In global partnerships, harmony in governance is essential

In a rapidly evolving world marked by technological advancements, social disparities, geopolitical tensions and crises such as climate change, pandemics and inflation, higher education sectors across the globe must rethink their governance frameworks. The need for sustainable development transcending national borders has become imperative.

Transnational higher education (TNHE) partnerships have emerged as resilient models for addressing these challenges, fostering ecological, economic and sociocultural sustainability.

China has become the largest host country for TNHE initiatives, with universities worldwide forming strategic partnerships with Chinese institutions. The United Kingdom, for instance, has actively engaged with China, driven by post-Brexit strategies and the recognition of China’s growing global influence. The UK’s Global Britain strategies underscore the importance of deepening collaborations to leverage mutual benefits.

However, these partnerships present complex governance and administrative challenges shaped by differing historical, cultural, political and economic contexts. This raises the question of whether higher education governance frameworks designed for the UK can be applied or adapted to suit conditions outside the UK.

For UK universities engaged in TNHE partnerships, it becomes crucial to understand China’s governance approach while balancing mutual interests. As Matt Burney, British Council director for China, commented: “It is very difficult for us to deploy our soft power in engagement with China if we ourselves do not have a greater understanding of what China is today, how it works and how it thinks.”

In a recent journal article, we explore governance dynamics by examining the influence of stakeholders operating between UK and Chinese partner universities, with a specific focus on Sino-UK joint institutes.

Through semi-structured interviews, we delve into stakeholders’ perceptions of institutional governance. Our findings highlight the intricate and often uneven distribution of decision-making power within Sino-UK joint institutes, shedding light on the challenges and opportunities in these collaborative ventures.

Joint governance structures

Sino-UK joint institutes exemplify TNHE partnerships, operating under governance frameworks defined by China’s Regulations on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools (2003).

These regulations mandate a joint governance structure, including joint boards or committees, with Chinese members comprising at least half of the decision-making body. Leadership positions, such as Chinese deans and Communist Party branch secretaries, are appointed with government approval, reflecting significant state influence.

Interviews with stakeholders reveal a complex power distribution within Sino-UK joint institutes. Decision-making authority is gradually decentralising, with deans and joint committees asserting significant control over strategic objectives.

Chinese deans express confidence in their leadership roles, citing streamlined decision-making processes enabled by centralised appointments. However, UK partners voice concerns over unequal representation in joint committees, limiting their influence. As one UK dean noted: “The composition of the joint committee puts us at a disadvantage. Our objections often carry little weight.”

Academic autonomy

While UK partners enjoy some autonomy in academic matters, they face constraints tied to China’s regulatory framework. For instance, TNHE institutions must offer courses on Chinese constitutional law, civic ethics and military training. Teaching languages may include foreign languages, but Mandarin remains the primary medium of instruction.

UK academic staff may need to reconsider their assumptions. As one commented: “Initially, I found military training unsettling. Over time, I’ve come to see it as a unique, engaging part of the curriculum, sometimes like a happy PE course.”

Student recruitment also highlights governance complexities. When students earn dual degrees from Chinese and UK universities, they must meet the entry requirements of both institutions. However, if the degree is awarded solely by the UK partner, UK universities set the criteria. This dual-system approach creates challenges in aligning recruitment strategies and maintaining equitable standards.

Financial governance

Financial governance in Sino-UK joint institutes remains a contentious area. While joint committees and deans have autonomy over public operational grants, Chinese authorities tightly control tuition fee structures.

UK partners often lack influence over financial decisions, including budget allocation and revenue sharing. One UK associate dean commented: “We have limited control over tuition fees and budget utilisation, which hinders our ability to manage resources effectively.”

Additionally, the “one-third regulation” – requiring UK partners to contribute at least one-third of teaching resources – poses logistical and financial challenges. While some faculty members embrace the opportunity to teach abroad, others find it burdensome, particularly if they have family commitments.

Fostering sustainable partnerships

Despite these challenges, TNHE partnerships have demonstrated resilience and potential for fostering sustainable development. Achieving harmonious governance – rooted in the Chinese concept of hexie – is essential.

Harmony in governance emphasises balance, inclusivity and unity among stakeholders, fostering open communication and collaborative problem-solving. This approach aligns with China’s priorities while accommodating diverse perspectives from UK partners.

For UK stakeholders, adapting governance frameworks to China’s unique higher education context is critical. This requires balancing strategic planning with cultural and regulatory considerations, ensuring that governance models address both global and local needs.

Sustainable development

The findings offer valuable insights into the governance dynamics of TNHE partnerships in China, particularly within Sino-UK joint institutes. They underscore the importance of mutual understanding and adaptability in navigating complex regulatory environments.

Sustainable TNHE partnerships depend on resolving tensions between shared and divergent goals. By fostering harmonious and adaptive governance models, both Chinese and UK institutions can create resilient frameworks that support the long-term success of transnational higher education.

These partnerships not only enhance global educational exchange but also contribute to broader societal goals, positioning higher education as a catalyst for sustainable development.

Stella Huili Si is a practice-oriented researcher at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, UK. Her research interests lie in transnational higher education governance, especially with decision-making power allocated among different external and internal stakeholders. She also looks at how China’s TNHE partnership strategies influence the outside world, particularly international stakeholders and how international counterparts respond with adaptive governance and leadership at the national and institutional levels for sustainability. She has extensive professional experience in transnational higher education partnerships as a project manager. She is currently the founding manager of an international industry-related internship programme for UK students, designed to enhance their graduate employability and already demonstrating significant social impact.

Dr Stephen Rayner is an honorary research fellow of the University of Manchester, UK. Until December 2024 he was a senior lecturer in educational leadership and deputy head of the Manchester Institute of Education, UK.

This article draws on the study, “Exploring institutional governance dynamics in China’s transnational higher education (TNHE): A study of Sino-foreign joint institutes”, co-authored by Stella Huili Si and Stephen Rayner, which has recently been published in the journal Cogent Education.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.