This research project explores teaching and learning cultures in transnational higher education by examining three pedagogical development programmes organised by a Finnish university in universities in Palestine, Brazil, and Thailand. As a part of transnational cooperation of these institutions between 2016 and 2019, three programmes were organised as pedagogical development training for university teachers. The research datasets were compiled from texts produced by the participants during the three case-study programmes and analysed using poststructuralist discourse analysis.

Aiming to understand the cultural change processes engendered by the transnational cooperation, the research is led by two main research questions: (1) What are the features of teaching and learning cultures in higher education institutions (HEIs) located in three national contexts (Palestine, Brazil, and Thailand)? (2) What kinds of change processes are introduced by the transnational pedagogical development programmes and how are those manifested in the (institutional) teaching and learning cultures?

Theoretical and methodological framework of this qualitative inquiry draws on conceptualisations outlined in the previous research into international/transnational education, institutional cultures, and poststructuralist discourse analysis.

Transnational education (TNE) – also called cross-border education or internationalisation abroad – refers to movement of people, programmes, policies, or other educational activities across national or regional borders (Knight, 2012). Finnish HEIs have recently increased their TNE activities mostly by offering commissioned programmes and training packages to partners globally. Generally seen as beneficial for HEIs, TNE may widen the opportunities for intercultural exchange, economic development, and modernisation of higher education systems (Korhonen & Alenius, 2018). However, TNE programs have been criticised as profit-seeking endeavours of HEIs in developed countries providing education in developing countries (Djerasimovic, 2014). The economic rationale of TNE raises concerns about equal opportunities and access to education resulting with unequal power distribution between the “producers” and “consumers” of TNE (Pyvis, 2011). Previous studies question transferability of pedagogical ideas in different national contexts and call for greater cultural contextualisation to make learning relevant for the learners (Allen, 2014; Bovill et al., 2015; Jordan et al., 2014; Leask, 2008). More research is needed to better understand the dynamics behind this process of cultural contextualisation in TNE.

Our three case studies have been implemented as inter-institutional transnational cooperation; therefore, we focus on teaching and learning as one analytical aspect of institutional cultures in higher education. Our approach draws on the fragmentation perspective (Martin, 1992) and anthropological approaches (Alvesson, 2002; Trowler, 2008) to institutional culture. Characterised by ambiguity, pluralism, and contradictions, culture is constructed and enacted through community’s meaning-making processes. Following the poststructuralist perspective, we see institutional cultures as discursively constructed (Berti, 2017; Foucault, 2002). Thus, we define teaching and learning cultures as discursive meaning-making processes that guide the ways in which educational processes are understood and organised at an institution.

The presentation will give an overview of this ongoing research project and discuss the findings of two case studies: Finnish–Palestinian & Finnish–Brazilian cooperation. The role of diversity (in sense of increasing variety) is particularly visible in discursive construction of institutional teaching and learning cultures during a transnational collaboration. The findings of the two case-studies show that teaching and learning cultures are fragmented and constructed by diverse and often contrasting discourses in and around HEIs. As it introduces additional alternative discourses into the institutional meaning-making, transnational collaboration diversifies the ways in which educational processes are understood and practiced at a HEI. In other words, diversification of (pedagogical) perspectives in TNE enables discursive transformation and pedagogical development not only on the level of individual university teachers but also on the level of community and institution.

Poststructuralist discourse analysis gives the onto-methodological framing of this study. By constraining or enabling the possible ways of understanding and acting in a specific context, discourses not only represent but actively construct social reality at different levels, including institutional cultures (Ball, 2012; Berti, 2017; Foucault, 2002). Poststructuralist discourse analysis, also called Foucauldian discourse analysis, investigates what realities (ways of thinking, being, doing, etc.) are made possible within discourses (Baxter, 2002; Carabine, 2001; Willig, 2013). This analysis approach allows the researcher to explore the text in relation to discourses constituted through a variety of discursive constructions and subject positions (Baxter, 2002). In other words, we analysed the variety of ways in which teaching and learning is constructed, and the available subject positions within the discourses. We focus on different discourses present within the Palestinian and Brazilian institutions internally, and in relation to their wider societal environments. Additionally, we analyse the discourses in relation to the alternative perspectives introduced by the transnational pedagogical development programme. The investigated transnational pedagogical programmes were comparable in terms of the programme curriculum that included topics such as student learning and engagement, designing learning environments, and developing pedagogical expertise. The programmes aimed at enhancing the participants’ pedagogical competence (as individuals and a community) by engaging them in reflection and re-negotiation of their pedagogical conceptions and approaches in academic teaching. Organised in 2017—2018, the programmes lasted about 7 months and were offered as professional development opportunities to Palestinian and Brazilian university teachers (teaching staff in different disciplines and at different career stages at the investigated HEIs). The Finnish–Palestinian programme involved four Finnish university teachers who acted as educators (including the first and second authors). Other four Finnish university teachers were educators in the Finnish–Brazilian programme (including the third author). For the first case study on Finnish–Palestinian cooperation (Holubek et al., 2022) we collected and analysed two datasets: (a) four focus group interviews with 18 Palestinian university teachers conducted before the transnational pedagogical programme, and (b) texts produced during the programme with 16 Palestinian university teachers. The second case study on Finnish–Brazilian cooperation includes a dataset composed of texts produced during the transnational pedagogical programme with 38 Brazilian university teachers.

In the first case study on Finnish–Palestinian programme (Holubek et al., 2022) we identified five discourses that Palestinian university teachers drew upon when speaking or writing about teaching and learning: (a) discourse of disciplinary differences, (b) discourse of traditional and modern education, (c) discourse of improving education, (d) discourse of the sociocultural and religious context, and (e) discourse of the political and economic circumstances. The five discourses give us rich descriptions of the discursive meaning-making processes that construct institutional teaching and learning cultures at this Palestinian university. The study showed that the TNE programme prompted a discursive transformation entailing a process of hybridisation of (foreign and local) perspectives. Diversifying the perspectives on (good) teaching and learning, TNE introduced new possible ways of understanding and practicing higher education at this HEI. The second study on Finnish–Brazilian programme is currently ongoing, but the preliminary findings show similar processes of diversification and hybridisation of perspectives. Applying poststructuralist discourse analysis, we have (so far) identified four features of teaching and learning cultures at this Brazilian university: (a) students as protagonists in education, (b) emotional/empathy perspectives, (c) relevance of institutional forces/structures, and (d) role of higher education in developing citizenship. For example, the idea behind (a) seeing students as protagonists in education is similar to the student-centredness perspective that was explicitly discussed in the programme (suggesting hybridisation). However, it is noticeable in the dataset that the characteristics of being a “protagonist” entail some aspects (such as storytelling, and exposition) of seeing education as a narrative or a story (pointing towards diversification). Exploring further this diversification dynamics in TNE may open new directions in overcoming the polarised “provider-receiver” relation in TNE and improve our understanding of the ‘receiving’ institution’s agency to transform foreign discourses towards spaces of empowerment (Djerasimovic 2014).

Allen, D. J. F. (2014). Investigating transnational collaboration of faculty development and learning: An argument for making learning culturally relevant. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Sage. Ball, S. J. (2012). Foucault, power, and education. Taylor & Francis Group. Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A post-structuralist discourse analysis of girls’ and boys’ speech in public contexts. Discourse & Society, 13(6), 827–842. Berti, M. (2017). Elgar introduction to organizational discourse analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing. Bovill, C., Jordan, L., & Watters, N. (2015). Transnational approaches to teaching and learning in higher education: Challenges and possible guiding principles. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 12–23. Carabine, J. (2001). Unmarried motherhood 1830–1990: A discursive genealogical analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide to analysis (pp. 267–310). Sage. Djerasimovic, S. (2014). Examining the discourses of cross-cultural communication in transnational higher education: from imposition to transformation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(3), 204–216. Foucault, M. (2002). Archaeology of knowledge (2nd ed.). Routledge. Holubek, V., Alenius, P., Korhonen, V., & Al-Masri, N. (2022). Construction of Teaching and Learning Cultures in Transnational Pedagogical Development: Discourses Among Palestinian University Instructors. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2). Jordan, L., Bovill, C., Othman, S.M., Saleh, A.M., Shabila, N.P., & Watters, N. (2014). Is student-centred learning a Western concept? Lessons from an academic development programme to support student-centred learning in Iraq. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(1), 13–25. Knight, J. (2012). Internationalization: Three Generations of Crossborder Higher Education. New Delhi: India International Centre. Korhonen, V., & Alenius, P. (2018). Introduction: International and transnational dimensions in higher education. In V. Korhonen & P. Alenius (Eds.) Internationalisation and Transnationalisation in Higher Education. Bern: Peter Lang, 15–39. Leask, B. (2008). Teaching for learning in the transnational classroom. In L. Dunn & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 120–131). Routledge. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press. Pyvis, D. (2011). The need for context-sensitive measures of educational quality in transnational higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 733–744. Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and Practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed.). Open University Press.