages and inflation, the higher education sectors across the countries need to be adaptive and transit towards a new forms of organizing for sustainable development which reaches beyond national borders(Altbach & de Wits, 2020; Marginson, 2020, p. 1; Mok, Xiong et al., 2020). In educational research this often involves Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) who have been generally considered significant contributors to the promotion of sustainability (Karatzoglou, 2013). TNHE partnership among diverse partners has exhibited its resilience against the impact of such societal uncertainties, and is recognized as an effective mode to pursue sustainable development in ecological, economic, and sociocultural perspectives. TNHE joint institutes have a significant physical presence in China. There are currently 137 Sino-foreign joint institutes, of which 25 are Sino-UK joint institutes. More such partnerships are expected to be established in the near future. However, transnational partnerships and governance in Sino-UK joint institutes are complex and developed in historical, geographic, social, political, economic and cultural contexts along its practices (Mizzi & Rocco 2013). There is a question about whether HE governance designed for UK, as an example, can fit well under other conditions outside the UK (specifically for this study, this is China where hierarchy is the general picture in higher education governance). Furthermore, the motivations and interests behind the transnational stakeholders are highly related to their geographical, economic, and political proximity to the institutions (Lawn and Lingard, 2002).

This research adopts Sino-foreign joint institutes as study case to explore, on one hand, how China’s TNHE decentralization governance of Sino-UK joint institutes is subject to regulatory interventions by the state and vulnerable to the changing global environment by studying interrelated stages of policy design from a macro perspective, as well as policy implementation from an institutional perspective; on the other hand, how China’s TNHE governance reforms influence the decision-making power allocated among different external stakeholders of oversea university as host education providers in Sino-foreign joint institutes. This raises the question of whether higher-education governance designed for the UK, for example, can be suited to conditions outside the UK. Specifically for this study, ‘outside the UK’ refers to China, where higher-education governance has traditionally followed a hierarchical model. That is the rationale for our research into the tensions, contestations and negotiations in the joint organisational governance and management of Sino-UK joint institutes and programmes.

There are two stages in this research. First, this research adopted the inductive method to analyse TNHE governance related policy documents from 2003 (the milestone year of China’s higher education internationalization regulations) and 2022 (the first year of post-pandemic); second, survey and semi-structured interview were applied, because they can provide rich data for understanding stakeholders’ experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2011) to investigate the institutional governance in Sino-UK joint institutes. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (p.46). In terms of the shifting interests, influential levels and power bases, TNHE key stakeholders can be classified on the basis of their functions as TNE providers, administrators and academic staff engaged in delivery, with government as enablers and regulators. UK universities as key external stakeholders in joint governance could not be overemphasized. Verhoest et al. (2004)’s typology of multi-dimensional governance, and set of indicators by H. De Boer and J. Enders (2017) are adopted to contribute conceptual and empirical social understanding of TNHE governance in Sino-UK joint institutes. Respondents are asked how influential they are in 23 indicators of 5 groups with two open questions.

This research is the first systematic attempt to map and investigate TNHE partnerships and practices as they are perceived, experienced, shaped and mediated by the different motivations and interests of stakeholders from China’s and UK’s universities. The findings indicate that the Chinese hierarchical state seeks a balance between political control and institutional autonomy, in order to develop the most effective forms of TNHE governance amid global market pressures for power reconfiguration. Nevertheless, some tensions remain between actors from Chinese and foreign universities. For example, in Sino-foreign joint institutes, central-government attempts to integrate top-down decision-making processes may weaken collegial voices. Moreover, the decision-making power of foreign universities may be neglected and under-valued. There also arises the question whether HE governance designed for the UK/Europe can, or should, be adapted to conditions in China, where the tendency has been more towards hierarchy than collegiality. The contribution of this study is to understand the potential opportunities and consequences of this aspect of higher-education reform, focusing specifically on the relationship between the state, the market, Sino-UK institutions and those who work in and with them. The lead author’s doctoral research investigates organizational governance in TNHE institutions, especially Sino-UK joint institutes that are jointly governed and managed by Chinese universities as host provider and UK universities as home provider. That doctoral project, while making an original contribution as it stands, will form the basis of further research. That postdoctoral research should explore decision making from the UK perspective; for example, by interviewing senior officers such as Deans from UK universities. Knowledge of the decision-making power of UK universities in China’s context is currently limited, and yet the transnational actors as joint partners are at the leading edge of financial and structural governance as higher-education systems and policies are reformulated.

Altbach, P., & de Wit, H. (2020). Postpandemic outlook for higher education is bleakest for the poorest.International Higher Education, (102), 3-5. Enders, J., & de Boer, H. (2017). Working in the Shadow of Hierarchy: Organisational Autonomy and Venues of External Influence. In Managing Universities: Policy and Organizational Change from a Western European Perspective (pp. 57-84). Palgrave Macmillan. Freeman, R. Edward. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.). Karatzoglou, B. (2013). An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development.Journal of Cleaner Production,49, 44-53. Lawn, M., & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290-307. Margison, S. (2020). The world is changing: Higher education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Mizzi, R. C., & Rocco, T. S. (2013). Deconstructing dominance: Toward a reconceptualization of the relationship between collective and individual identities, globalization, and learning at work.Human Resource Development Review,12(3), 364-382. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. sage. Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 24(2), 101-118.