SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education


Leave a comment

Reconceptualising transnational education through decolonial approaches

by Nilakshi Das

Transnational Education (TNE) represents a rapidly expanding form of cross-border provision, underpinned by an economic imaginary that positions the UK as a ‘key player’ in the global higher education market. While earlier internationalisation strategies focused primarily on bringing overseas students to Britain, TNE reflects a shift towards delivering British higher education to students globally through offshore provisions. The rapid expansion of TNE has elicited growing academic debate about its potential to reproduce the political, economic and epistemic hegemony of the Global North, reinscribing earlier colonial hierarchies and patterns of dependency.

Before the emergence of TNE, the internationalisation of UK higher education was primarily organised through the academic mobility of overseas students, shaped by Britain’s imperial and post-imperial educational networks. During the 1960s, technical assistance programmes and scholarship schemes, such as the Commonwealth Scholarship programme, facilitated student mobility to British universities. In the 1970s, as overseas student numbers gradually increased, differential student fees were introduced alongside tightening immigration regulations, a shift that continued throughout the Thatcher government in the 1980s into the present day. By the late 1990s, the University of Nottingham had established one of the earliest overseas branches, with the general idea that the curriculum in the host country would largely mirror the home institution. From the 2000s onwards, TNE expanded in scope and provision through franchised programmes, joint and dual degrees, distance and online courses in new markets, particularly across the Middle East and Asia. These arrangements allowed UK universities to expand their global presence and competitiveness beyond traditional overseas student recruitment.

Political economy of TNE and latest policy ambitions

The latest articulation of TNE goals includes the Labour government’s new strategy for national renewal by ‘turbocharging education’ as an engine for economic growth, with a target of £40 billion in education exports by 2030. This decision reflects increasing political pressure to cut net migration by reducing overseas student recruitment. Recent policy recommendations have radically argued that universities should be ‘selling education, not immigration’, with growing concerns that student visas are being used as a backdoor route into the UK labour market. Against broader anxieties around immigration in which international students are repositioned as migration liabilities, TNE offers a politically viable solution by exporting education in favour of substituting inward student mobility. As universities’ budgets shrink due to ongoing visa restrictions for international students, TNE engagements are expected to further increase (Hartmann and Lee, 2026).

According to the latest data, the number of students studying entirely overseas through UK TNE increased by 8% in 2024/25, and has risen by 37% since 2020/21. TNE student numbers are now close to the number of international students studying in the UK, with approximately one in six students in UK HE being educated across overseas campuses. Yet, despite this rapid growth, there is a lack of public data on student experiences at TNE. While aggregate data records the number of students enrolled in TNE programmes and level of education, there is limited publicly available information on student progression, degree outcome and labour market prospects. The experiences of students and educators involved in these programmes often tend to remain marginal within UK policy debates.

As higher education increasingly operates through a ‘big business’ model, institutional priorities have rapidly shifted towards generating revenue and maintaining competitiveness. In doing so,commitments to uphold student welfare, equality, and meaningful international collaboration are often sidelined in favour of positional advantage. Therefore, the expansion of TNE under growing market competition raises further pressing questions about equity and power within global HE systems.

Towards a decolonial approach to TNE

Most of the latest policy and institutional analyses of TNE tend to adopt an instrumentalist perspective focusing on business indicators, such as risk assessment, return on investment, international branding and reputation, quality assurance and transnational management strategies. As a result, TNE is mainly understood through frameworks of foreign investment and transnational service delivery further entrenching the logic of the market that frames education as a tradable commodity rather than a global public good (Lauren Clarke, 2021). While these considerations are important for universities operating in a competitive global environment, they risk overshadowing broader questions about equity, inclusion and the social purposes of higher education.

Adopting a decolonial approach to TNE can help address questions around embedding Western systems and structures of education in the Global South. Debates around the coloniality of TNE are not entirely new. Some scholars have drawn parallels between contemporary TNE arrangements and colonial models of education between the 16th and the 19th centuries. Colonial education systems were often characterised by limited access for the local population, a lack of relevance to local realities, the marginalisation of indigenous knowledge systems, the exclusive use of English as the primary medium of instruction, institutional authority with control originating from colonial centres and limited curricula featuring vocational degrees (Teferra and Altbach, 2004). TNE arrangements have been articulated as operating through a similar binary model in which a ‘core’ of sending institutions from the West sets the agenda for a marginalised ‘periphery’ of receiving partners, perpetuating historical legacies of colonialism (Caruana and Montgomery, 2015).

Against this background, there are growing calls for more introspective approaches to TNE that challenge post-colonial structures of dependence and compliance, while remaining attentive to the risk that transnational partnerships may reproduce these hierarchies through networks of alliance with local elites in host countries. Ravindra Sidhu advocates an ‘engaged pedagogy’ and an ‘ethics of care’ in the design and governance of TNE partnerships, emphasising the need to recognise the histories, aspirations and agency of local communities involved in these programmes.

Drawing insights from postcolonial and decolonial scholarship that emphasise justice, inclusion and agency will enable TNE strategies to better examine their implications on student success, outcomes and experiences as well as their wider impact on local communities and higher education systems in host countries. At the same time, greater attention to the national and cultural contexts in which TNE operates, particularly where differing political and institutional norms raise ethical challenges around academic freedom, governance and accountability, can support more informed institutional decision-making and partnerships. These perspectives will ensure that the expansion of TNE is not guided by short-term commercial imperatives but by broader commitments to equity and responsible global engagement, avoiding polarised strategic approaches (Sanderson, 2023).

Nilakshi Das has recently completed her PhD in History of Science. Her PhD was funded by the ESRC and jointly undertaken at the University of Leicester and the University of Warwick. Nilakshi holds an MSc in Education from the University of Oxford and an MA in Sociology from the University of Manchester, funded by a Commonwealth Scholarship. She is a Fellow of the Institute for Historical Research.


Leave a comment

Why are there no transnational UK university campuses in Korea?

by Kyuseok Kim

The UK’s Strategic Moves

Transnational Education (TNE) has been a significant strategy for UK universities seeking to expand their global footprint. TNE involves delivering educational programmes across borders, allowing institutions to reach international students without requiring them to relocate. According to The Cross-Border Education Research Team, which is arguably the most reliable source for tracking the worldwide development of transnational higher education, the UK has 46 branch campuses in 19 countries globally as of 2023. The geographic distribution of such educational enterprises is widespread, from Latin America, the EU, the Middle East, to Africa.

The most distinct importer of UK transnational campuses is the Asian region, where 20 outposts (43%) are in operation. China is the biggest host, with nine UK campuses, followed by Malaysia (six campuses) and Singapore (two campuses). Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan each have a single campus. In stark contrast with many successful UK cases in Asia, however, past attempts to establish TNE programmes in South Korea have faced numerous challenges, leading to several high-profile failures. Why is this?

Continued Success in TNE

UK universities are the second largest exporter of international branch campuses next to the United States. In recent years, it appears that UK universities have continued to look towards Asia as a fertile ground for TNE initiatives. For instance, De Montfort University Leicester has become the first UK university to open a campus in Cambodia, located in  Phnom Penh.

The most recent UK university branch campus to open is the collaborative campus between Lancaster University and Deakin University in Indonesia. Officially approved in January 2024, this campus represents a significant joint venture in TNE, the first overseas joint campus between UK and Australian universities, starting from September 2024.

No UK Branches in South Korea?

The strategy behind TNE expansions often includes enhancing global educational exchange, research collaborations, and increasing international academic mobility. Additionally, motivations such as global branding, revenue generation through student recruitment, and soft power diplomacy for long-term institutional strategies play a role. There are five international branch campuses in South Korea. However, none are from the UK, although the University of Southampton has reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding with the Incheon Metropolitan City Government to initiate discussions.

Media coverage on the conflict with South Korean authorities or the complete abandonment of plans for UK campuses is notable, in contrast to the presence of US campuses in South Korea, which started in 2012. This suggests substantial challenges for UK universities in establishing branch campuses in South Korea. Why have UK ventures struggled in South Korea?

Aberdeen’s Hadong Project

The University of Aberdeen’s attempt to establish a campus in Hadong, Gwangyang Free Economic Zone, is perhaps the most highly-cited case. Announced in 2015, the project aimed to open the UK’s first branch campus in South Korea, focusing on engineering subjects essential for the offshore oil and gas industry. Despite securing funding from South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, the project faced delays due to financial and logistical issues, and the campus never opened as planned.

Despite the promising start and official support, the project encountered numerous setbacks. Financial and bureaucratic delays postponed the campus opening from its initial target of September 2016 to 2017. Further complications arose due to the global downturn in the oil and gas industry, leading to forecasted challenges in student recruitment and securing the necessary faculty. By 2018, after multiple delays and logistical hurdles, the University of Aberdeen decided to abandon the project altogether. Consequently, significant investments in infrastructure, such as a newly built dormitory worth £4.6 million, remained unused, leading to financial losses and legal disputes with local partners.

Lancaster’s Bid in Busan

Similarly, Lancaster University attempted to establish a presence in Busan. The project, which began in 2014, aimed to create a branch campus offering undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. In 2016, it embarked on a plan to establish a campus in the Myeongji International City in Busan, South Korea. This initiative was part of a broader effort by the Busan-Jinhae Free Economic Zone Authority to create a global education hub in the region. However, it was reported that Lancaster faced bureaucratic hurdles, including difficulties in meeting South Korean regulatory requirements.

Negotiations with Busan Metropolitan City and related government bodies extended for over a year, because the plans included substantial financial commitments, with Busan agreeing to support the project with up to £10 million over seven years to cover initial operational costs and ensure the university’s sustainability. However, as the opening date approached, concerns about the financial viability and strategic fit of the project began to surface. The changing educational environment and opposition from local universities added to the complications. By 2020, Busan decided to re-examine the feasibility of the campus, leading to the eventual abolition of the project.

Navigating a Saturated Market

The unsuccessful attempts by UK universities in the southern part of South Korea, underscore the importance of geographic location. The southern regions are heavily industrialised, with a strong focus on sectors like shipbuilding and manufacturing. However, these areas are also experiencing a growing polarisation of national resources, with a significant concentration of population and economic activities in the capital area, Seoul. Moreover, the demographic shift is driven by the declining young population, further exacerbating the regional imbalance. Consequently, campuses located away from Seoul struggle to attract and retain students and faculty, making it challenging to achieve long-term sustainability.

South Korea’s higher education market is saturated, with an oversupply of universities and colleges. This saturation is compounded by a declining college-going population due to the country’s low birth rates. With fewer students entering higher education, competition among institutions has intensified, making it difficult for new entrants, particularly foreign universities, to secure a significant market share. The education authorities and regional governments are likely be influenced by the local universities and communities which are potentially threatened by losing their recruitment pools. The competitive landscape requires UK universities to differentiate themselves through unique value propositions by offering programmes that are not widely available in South Korea, but South Korean universities have been strengthened significantly in the last two decades.

Lessons from Cautionary Tales

Aberdeen and Lancaster’s attempts serve as cautionary tales for other institutions considering similar ventures. Meticulous planning in TNE initiatives can still be challenged by the complexities and uncertainties involved in TNE operations, particularly in specialised fields subject to global economic fluctuations. It is unlikely that these failures stem from inadequate planning. UK universities boast the longest history of TNEs, seasoned with rich experience. However, the experiences of the two UK universities underscore the necessity for robust, adaptable strategies and extensive groundwork to address local conditions and unforeseen challenges effectively.

Understanding and navigating the stringent regulatory framework is crucial. Universities must engage with local authorities and stakeholders early in the planning process to ensure compliance and secure the necessary approvals. Institutions also need to be prepared for potential delays and economic fluctuations that could affect their projects. Legal and infrastructural preparedness is essential to avoid the pitfalls experienced by previous ventures. Sensitive issues, such as property rights and contractual disputes, including the repatriation of profit with local governments of free economic zone authorities, can hinder branch campus establishment. For instance, Aberdeen faced legal disputes related to unused infrastructure investments, potentially deterring similar initiatives in the future.

While the South Korean higher education market presents significant challenges for UK TNEs, it may still offer substantial opportunities for those willing to invest the necessary time, resources, and strategic thinking.

Kyuseok Kim, known professionally as KS, is a doctoral candidate in Educational Administration and Higher Education at Korea University. He holds a BA in English Language Education and an MBA from Sungkyunkwan University, and was selected as a Fulbright Scholar in 2012. Since 2010, KS has developed extensive expertise in strategic planning, student recruitment, international relations, and partnerships across both public and private sectors. He has held significant roles at UWAY Co., Ltd., M Square Media, SUNY Korea, and Sungkyunkwan University. KS is also an active scholar-practitioner, contributing numerous research papers and opinion pieces to respected international and South Korean publications. ks.kyuseok.kim@gmail.com  www.linkedin.com/in/ks-kim-intled