1

Faculty Experiences in Delivering an American University Curriculum

in an International Branch Campus:

A Case Study of the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York

Undergraduate Program at the Singapore Institute of Management

A dissertation presented

by

Kevin F. McKelvey

to

The Graduate School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in the field of

International Higher Education

College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts March 2019 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of Professor George W. Gibian (1924-1999), who was my advisor at Cornell University (1986-1991).

I would also like to thank the members of my doctoral thesis committee at Northeastern

University: Dr. Lynda Beltz, Dr. Kristal Clemons, and Dr. Leslie Hitch. I am especially grateful to Dr. Beltz, whose enthusiasm has been the source of great motivation to me and many of my classmates.

I am also very grateful to my colleagues at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, and the Singapore Institute of Management. Dr. Stephen Dunnett, the Vice Provost of International Education at UB, in particular, has been a mentor both professionally and personally since I joined UB over 25 years ago, and I am especially thankful for his guidance and persistence throughout this project.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Jane Garcia McKelvey, who has patiently supported me through the many years of the making of this dissertation.

3

Abstract

This instrumental case study explores the experiences of visiting faculty members at an

American university’s international branch campus (IBC) in Singapore. It is concerned with one aspect of the broader topic of quality assurance in transnational higher education: the manner in which faculty hybridize their home campus course curricula for use at the IBC. This problem of practice is analyzed in relation to Hofstede’s (2001) theory of cultural dimensions and follows from the research of Coleman (2003), which deemed that variation between campuses in transnational educational projects is not necessarily problematic. The study is comprised of a rich description of the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York undergraduate program at the Singapore Institute of Management, interviews of 13 visiting faculty members, and document analysis; it also includes a comprehensive review of the literature on quality assurance in transnational higher education. It was found that visiting faculty members primarily adjust their course curricula to account for some structural and cultural differences at the branch campus, but strive to maintain the character and objectives of the American higher education that originates from the home campus. The thoughtful and purposeful engagement of faculty in this process of hybridization contributes to the quality and success of the IBC.

4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... 2 Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………….3 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 8 An Overview of the Topic ...... 8 Significance of the Problem ...... 12 Central Research Question ...... 14 Theory Selection and Features ...... 15 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Detailed Descriptions ...... 19 PDI—Power Distance ...... 19 UAI—Uncertainty Avoidance ...... 20 IDV—Individualism ...... 21 MAS—Masculinity ...... 22 Application of the Theory ...... 23 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 25 Introduction and Organizational Statement ...... 25 Part I: General Approaches to Quality Assurance in TNHE ...... 26 Part I: Summary ...... 31 Part II: Case Studies in TNHE...... 32 Part II: Summary ...... 37 Part III: Semantic and Critical Perspectives ...... 37 Part III: Summary ...... 41 Part IV: Peripheral Studies ...... 42 Part IV: Summary ...... 44 Summation and Advocacy Argument ...... 45 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 48 Methodological Overview ...... 48 Positionality Statement ...... 49 Research Paradigm: Constructivist ...... 57 Research Design: Qualitative ...... 57 5

Research Tradition: Case Study ...... 58 Participants (Sample Size and Selection) ...... 60 Recruitment and Access ...... 61 Data Collection ...... 62 Data Storage and Management ...... 63 Data Analysis...... 63 Trustworthiness ...... 66 Protection of Human Subjects ...... 67 Informed Consent ...... 68 Obtaining the IRB Approval ...... 69 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ...... 70 Introduction ...... 70 Part I: Historical Background and Context ...... 71 My Background...... 71 Institutional Background: University at Buffalo (UB) ...... 73 Institutional Background: Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) ...... 73 The Origins of the SIM-UB Undergraduate Program ...... 74 Launching the Program ...... 76 Instruction and Academic Calendar ...... 76 Program Growth ...... 78 Admissions ...... 78 Orientations for Students, Parents, and Faculty ...... 80 Academic Advisement ...... 83 Student Council ...... 83 UB Bound and SIM-UB Scholarship / Study Abroad / Assistant Resident Director 84 Technology...... 86 The Regulatory Environment, Academic Oversight, and Quality Assurance ...... 87 Singapore Higher Educational Landscape ...... 91 Summary ...... 92 Part II: Faculty Interviews ...... 97 Introduction ...... 97 6

Introductory Questions & Faculty Profile ...... 98 General Questions about Teaching in Singapore ...... 102 Alterations to curriculum: Global ...... 102 Alterations to curriculum—Course design (Question #5) ...... 105 Alterations to curriculum—Course content (Question #6)...... 106 Alterations to curriculum—Course delivery (Question #7) ...... 107 Alterations to curriculum to achieve learning outcomes (Question #8) ...... 109 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions ...... 110 Familiarity with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions ...... 110 Individualism ...... 111 Power Distance ...... 113 Uncertainty Avoidance ...... 114 Masculinity ...... 116 General usefulness and applicability of the dimensions ...... 117 Summary ...... 118 Concluding advice ...... 119 Part III. Document Analysis ...... 123 Course syllabi ...... 124 Syllabi templates, faculty orientation materials and handbooks ...... 128 Student and parent orientation materials, program marketing materials and brochures ...... 130 Conclusions ...... 132 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ...... 133 Introduction ...... 133 Part I: Discussion of the Findings ...... 133 Part II: Limitations of the Study ...... 136 Part III: Avenues for Future Research ...... 138 Part IV: Implications and Conclusions ...... 139 References ...... 143 Appendix A: Interview Protocol ...... 149 Appendix B: Transcriptionist Confidentiality Agreement ...... 151 7

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form ...... 152 Appendix D. IRB Approval Form ...... 154 Appendix E. Singapore Education System ...... 155 Appendix F. Teaching Assignments of Faculty Participants ...... 156 Appendix G. Inventory of Documents Analyzed ...... 157

List of Tables

Table 1 Hofstede’s Cultureal Dimensions (1984) ...... 17 Table 2 Comparison of American and Singaporean Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 1984) ...... 19 Table 3 SIM-UB Program Timeline ...... 93 Table 4 Profile of Faculty Participants ...... 99 Table 5 Comparison of American and Singaporean Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 1984) and Common Adjustments Made in Response to Perceived Differences ...... 118 Table 6 Syllabi Analyzed ...... 125

8

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

An Overview of the Topic

This study concerns one of the prevalent phenomena in contemporary higher education: the movement of students, faculty, and institutions across national borders. In particular, this study focuses on the “international branch campus,” or IBC, defined by the Observatory on

Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) as “an entity that is owned, at least in part, by a foreign education provider; operated in the name of the foreign education provider; and provides access to an entire academic program, substantially on site, leading to a degree awarded by the foreign education provider” (Merola, 2016, p. 11). An IBC is thus an institution which offers its academic credentials in a foreign location through a substantial presence of its own personnel and resources, although it may or may not have its own physical plant; IBCs are sometimes operated in conjunction with a local host institution, which provides facilities, logistical support, and local knowledge of market features and regulations. Other types of offshore programs include twinning programs and franchises (Kinser, 2010), which are certainly worthy of scholarly investigation in their own right, but are not included within the scope of this study.

IBCs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and, as such, research into them is rather limited. The research to date has focused primarily on operational aspects and the various, and sometimes overlapping, motivations that lead both home country and host country institutions to venture into the IBC arena (Green, Eckel, Calderon, & Luu, 2007; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). A subsidiary area of study is the quality assurance regimes and mechanisms that are applied to the establishment and ongoing operations of IBCs. This area of study looks at quality from a number of perspectives, including the following: student experience (Chapman & Pyvis, 2006a, 2006b); 9 service satisfaction (Lee, Jones, & Anantharaman, 2010); replication of home campus curriculum and outcomes (Coleman, 2003; Lim, 2008); apparatus to ensure sustainability (Banks &

McBurnie, 1999; Wilkins, 2010; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012); and compliance with regulatory regimes (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2001). All of these areas are fertile ground for further research.

This study focuses on the lived experiences and resultant lessons that have been learned at an American IBC in Singapore. It follows a line of research that was established by a seminal case study of Australian IBCs in Indonesia and Malaysia (Coleman, 2003), which concluded

(among other things) that “campus variation is not necessarily problematic” (p. 372). The IBC which is the subject of the current study is operated by the University at Buffalo, the State

University of New York (a large public research university in the northeastern United States), in cooperation with the Singapore Institute of Management (a substantial private education provider in Singapore). In this dissertation, the University at Buffalo will routinely be referred to as “UB” and the Singapore Institute of Management will be referred to as “SIM.” The IBC that is operated in partnership between the two institutions is known as the “SIM-UB program.”

The SIM-UB program was launched in 2004 and continues to operate at the present time.

It was set up with the intention of delivering high quality Bachelor’s degrees to local

(Singaporean) and international students from the Southeast Asian region. As an extension of the

University at Buffalo, the program strives to provide the same quality of education that students experience at the home campus in the Niagara Frontier region of Western New York State.

However, it was also recognized at the outset that the geographical and cultural distances between the two campuses would need to be taken into account in the delivery of the UB curriculum. It was realized by the founders of the program—all of whom were experienced 10 professionals in the field of transnational higher education (TNHE)—that some measure of hybridization would be needed in order for the program to operate successfully.

One of the primary operational questions from the launching of the program hence became: how much hybridization is appropriate? The objective, after all, is to deliver an

American-style education in general and a UB degree in particular. To this end, a specific set of graduation requirements need to be met, and the pedagogy should resemble, more or less, that which is usually practiced at the home campus. However, it is appropriate to ask how this can best be accomplished when the students have come from a non-American educational system, with different values about education. These students come from a background, based primarily on the UK system of education, where it is supposed that learning is largely passive, oriented toward high-stakes examinations, and classrooms are frequently teacher-centered. This conception is at odds with American expectations about active participation and a student- centered pedagogy. Moreover, as the UB program at SIM evolved, more nuanced questions about the delivery of the home campus curriculum in Singapore arose. For instance, is strict adherence to the dictates of the American curriculum as conceived and designed at the home campus even in the best interest of the students in Singapore? Would some measure of customization for the Singaporean context not be beneficial in terms of the educational content and outcomes for the students in the SIM-UB program?

These were some of the broader pedagogical questions that arose in the launching of the

SIM-UB IBC in Singapore. Also of concern were various practical matters of a logistical and regulatory nature. It was discovered, for example, that the manner in which final exams are administered in Singapore requires more advanced planning and preparation than in Buffalo.

This and other operational aspects of the program had to be accounted for and, in some cases, 11 new policies and procedures put into place. These aspects of the program’s operation will be examined in depth later, in the historical background section of Chapter Four.

The focus of this study will be on the experience of visiting faculty members from the home campus of the University at Buffalo and the challenges they faced in delivering their courses in Singapore. The case begins with a comprehensive overview of the history of the SIM-

UB program from its conceptualization and launch in 2004 through the present. This historical perspective also includes an account of the evolving regulatory environment in Singapore and the concurrent developments in the academic policies and accreditation issues that impact the home campus in the United States. The data for this portion of the paper comes from a variety of sources, including my personal archive (compiled over 15 years as the Resident Director of the program, from 2004 - 2018), published brochures and other promotional materials, program documents, and published accounts from the websites of regulatory agencies and news media.

This historical account forms the backdrop for the faculty experiences which are at the core of this research. The case investigates what faculty members actually experienced and how they met the challenges of delivering their courses in the SIM-UB program in Singapore.

Faculty members were purposefully selected for this study based on my knowledge of their potential to provide meaningful insights into quality cross-cultural pedagogy. The faculty members were interviewed, and the interviews were analyzed for themes that are germane to the central questions of the study. The interviews were supplemented by an analysis of documents, including the course syllabi of the faculty participants, as well as program brochures, handbooks, reports, communications among program faculty and administrative staff, policy statements, regulatory mandates, and other materials that provide insights into the research questions. The 12 data were analyzed in relation to the theoretical framework of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions. These aspects of the study are discussed in detail in Chapter Three.

The remainder of this chapter addresses the significance of the problem, the central research questions, and the theory selection and features for the theoretical framework. Chapter

Two presents a review of the literature on quality assurance in transnational higher education, which both provides the practical background and informs the research questions addressed within this case study. Chapter Three provides a detailed description for the research design of this case study. Chapter Four presents the findings in three sections: first, the historical background of the case, consisting of a rich description as derived from my experience as

Resident Director of the SIM-UB program from 2004-2018; second, the findings derived from the interviews of faculty members in the SIM-UB program; and third, the analysis of program documents, including the course syllabi of the faculty participants. Chapter Five presents the conclusions of the study, including its limitations, as well as implications for current practice and directions for further research.

Significance of the Problem

Green et al. (2007) have provided a thorough account of the factors that draw universities into transnational projects of various kinds. While cross-cultural enrichment and the development of globally competent students and faculty may be strong considerations for many institutions, the reality of current demographic trends may be the most significant factor of all in the proliferation of international branch campuses; as populations of native-born college-aged students decline in the developed world, institutions must do something to replace them in order to maintain enrolments. Given that foreign students from the developing world typically pay full tuition, attracting more of them to study on campus may be financially advantageous. The 13 establishment of an international branch campus somewhere close to the source of these students may also help to promote a university’s brand image within a region and to draw students to the home campus for some portion of their undergraduate or graduate studies. However, these ventures are not without risk; the case of the University of New South Wales (Australia) campus in Singapore—which was launched in 2007 and failed within its first semester of operation—is a dramatic example of how even reputable, well-established universities can struggle on entering the TNHE arena (Sidhu, 2009). Moreover, with an increase of the number of branch campuses around the world, both importing and exporting countries have begun to scrutinize their activities more closely in the interest of consumer protection and national standards (Kinser, 2011; Lane,

2011).

For American institutions that aspire to expand overseas, it can be problematic to align the demands of U.S. regional accreditation requirements with the foreign regulatory environment and host country’s cultural orientation toward education. Kinser (2011) has called for a move to greater international cooperation and the working out of a global system for quality control in transnational higher education. However, even in the most optimistic scenario this will take many years to materialize. In the meantime, economic realities are likely to compel American institutions to offer their programs at locations around the globe in order to reap the benefits of growing demand and the associated revenue streams; it is imperative for their own long-term well-being that they fully understand the quality assurance issues as they apply to these initiatives. This study explores one aspect of the larger quality assurance equation: the challenges that faculty members face in delivering their home-campus curriculum in a host-country environment. 14

Central Research Question

The central question of this case study is: What are the challenges faced by visiting faculty in delivering their courses at an American IBC in Singapore? Insofar as this is a qualitative study, it was expected that additional, more focused questions would emerge as the data was collected and analyzed. The initial central question posed above was intentionally broad and open ended so as to elicit the deepest and broadest range of possible responses from the participants in the study. While the focus of the investigation was on curricular matters, such as the design of course syllabi, assessment schemes, class activities, classroom management techniques, and similar aspects of classroom-level course delivery, it was plausible that other types of challenges that visiting faculty members face would also emerge. Hence, the types of questions that could potentially arise concern such aspects of course delivery as linguistic challenges, logistical challenges, cross-cultural challenges, challenges that stem from regulatory compliance issues, and so on. The process of discovery was an integral part of this research, and is accounted for in the findings.

Moreover, the exploration of specific aspects of Hofstede’s (2001) theory of cultural dimensions, which comprises the theoretical framework for the study, could also stimulate more in-depth secondary questions related to each of the specific cultural dimensions (which will be discussed in detail in the next section). For example, according to Hofstede’s theory, there is a dramatic difference in the cultures of the United States and Singapore on the cultural dimension of Individualism. Therefore, the process of inquiry into this dimension would likely warrant a more sustained exploration into the challenges it presents in aligning an American university curriculum with the needs of an audience that is purported to be highly collectivist in orientation.

Likewise, any of the other three cultural dimensions—Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, 15 and Masculinity—had similar potential to invite more or less detailed investigation. The interview protocol developed for this study (see Appendix A) addressed each of the cultural dimensions, such that each of the participants had the opportunity to share his or her experiences with them in the SIM-UB program. An overarching secondary research question to unify this line of inquiry thus became: Do the kinds of factors described in Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism) play a role in the design or delivery of course content by visiting faculty members in an IBC?

Ultimately, the goal of the study is to uncover the insights and collective wisdom of successful, long-term visiting faculty members in delivering their course content in a cross- cultural environment. While these insights are clearly specific to the case in question (the SIM-

UB program), it is hoped that with judicious adaptation the findings may be advantageously applied by TNHE practitioners—including both administrators and instructional staff—in IBCs in other geographical and cultural contexts.

Theory Selection and Features

Hofstede’s (2001) theory of cultural dimensions offers a promising theoretical platform for understanding the challenges of cross-cultural pedagogy in IBCs. While no case studies of

IBCs to date have used Hofstede’s theory—in fact, most of the research on IBCs has been atheoretical in nature—a quantitative study (Lee et al., 2009) used it to examine the service quality expectations of Korean and American MBA students (located in their respective countries, but enrolled in the same university’s degree program) in relation to three of Hofstede’s four dimensions. There is thus a research-based precedent for applying Hofstede’s theory in the

TNHE context. 16

Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions has also played a significant role in the evolution of the University at Buffalo international branch campus in Singapore, which is the site of the current case study. It is routinely referred to either implicitly or explicitly in the orientation of new faculty members (both local and visiting) who teach in the program, as a manner of raising awareness of cross-cultural aspects of pedagogy in an IBC. For instance, the

American instructors who teach in the program are accustomed to teaching in an environment at home that is considered to be highly individualistic; it is therefore worthwhile for them to consider the implications of teaching in an environment that is considered to be highly collectivist. The theory is likely to be very familiar to anyone who has worked in applied linguistics (foreign language education), or any other field which routinely deals with the interaction of cultures (e.g., international marketing, cross-cultural psychology, etc.). Even for those who have no direct experience in or immediate disciplinary contact with issues of cross- cultural pedagogy, the concepts of the cultural dimensions (including gender, authority, and tolerance of ambiguity) are generally quite familiar and accessible. For these reasons, Hofstede’s

(1984, 2001) theory is an excellent starting point for purposeful reflection on pedagogical matters within an IBC, although the extent to which the dimensions play a concrete role in course delivery is open to question, and indeed is a core issue addressed in this research project.

The theory was developed following an extensive worldwide survey conducted by

Hofstede in the 1960s and the 1970s, during which time he worked for IBM, one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world in terms of both number of employees and countries in which operations are located. Hofstede administered surveys about attitudes toward work (from which cultural values could be extrapolated) to 117,000 IBM employees in 66 countries. From the survey results, he constructed a model in which national cultures can be described 17 empirically by their position on four “dimensions”: Power Distance (PDI), Uncertainty

Avoidance (UAI), Individualism (IDV), and Masculinity (MAS). Each country can be assigned a numerical value between 1 and 120 for each of the dimensions, depending on the strength of that value within the national culture. For instance, a country which receives a high numerical score on the IDV scale has a higher regard for values related to individualism (self-reliance, independence, etc.) than a country which receives a low score, which tends to value a more collective orientation. The four dimensions are briefly outlined in Table 1. A detailed account of each of the dimensions will follow in the next section.

Table 1 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (1984)

PDI UAI IDV MAS Power Distance Uncertainty Individualism Masculinity Avoidance Description How members How members How members of How members of the culture of the culture the culture view of the culture view the tolerate themselves in view themselves distribution of ambiguity and relation to the in relation to power uncertainty group their gender Some indicators Respect for Higher anxiety “I” Money and of high value authority, and stress; more consciousness; things conformity aggressive; more individual orientation; live emotional identity to work; decisiveness Some high value Philippines (94), Greece (112), USA (91), Japan (95), countries Mexico (81), Portugal (104), Australia (90), Austria (79), Venezuela (81) Belgium (94) Great Britain Venezuela (73) (89) Some indicators Pursuit of Ease, lower “We” People of low value equality, stress; less consciousness; orientation; independence aggressive; less identity in social work to live; emotional system intuition Some low value Austria (11), Singapore (8), Venezuela (12), Sweden (5), countries Israel (13), Denmark (23) Colombia (13), Norway (8), Denmark (18) Sweden (29) Pakistan (14) Netherlands (14)

18

The key constructs Hofstede (2001) used to develop his theory were values and culture

(p. 18). Values are ascribed to individuals and collectives, whereas culture, by its nature, refers to a collective. Hofstede (2001) defines a value as “a broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (p. 18). Culture is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (p. 21). Culture and values combine to formulate “mental programs,” or predictable patterns of behavior that originate in both individual and collective sources; in other words, members of the American culture will typically react in certain ways in certain situations due to their cultural norms, but any individual may react differently due to idiosyncratic personality factors or other personal beliefs or influences. In any case, having an empirically derived nation-by-nation accounting of these mental programs (i.e., patterns of behavior) has had practical value in international business, marketing, and cross-cultural communication and psychology, as Hofstede’s analysis (1984,

2001) also indicated the likely implications when cultures of differing values along a given dimension interact with each other. Awareness of these implications can help to guide decision making about management techniques, business strategies, quality assurance mechanisms, and interpersonal interactions in general in cross-cultural collaborations.

Following Lee et al. (2009), the current study applies Hofstede’s insights to an American

IBC in Singapore (i.e., the SIM-UB program). Table 2 presents the differing values for the

United States and Singapore; the current study explores the challenges faced by UB visiting faculty members in delivering their courses at SIM in light of these differences in cultural values.

19

Table 2 Comparison of American and Singaporean Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 1984)

PDI UAI IDV MAS Power Distance Uncertainty Individualism Masculinity Avoidance

Singapore 74 (high) r13 8 (low) r53 20 (low) r39-41 48 (medium) r28

USA 40 (medium) r38 46 (medium) r43 91 (high) r1 62 (medium) r15 r = rank

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Detailed Descriptions

PDI—Power Distance

Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p. 61). In a given country, institutions are the basic units around which social life is organized (family, school, community organizations, etc.), while organizations are the places where people work. In Hofstede’s (1984) original survey, the obtained data were in reference to the questions about situations between managers and their subordinates, and were used to generalize about how members of a culture view power relationships. The data indicated that in some countries, with a high power distance index, people are more accepting of inequality, while countries with low power distance index tend to value equality more highly. In terms of the workplace, this would mean that subordinates regard their managers as more authoritative figures in high PDI countries, while subordinates and managers engage in a more consultative style of working relationship in low PDI countries. In an educational setting, this would suggest that students in a high PDI country (such as Singapore) would be more deferential to their instructors than they would in a low PDI country (such as the

United States). In fact, a separate study following from Hofstede’s (1984) findings found that “in 20 unequal societies, ordinary people such as students felt that they should not have aspirations beyond their rank” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 63). Given the relatively large difference in the PDIs of the United States and Singapore, the lived experiences of the visiting faculty members who have taught extensively at both the home campus and the SIM-UB program are of great interest in exploring the role of this dimension in the adaptation of curriculum across borders; this will be discussed further in the findings.

UAI—Uncertainty Avoidance

The uncertainty avoidance index was derived from questions in the original IBM survey about job stress. It refers to the ability to deal with ambiguity and the unknown and is defined as

“the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 191). A high UAI indicates that the members of a culture generally feel more anxious about uncertain situations, whereas a lower UAI indicates that people are more comfortable. High UAI cultures value rules and regulations (both written and unwritten) and predictability, while low UAI cultures tend to be more open to an ad hoc manner of existence. In relation to educational practice, Hofstede et al. (2010) found that “students from strong uncertainty-avoidance countries expect their teachers to be experts who have all the answers” (p. 205); moreover, those students prefer learning activities that are well-structured, have well-defined outcomes, and clear right and wrong answers. Students in low UAI cultures, on the other hand, “accept a teacher who says ‘I don’t know’” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 63); they prefer open-ended assignments and the opportunity to generate original responses. Whereas high

UAI students would regard disagreement with an instructor as inappropriate, low UAI students view it as intellectually stimulating. 21

On the UAI scale, the United States ranks in the middle of the field, while Singapore has the lowest UAI of all of the countries surveyed. It is therefore enlightening to learn from the lived experiences of visiting faculty members in the SIM-UB program; whether the generalizations about education implied by these rankings on the UAI dimension are actually observed is one of the intriguing aspects of the study that will be discussed in the findings.

IDV—Individualism

As the name of this dimension suggests, individualism is a measure of the relationship between the individual and the collective society of which he or she is a member. The dimension is comprised of extreme collectivism at one end and extreme individualism at the other end of a continuum. An individualist society is defined as one “in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him- or herself and his or her immediate family”

(Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 92). A collectivist society, on the other hand, is one “in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 92). In the original IBM survey, the dimensions were measured by survey questions involving work goals. There are numerous, commonly observed tendencies in education that are associated with the differences between students of a collectivist versus an individualist culture (Hofstede et al., 2010, pp. 117-119). For instance, students in a collectivist society will generally not speak up in class unless they first have the opportunity to work in small groups and select a spokesperson to represent their collective views; students in an individualist society feel no such inhibition.

The maintenance of group harmony is valued in a collectivist setting (thus impeding such activities as discussions and debates), while, in an individualist classroom environment, civil disagreement is a regular feature of academic discourse. Moreover, the very purpose of 22 education may vary from the individualist to the collectivist society; for instance, the attainment of an academic credential in an individualist society is primarily seen as a personal accomplishment to reap individual rewards (such as self-esteem or improved prospects for employment), whereas in a collectivist society it may represent more of an entrance credential to a more prestigious in-group.

The United States is the top-ranked nation in the world on the IDV dimension (i.e., it is the most strongly individualistic society). Singapore, on the other hand, is ranked among the most collectivist societies. The lived experiences of the visiting faculty members in the SIM-UB program offer rich insights into the expected differences and actual classroom dynamics based on the IDV positions of Singapore and the United States; these are presented in the findings.

MAS—Masculinity

The masculinity dimension places countries on a continuum from high (masculine) to low

(feminine) according to cultural values regarding gender roles. A masculine society is defined as one where “emotional gender roles are clearly defined: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 140). A feminine society is one where “emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Ibid., p. 140). The national values were assigned following the IBM survey in relation to questions about work goals. Within the context of education, masculine societies are oriented toward competition and achievement, whereas feminine societies are oriented toward modesty and acceptance. For example, in a school in a masculine culture, students may aggressively pursue better grades on exams and assignments, whereas students in a more feminine society will willingly accept the scores they have earned 23

(Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 160). Insofar as both Singapore and the United States are ranked in the middle of the MAS dimension, the lived experiences of visiting faculty members in the SIM-UB program point to modest differences along gender lines; these too will be discussed in the findings.

Application of the Theory

The primary research question asked by the proposed study is: What are the challenges faced by faculty members of an American university in delivering their curriculum at an IBC in

Singapore? A more focused way of addressing this broad question is to explore in greater depth the experiences of faculty members in relation to Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) cultural dimensions.

For instance, some salient questions are: Do differences in attitude about authority, ambiguity, individual vs. collective achievement, or gender impact the way that faculty members deliver their courses in Singapore? In other words, what kinds of modifications or adjustments do faculty members need to make in order to align the methods and objectives of their instruction with the cultural characteristics of the students in the host country?

The research method to approach these questions consists of an instrumental case study

(Creswell, 2012) involving interviews of visiting faculty members who deliver courses in the

SIM-UB program and subsequent data analysis using coding to detect patterns among the responses. The interviews are supplemented by document analysis and member checking to enhance the trustworthiness and validity of the study. It employs a purposeful sampling of visiting faculty members in order to elicit the best information from the most knowledgeable and experienced instructors at the SIM-UB program. Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) theory of cultural dimensions provides a useful tool for exposing the cultural values—to the extent that these 24 values are found to be present—which inform the manner in which visiting faculty members design and deliver their courses in an international branch campus. 25

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction and Organizational Statement

In this literature review, the topic of quality assurance (QA) in transnational higher education (TNHE) is explored, with particular attention to international branch campuses (IBCs).

The topic will be explored from a variety of perspectives, given that quality assurance is a very broad and poorly defined concept which has evolved considerably over time, and which has many nuances that are connected with the cultural contexts in which the educational program under scrutiny is located. Moreover, questions of quality in transnational or cross-border scenarios are further confounded by the variations in both internal (i.e., institutional) and external

(i.e., regulatory) quality assurance mechanisms that are frequently at odds for participants from two or more national origins. This is a complex issue, but one that is worthy of study because of the growing number of IBCs and the potential risks to an institution’s reputation, finances, and other resources if transnational initiatives are not carried out with adequate attention to quality.

The review is organized into the following sections: 1) general approaches to quality assurance in transnational higher education; this section has to do with the theoretical and pragmatic concerns that have informed the pursuit of quality assurance in IBCs over time; it provides the general context for the subsequent sections, which are more narrowly focused; 2) case studies which have focused on quality assurance in specific cross-cultural contexts (e.g.,

Australian programs in Southeast Asia, British programs in the Middle East, etc.); 3) studies that examine the notion of quality in TNHE from semantic or critical perspectives; and 4) a number of peripheral studies that address issues of relevance to quality assurance in TNHE, but that have not been examined specifically in the context of IBCs (e.g., the role of distance education in

IBC course delivery). 26

It should be noted that much of the scholarly literature on quality assurance in TNHE falls into more than one of the above categories (especially the first and second ones). Studies of this sort are discussed in relation to the purpose they serve in advancing the overall themes of this review. Additionally, this review addresses only scholarly articles that have been written about quality assurance in TNHE; not encompassed in the scope of the review are the types of documents—such as accrediting agency guidelines, government regulations, or institutional material such as course syllabi, student and faculty handbooks, and so forth—that would be considered as objects of analysis within the quality assurance regime of a given program or institution. The review concludes with a summation of the findings in the research to date and on the practical and theoretical problems of assuring quality at international branch campuses, particularly with regard to the challenges faced by faculty members who teach in them. In the remainder of the literature review, the major threads of research into quality assurance at international branch campuses are examined.

Part I: General Approaches to Quality Assurance in TNHE

In this section of the literature review, the major concepts and developments over time of the general topic of quality assurance in transnational higher education are introduced. This background will serve as a frame of reference in approaching the more specific subcategory within the quality assurance regimes of IBCs of the delivery of the exporting institution’s curriculum within the environment of the host culture (and the challenges therein entailed). The broad arena of QA in TNHE is the locus of the current study’s central research question: What are the challenges faced by visiting faculty in delivering their courses at an American IBC in

Singapore? 27

One of the leading scholars on current issues in transnational higher education (TNHE) is

Kevin Kinser of the Pennsylvania State University, formerly of the University at Albany, the

State University of New York, where he co-founded the Cross-Border Education Research Team

(C-BERT). Kinser (2010, 2011) has written extensively on the regulatory aspect of cross-border projects of various kinds, including distance education, for-profit institutions, and the growing phenomenon of international branch campuses (IBCs). In his 2010 article, “The Private Nature of Cross-Border Higher Education,” he has identified the major challenges and opportunities that exist for universities that engage in branch campus operations outside of the home countries. He also provided a useful inventory of the types of operational models and course offerings currently available around the world and took stock of the various financial and legal considerations that influence the establishment and long-term sustainability of IBCs. Out of the myriad combinations of importing and exporting countries and the complex bilateral arrangements that they produce, there is one commonality that Kinser (2010) identified as critical:

By far the most pressing issue has been quality assurance … Two dimensions apply, one

relating to the home campus’s risk associated with offering a low quality program abroad

and the other one involving the host country’s guarding against the establishment of weak

programs by low-quality IBCs. (p. 115)

The result is a paradox: the assurance of quality is for the stakeholders on each side of the project an essentially domestic matter, even though the branch campus is by nature international. Kinser

(2010) considered this to be an unresolved problem, suggesting that further practice-based research on ways of conflating importer and exporter interests in quality assurance would be of great value. 28

Kinser and his colleague Jason Lane, another co-founder of C-BERT from the University at Albany, the State University of New York, have authored and co-authored several other articles that also address the issue of quality assurance at IBCs. Lane (2011) explored the managerial and leadership challenges inherent in IBCs, and identified various issues which need to be taken into account for their successful operation; among these is a commitment to understanding the influence of the local culture on numerous aspects of the branch campus, including pedagogy, student life, and business operations. One of the key findings reported by

Lane (2011) is that the geographical boundary between the home and branch campuses can lead to a sense of detachment and a degradation of the branch campus’ activities. The challenge of maintaining effective communication is therefore one of many problems of practice for IBC leaders.

Kinser (2011) recapitulated the development of quality assurance in transnational higher education, pointing out that it has changed over time in conjunction with changing societal interests in the evaluation of institutional performance. Quality assurance remains undefined in any concrete sense, but rather has taken on an all-encompassing meaning, and is currently associated with efforts toward evaluation and improvement in all aspects of an institution’s activities. A common distinction is made between internal and external quality control mechanisms, with internal mechanisms serving to satisfy institutional needs for self-evaluation and external mechanisms (typically carried out by governmental or related accrediting agencies) serving to provide accountability to the public. Kinser (2011) also identified another significant area of controversy—namely, the definition of “quality” as it applies to education. Although this is a highly subjective issue, Kinser (2011) offered the following functional understanding:

“quality … is distinguished by connecting institutional mission to outcomes valued by both the 29 institution and external stakeholders” (p. 55). Finally, Lane and Kinser (2011) examined the policy contexts in which IBCs are currently operating and concluded that, while the situation is still malleable, “countries have continued to assert their national authority over any education that occurs within their domestic borders” (p. 84). These findings suggest that future practice in

IBC quality assurance will need to be informed by a highly flexible and adaptable understanding of the context in which the IBC operates, as a widely accepted international standard is not immediately forthcoming.

While Kinser and Lane (2011) represent an American perspective on transnational higher education, studies of quality from a European perspective are also informative. For instance,

Bennett et al. (2010) have written on the state of quality assurance in the European countries that have subscribed to the Bologna process, initiated at the ministerial level in 1999, to create more opportunities in such areas as international exchange, transfer of credits, and recognition of credentials. This is obviously a daunting task given the enormous diversity of national systems of education within Europe. Indeed, one of the perceived needs of a coherent continental quality assurance system was “to combat diploma mills,” (p. 15), while at the same time preserving the economic advantages intended by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), or free trade relations, which were established in 1995, between the member countries. This agreement created many new opportunities for transnational educational cooperation, but also opened the door to chicanery and opportunism for some ethically dubious providers. In view of these circumstances, Bennett and his colleagues (2010) argued that “quality is a broad concept encompassing both the delivery of the social dimension and the broadening of the student population, and enhanced status and opportunities for academic staff, including the opportunity to participate in and benefit from transnational education programmes” (p. 18). 30

It is interesting to note the emphasis in the European community now being placed on student experience as a significant component within a rather holistic concept of educational quality. It is also noteworthy that the recommendation made by Bennett et al. (2010) in relation to the future of transnational educational projects in the Bologna group is that quality assurance should be a collaborative effort: “The relevant authorities in the country in which the education is actually offered and those in the country in which the provider is based, share a joint responsibility to assure the quality of the education offered” (p. 30). Hence, the European position parallels the emphasis placed by Kinser and Lane (2011) in America on an emergent sense of transnational (as opposed to unilateral) responsibility for quality assurance.

It is also fruitful to look at some examples of quality assurance from the perspective of researchers in the UK and Australia. The British and Australians have extensive experience in

IBCs and transnational education in general, and they have traditionally dominated the export market in many regions of the world, including Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Wilkins and

Huisman (2012), from the University of Bath (UK), have written about the factors that influence institutional decision-making concerning whether or not to launch an international branch campus. While the issue of financial sustainability is recognized as important, the authors found evidence that many other considerations (such as the risk to the institution’s reputation and the potential dilution of the home campus’ resources) are typically taken into account. Relying on a theoretical framework from organizational behavior to interpret reports from universities about their decisions regarding IBCs, they conclude that such decisions are best taken as a holistic evaluation of the project and its context, and not merely as a commercial venture.

A similar study was conducted by Ziguras (2003) of the RMIT (Royal Melbourne

Institute of Technology) Globalism Institute in Australia. Ziguras (2003) provided a detailed 31 analysis of how the GATS treaty, which took effect in 1995, has influenced transnational tertiary education in New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia. Though much has evolved in the world of transnational higher education since 2003, Ziguras noted in his conclusion (citing

Rudner, 1997) that “while importing countries rely on transnational tertiary education to meet labour market needs, nation-building governments often see international education as a form of culturally subversive western domination, and therefore seek to keep their regulatory options open” (p. 105). This theme of cultural domination, which was at an incipient stage of development in the scholarly literature on IBCs as of 2003, will be seen again later in the presentation of critical analyses of quality assurance in transnational higher education, in Part III of this chapter.

Part I: Summary

Quality assurance is considered to be one of the most important, yet also one of the most elusive facets of transnational higher education. Researchers from the United States, continental

Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia have pointed to the nebulous character of “quality” when dealing with the diverse priorities of stakeholders from differing cultural backgrounds and educational systems. It is generally believed, however, that the quality and sustainability of transnational educational projects such as international branch campuses can be enhanced when the interests of importing and exporting parties are well aligned, and that oversight of quality in cross-border scenarios is a shared rather than unilateral responsibility. Moreover, there is a growing recognition that student experience in relation to educational outcomes is at the core of the pursuit of quality in TNHE, although it is by no means clear how this experience is to be defined or measured—or even who gets to define and measure it. These issues are explored in 32 the current study, which examines the experiences of faculty members who teach at an American

IBC in Singapore.

Part II: Case Studies in TNHE

A second approach to quality assurance in international branch campuses has been taken by numerous scholars who have conducted case studies at various locations around the world.

One of the early examples of a case study of this type is McBurnie and Ziguras (2001) . Their study did not focus on a single IBC, but rather compared the regulatory environments of Hong

Kong, Malaysia, and Australia. The authors found that each country had a distinct set of motivations for regulating the educational institutions operating within its borders, as well as its institutions which export their product overseas (in the case of Australian universities). While each country has a variety of reasons to implement a regulatory regime, the dominant factor was found to be consumer protection in Hong Kong, the advancement of national goals in Malaysia, and the protection of the local system in Australia. These were achieved, respectively, through transparency in Hong Kong, the specification of strict curricular guidelines in Malaysia, and the establishment of concrete domestic standards which would apply to the offshore offerings of

Australian universities. Given the current emphasis in transnational higher education on shared responsibility for quality assurance, it is interesting that as a historical phenomenon each of these measures was self-contained within the relevant country when this study was conducted.

However, McBurnie and Ziguras (2001) raised two further questions that have resurfaced throughout the discourse on IBCs in the past decade: “Does the home country have rigorous quality requirements in place, and are domestic provisions applicable and appropriate to courses offered transnationally?” (p. 100). While the first of these questions can be answered empirically through direct reference to the existence of actual regulations, the second question is more 33 nebulous and speculative in nature, and is therefore of considerable interest to current practitioners in the field of transnational higher education.

An empirical study by Coleman (2003), in fact, went a long way to address the issue of regulations which govern the export of British and Australian higher education. In the article, the emergent regulatory bodies—the [British] Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

(QAA) and the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA)—are described in detail, as are their efforts to bring some credibility to TNHE, which was perceived at that time as undisciplined and susceptible to unethical practices. The article also included a case study of an

Australian university’s branch campuses in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Jakarta, Indonesia; the study consisted of 88 informal interviews of 72 students and 16 staff members and was designed to identify areas of divergence or equivalency between the home and branch campuses and how these affected the quality of the academic programs. The results indicated “the complex cultural, linguistic, and pedagogic space offshore campuses occupy” (p. 366). Briefly, there was no consensus about the relationship with the home campus, the degree to which the curriculum should be adapted to the local context, whether courses should be taught by local or expatriate faculty, or any other considerations affecting the branch campuses’ resemblance to the home institution. Ultimately, the author concluded: “Campus variation is not necessarily problematic”

(p. 372). Therefore, this study is noteworthy for its amenable orientation toward the hybridization of cross-border higher education. Moreover, it advances the position that quality assurance is a shared responsibility of both internal and external stakeholders and that measures of quality should address not only curricular equivalencies, but also student learning outcomes in a much broader sense (p. 372). Coleman’s (2003) seminal study captures many of the essential questions that continue to engage scholars and practitioners of international branch campuses. 34

Several other case studies have been conducted involving Australian university programs in Southeast Asia. For example, Banks and McBurnie (1999) studied the first international branch campus to open in Malaysia—Monash University Sunway Campus Malaysia (MUSCM), in 1998—from several perspectives, including that of quality assurance. It is interesting for its historical significance, insofar as the Monash campus represents the beginning of what has become an enormous global phenomenon; not surprisingly, its conclusion is consistent with more contemporary assessments: “[For an IBC] to succeed, economic considerations must be soundly balanced against educational values and effective quality assurance mechanisms” (p.

271).

Furthermore, Chapman and Pyvis (2006a, 2006b) also conducted case studies of

Australian campuses in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, but focused more specifically on the area of student experience. One study looked at a diverse set of students (pre-university, undergraduate, and graduate) in several programs in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, and found through a series of surveys and interviews that what stood out was the “notion of quality as transformation” (Chapman & Pyvis, 2006a, p. 238). In other words, students perceived the quality of their institution in terms of its ability to transform their identities, leading the authors to conclude: “We believe that student experience is the key indicator of the quality of educational provision” (p. 243).

In their second study, Chapman and Pyvis (2006b) looked at doctoral students in Hong

Kong and concluded that “[i]n order to provide a good and successful learning experience academics involved in offshore programs need to be aware of cultural and social adjustments that are required of both themselves and their students” (p. 301). These studies by Chapman and 35

Pyvis (2006a, 2006b) represent a shift towards a student-centered concept of quality assurance, as well as a continuing interest in cultural adaptation rather than rigid curricular equivalency.

Lastly, it is worthwhile to consider some case studies which depict less than optimal conditions in IBCs. Lim (2008) studied an Australian branch campus in Malaysia and, on the basis of interviews of program staff, concluded that there were gaps in the quality assurance practices. These gaps seemed to stem from a poor understanding among the stakeholders of their responsibility in the quality assurance process; moreover, there appeared to be a one-dimensional approach to quality, with much attention being given to the moderation of exam results and little to anything else, including the quality of teaching. The study indicates that quality assurance can be problematic if not carried out with adequate attention to multiple aspects of the educational process.

Özturgut (2008) conducted a study of an American joint-venture campus in China, and found similar problems. The study employed interviews, surveys, and participant observations to identify several challenges to the harmonious operation of the campus, which originated essentially from poor cross-cultural communication between the partner institutions. While flawed communication among cultures is a solvable problem, Özturgut (2008) raised the far more difficult question of “how American the so-called American education is in China” (np).

This is surely a question that deserves more research at American IBCs in other geographical contexts, or any IBC from any country that purports to offer its uniquely national brand of education in an offshore setting. However, measurement of “American-ness” (or “Australian- ness,” “British-ness,” etc.) would be problematic. In other words, one would first need to determine the exact characteristics that define a national (American, Australian, British, etc.) concept of higher education before any specific evaluation of it in relation to student learning 36 outcomes at an IBC could be made. While many educators might agree, for instance, that

American higher education emphasizes such components as critical thinking, independent learning, and the development of various “soft skills,” such as the ability to work effectively in groups or to manage multiple tasks in a timely manner, an exact specification would surely be controversial.

A final study by Wilkins (2010) is presented as a caveat, insofar as it outlined all of the worst imaginable scenarios for potential IBCs. The author examined the situation in the United

Arab Emirates, which as of 2009 had attracted 40 IBCs from around the world. As a result, the higher education market has become saturated, supply exceeds demand, and there have been unfortunate cases of reputable universities (e.g., George Mason and Michigan State) which have launched programs that subsequently failed. There have also been concerns about the ability of

IBCs to recruit qualified students without compromising their admissions standards and academic expectations, as well as problems in engaging and retaining qualified faculty. It appears that many of the IBCs in the Emirates were drawn in by the promise of increased revenue streams, but did so in a manner that was antithetical to the best practices in quality assurance; for instance, programs may have been established to provide good quality academic content, but without adequate attention to the student support services (recreational facilities, counseling services, etc.) that comprise a significant aspect of the undergraduate experience at the home campus. In short, Wilkins’ (2010) article is informative for its depiction of how not to manage quality in an offshore campus. Consequently, Wilkins and Huisman (2012) advocated a more broad-based consideration of factors with regard to the decision of whether or not to launch an international branch campus. 37

Part II: Summary

From the case studies reviewed here that have been conducted at IBCs in various geographical locations and originating from various exporting countries, several common themes emerge. First, for an IBC to be successful, a quality assurance regime needs to incorporate more than one narrow aspect or sphere of activity, such as rigid curricular equivalencies or financial operations. Rather, the studies of specific IBCs generally indicate that a broad-based program of quality assurance that accounts for cultural differences between the importing and exporting countries is more promising. Second, a judicious modification of the home institution’s academic program to cater to the needs of host institution students appears to be a fruitful path towards creating a worthwhile experience for the students who are enrolled in an IBC. However, as

Özturgut (2008) warns, there is an essential paradox in the localization of an imported curriculum: By making concessions to the host environment, is the educational product degraded beyond recognition from its home institution’s original version? The key to solving this conundrum appears to be a matter of finding the correct balance of home institution standards with host environment needs. The extent to which this balance is obtained is explored in the current study that examines the lived experiences of faculty members at an American IBC in

Singapore.

Part III: Semantic and Critical Perspectives

A third stream of discourse about quality assurance at international branch campuses takes a critical stance in considering the concept of quality from a semantic or ideological perspective. Sidhu (2005, 2009), for instance, has written extensively about transnational education in Singapore from this viewpoint. Her 2005 article entitled “Building a Global

Schoolhouse: International Education in Singapore” outlines the efforts of the Singapore 38 government’s Economic Development Board (EDB) to attract “world class universities” (WCUs) to establish branch campuses or other cooperative arrangements with local universities. These included such projects as a Johns Hopkins University biomedical research center launched in

2003, an MBA program offered by the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business in

2000, and a five-year contract with the Wharton Business School of the University of

Pennsylvania to provide “intellectual leadership” (p. 55) to the newly founded Singapore

Management University in 1999. These and other projects were critiqued by Sidhu and Matthews

(2005) who examined the imagery used in government pronouncements to promote a particular vision of international education. This vision, they argue, is in fact a fabrication that will deflect—whether by design or by coincidence is left unclear—the burden of financing higher education from the government to the consumer. (In other words, if enough Singaporeans are convinced that it is worthwhile for them to pay for an expensive imported degree, then the need for the government to fund additional slots in the heavily subsidized national universities is diminished.) The authors concluded that “the imagery of the knowledge economy rests on notions of competitiveness and a desire for replicating an American mindset of entrepreneurialism, innovation, and risk-taking” (p. 11). Hence, the theme of cultural domination mentioned previously in relation to Ziguras (2003) is echoed in the work of Sidhu and Matthews

(2005).

A group of Finnish scholars has also explored the semantic composition of quality assurance in the European context; these studies include Saarinen (2005, 2008a, 2008b) and

Treuthardt, Huusko, and Saarinen (2006). Saarinen (2005) used discourse analysis of documents involving the establishment of universal European quality assurance mechanisms among the member nations of the Bologna Accords to show the evolution of the meaning of “quality” over 39 time. The author found that “the meaning of quality is ambiguous and loaded with stakeholder interests” (p. 193). Essentially, the meaning had converged from diverse national understandings to a more unified (but not uncontroversial) meaning related to the equivalency of educational credentials for validation purposes. Saarinen wrote about the Finnish situation: “the change from a system which stresses assessment as a tool for development into an audit system or even accreditation is not unproblematic” (p. 201). Treuthardt et al. (2006) showed how it became

“fashionable” for Finnish universities to refer to their self-evaluation practices as “management by results” (i.e., a pervasive emphasis on assessment). While such rhetoric may have been appealing to university-wide administration, it was found in some cases to be detrimental at the department level. Treuthardt et al. (2006) argued that “evaluation and management by results remain forms of interaction without real substance” (p. 216). Saarinen (2008a) argued that discourse analysis in higher education policy studies is a useful approach, but needs to be applied with adequate intellectual rigor; she proposed that it should be combined with institutional ethnography in order to account for the social factors which also influence policy making processes. While this study does not directly concern international branch campuses, the suggested method of study would lend itself to an effective case study of branch campus quality assurance mechanisms. Lastly, Saarinen (2008b) again used discourse analysis to highlight an unusual linguistic outcome of the Bologna Process: the appearance of the term quality assurance mechanisms in the semantic role of actor: “This representation … pacifies or excludes other

[human] policy actors and makes the introduction and implementation of quality assurance systems inevitable” (p. 189). While somewhat removed from actual IBC practices, the work of these Finnish scholars on the semantic content of quality in relation to European transnational education could inform further research on IBC operations worldwide. 40

Yokoyama (2007) examined the concept of autonomy as it applies to universities in

England and Japan. The study showed how the interpretation of the term “autonomy” has evolved over time in response to changing political and historical contexts. This study also informed a later work by Yokoyama (2011) which focused specifically on the concepts of autonomy and accountability in relation to overseas campuses of universities from the State of

New York. Yokoyama (2011) showed that autonomy and accountability take on new meanings when they are applied to branch campuses outside of New York State, as state regulatory bodies become less salient in relation to foreign ones. Moreover, New York’s regional accrediting agency, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, assumes additional regulatory responsibility in the interest of preserving the integrity of the American higher education brand.

Yokoyama’s (2007, 2011) work is an objective analysis of the current principles which guide academic and administrative oversight of New York State’s international branch campuses, but further research is needed to see how closely these principles align with actual practice.

Finally, Smith (2010) used linguistic analysis to deconstruct the depiction of quality assurance in the transnational educational products of the United States, United Kingdom, and

Australia (the three largest operators of international branch campuses). The author compared the domestic documents concerning the regulation of overseas programs on three points: 1) the roles and responsibilities of the institution which awards the academic credential; 2) issues of equivalence; and 3) opportunities for adaptation (i.e., provisions that allow for the modification of the educational product to best suit the local context). While there are variations among the exporting countries’ approaches to these matters, Smith (2010) found some commonalities which are not optimistic for the implementation of a genuinely transnational model of education. In fact, according to Smith’s (2010) analysis, the documents which guide the overseas operations 41 from the three source countries can be interpreted as promoting a Western cultural hegemony.

Therefore, Smith (2010) proposed the use of “cultural contact zones,” a concept from post- colonial studies, as “social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other” (p. 804). These contact zones recognize that there are uneven power relationships among cultures and attempt to reconcile issues of dominance and subjugation through engagement rather than denial. The result, according to Smith (2010), could be “the interplay of academics from the exporter and importer countries [working] together to design hybrid courses which combine globalized curricula with local relevance” (p. 804). While one can appreciate the egalitarian direction of Smith’s (2010) research, it is still a matter of contention whether it is compatible with such questions as the one raised above by Özturgut (2008), about how

“American” the offerings of a U.S. branch campus in China are.

Part III: Summary

The studies reviewed in this section approach quality assurance in transnational higher education through a more abstract analysis of language, rather than the concrete and pragmatic considerations addressed in the case studies in the previous section. A common theme in these critiques is that the quest for quality in TNHE is often a dilemma of finding the appropriate balance between the academic standards of the exporting institution and the needs of students in the host country. An overly zealous insistence on the former could be perceived as a form of cultural imperialism; too many concessions to the latter could result in an educational product that no longer resembles the original. All told, a reasonable path for IBC faculty and staff appears to be a focus on educational substance and an attitude of open-mindedness in working with foreign stakeholders and counterparts. The current study addresses these issues as they are experienced by faculty members at an American IBC in Singapore. 42

Part IV: Peripheral Studies

Lastly, in this section, several peripheral areas of inquiry that have relevance to the issue of quality assurance in international branch campuses, but have not been directly or extensively explored in the scholarly literature, are addressed. The introduction of these areas is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather serves to identify some key avenues for future research that need to be accounted for in an all-encompassing understanding of quality assurance at IBCs.

To begin with, Moodie (2004) has written about the issue of the role of academic boards in the determination of academic quality at Australian universities. This article is of interest for several reasons. First, Moodie (2004) offered an insightful definition of academic quality:

“Quality has a connotation of variability, that there is a continuum of quality from high to low.

Quality also sometimes has a connotation of relativism. All institutions are committed to being of an appropriate quality” (p. 35). This is an important point to keep in mind when evaluating the quality of an institution from the point of view of the consumers because, just as all institutions do not hold themselves to the same standards, nor do all students. Second, Moodie (2004) emphasized that there is a difference in the meaning of “standards” and “quality” in that standards are generally associated with objective measures of competence, achievement, knowledge, etc., while quality has a more relative meaning. These terms need to be used felicitously in any discussion of quality assurance. Third, the author advocated a greater role for academic boards (i.e., faculty committees at Australian universities charged with academic oversight of curriculum, assessment, etc.) in the nationwide determination of the equivalencies of standards from institution to institution. While this is a distinctly Australian issue, it has broader implications for the transnational higher education community as the role of international branch campus faculty in matters of quality assurance is far from settled. 43

Next, an area that deserves more attention is the role of distance education within the scope of international branch campus course offerings. In principle, a branch campus is set up in order to deliver face-to-face instruction to students who for one reason or another elect to study at an institution’s overseas location rather than the home campus. However, in at least some cases, the method of course delivery includes some element of hybrid or online instruction which is broadcast via technological channels (especially the internet) from the home campus.

Apparently, no studies of this specific phenomenon have been conducted. However, Mazzarol and Hosie (1997) first identified this issue as an area of concern when Australian universities began exporting their programs in earnest, and outlined some of the challenges and opportunities that this creates. More recently, Skinner (2008) has called for greater attention to transnational online learning in the interest of quality and accreditation issues, and Jung, Wong, Li,

Baigaltugs, and Belawati (2011) have produced an impressive overview of the quality assurance mechanisms currently in place for distance education programs in Asia (although this review largely focused on domestic provision). More research is needed on the transnational delivery of distance education, and especially on the role it plays at international branch campuses.

Lastly, an area of study that has received surprisingly little attention is the role of classroom instruction in the evaluation of international branch campus quality. This is especially ironic in light of the substantial emphasis which is currently being placed on student experiences as the core of the measure of quality. However, what could be more essential to a positive student experience than quality instruction in the classroom? As it happens, most of the concerns about quality at IBCs have necessarily centered on such issues as financial sustainability, legal and regulatory considerations, and issues of marketing, student recruitment, and other administrative matters. Therefore, there is fertile ground for further research into the nature of 44 teaching at international branch campuses. In her article on the preparation of faculty to teach cross-culturally, Gopal (2011) concluded that “transnational faculty members must develop the necessary intercultural competencies to successfully teach in cross-cultural environments” (p.

78). While this point seems uncontroversial, Gopal (2011) further suggested that faculty members who are trained toward this end “must understand that developing such competencies is an ongoing process that involves the deconstructing and reconstructing of one’s fundamental values, beliefs, and perceptions” (p. 378). Unfortunately, this again leads to the dilemma mentioned above in reference to Özturgut (2008): if expatriate faculty members adjust their teaching styles to accommodate local traditions and values, are they doing a disservice to their students by failing to offer them what they have enrolled in—a foreign degree program? This and many other questions about the quality of teaching in international branch campuses remain to be answered.

Part IV: Summary

The primary lines of research into quality assurance in TNHE and IBCs have concerned managerial factors, such as financial sustainability and recruitment, and academic issues, such as the replication of the home institution curriculum in the host environment. However, as the selection of literature reviewed in this section illustrates, there are other components of IBC activity which are worthy of further in-depth study. These include the role of distance education

(online or hybrid) in the IBC setting, and the role that faculty (whether individually or as part of academic boards) play in designing and delivering IBC curricula. This dissertation explores both of these questions; as an examination of the lived experiences of long-term, successful instructors (including some who teach in online or hybrid courses) at an American IBC in 45

Singapore, the study illuminates the “ongoing process” (Gopal, 2011) that faculty engage in when teaching in a cross-cultural environment.

Summation and Advocacy Argument

Some of the key issues in the professional practice of maintaining quality assurance at international branch campuses, as well as a number of approaches that have been used to study this issue, have been identified in this review. Insofar as international branch campuses are a relatively recent phenomenon, there has been considerable evolution in the trends involving both the practice and the study of quality assurance in this field over the past decade; moreover, there have been distinct regional variations in the conceptualization of quality, which are connected to the salient cultural attitudes toward education in different parts of the world. However, several prevalent themes have emerged in the course of this review: 1) the current attitude towards quality assurance considers student experience to be among its most essential concerns; 2) there is a growing understanding that responsibility for quality assurance must be shared among numerous stakeholders in both the importing and exporting countries; and 3) there is a tendency to favor the hybridization of transnational educational programs in order to recognize the significance of both the importing and exporting cultures in the educational process. The implementation of any of these principles into actual IBC practice would be worthy of further empirical research through case studies or other methods. As the semantic and critical approaches outlined above indicate, there is also a range of theoretical positions from which to approach the problem. Such research would be a timely contribution to the literature on international branch campuses as these continue to evolve and strive for quality throughout the world. 46

This study focuses on the process of hybridization, as it examines the challenges faced by visiting faculty members from an American university in implementing their courses at an international branch campus in Singapore. As the research into quality assurance at IBCs has shown, one of the paradoxical issues faced by IBC practitioners is the need to balance a faithful replication of the home campus’ curriculum with the nuances of the host country’s culture, especially with regard to the students deriving a transformative educational experience. By adhering too rigidly to the home campus curriculum, the IBC’s ability to meet the specific needs of the students in relation to their national context may fall short of expectations; on the other hand, by deviating too substantially from the home campus curriculum in order to address local needs, the substance of the foreign degree may be degraded or entirely lost. In either case, the

IBC may be doing a disservice to both a) its students—for failing to deliver a relevant educational product, and b) its home institution’s reputation—for offering a program that is potentially perceived as “watered down” or otherwise lacking in standards.

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine and uncover the lived experiences of successful, long-term, visiting faculty in dealing with the paradox of hybridizing their courses for delivery in an IBC. Much of the literature on IBCs has focused on problematic issues within the broader scope of quality assurance, such as equivalencies of curricular standards, communications between the home and branch campuses, and the experience of students enrolled in the program. However, attention to the actual practices of faculty members has been limited, and is deserving of further research. The case study method allows for a deeply penetrating exploration of the hybridization process used by faculty members in a successful

IBC. It thus contributes to the scholarly literature on quality assurance in transnational higher 47 education through an in-depth analysis of one component of IBC operations: the manner in which visiting faculty work to deliver their courses in an international branch campus. 48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Methodological Overview

This dissertation explores the challenges faced by visiting faculty members from an

American university in delivering their courses at an international branch campus (IBC).

Specifically, it examines the case of a large public research university in the northeastern United

States (the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, referred to as “UB”), which operates an IBC in Singapore in collaboration with a substantial private education provider, the

Singapore Institute of Management (referred to as “SIM”). I currently serve as the Resident

Director of this program, and am the instrument of this research; I have been Resident Director since 2004 when the program was launched, and thus have extensive first-hand knowledge of the program’s evolution.

The study is a bounded single case study (Cresswell, 2012) of an American international branch campus (IBC) in a foreign environment—namely, Singapore. The case study has been chosen as the method of research because of the “nascent” (Edmondson & McManus, 2007) character of the area of inquiry—the broader study of quality assurance in transnational higher education. This topic has only been studied in earnest since the seminal work of Coleman (2003)

(see Chapter Two for a detailed discussion). Because of the rudimentary level of understanding of quality assurance in IBCs, the case study method is appropriate for garnering a deep understanding of the essential categories and phenomena, particularly as they concern the exploration of cross-cultural pedagogy from the perspective of visiting faculty members in an

IBC.

49

Positionality Statement

The problem of practice addressed in this dissertation concerns the experiences of faculty members in delivering their courses at an American international branch campus (IBC) in a foreign environment. In this case study, the IBC being studied originates from a large public research university in the Northeastern United States (the University at Buffalo, the State

University of New York, referred to as “UB”) and is operated in collaboration with a substantial private education provider in Singapore (the Singapore Institute of Management, referred to as

“SIM”). I am the Resident Director of the SIM-UB program and have served in this capacity for nearly 15 years, since its launch in 2004. In my position as Resident Director, I am responsible for academic and administrative oversight and am the most senior on-site staff member of the home institution; I am also the only person at the Singapore site who has worked continuously for the program since its operations began, which has afforded me with unparalleled personal access to the institutional history of the SIM-UB program. Thus, I am conducting research for this dissertation from the point of view of an insider with in-depth knowledge of and extensive experience with both the context (transnational higher education) and the specific site (the SIM-

UB program) of the case study.

Incidentally, the job title of “resident director” can be misleading. This title might suggest to some in the domestic context of American higher education a person who oversees student life in a dormitory. However, the scope of duties of a resident director in an IBC is far more expansive and includes, among other things, working with numerous academic and administrative units at the home campus and the host institution; liaising between stakeholders at the two campuses; orienting and mentoring both local and visiting faculty members; orienting and monitoring students and academic advisement; and marketing the program and representing 50 it to internal and external stakeholders, including accrediting bodies and other government agencies. In principle, the resident director of an IBC could also be responsible for the residential life of students who live in dormitories; however, in the SIM-UB program which I direct, most of the students live at home with their parents and commute to campus; SIM does not own or operate any dormitories, so the oversight of student residential life is outside of the scope of my duties.

Having held the position of Resident Director of the SIM-UB program for over 14 years,

I have unique insights into the various issues and challenges which surround IBC operations; moreover, I have made a deliberate and focused effort to learn about the principles and practices that apply to quality assurance in transnational higher education, since this is one of the central aspects of my professional responsibilities. Accordingly, I have developed my own sense of what constitutes “quality” within an educational context in general, and within an IBC in particular.

Recognizing that any notion of quality is inherently subjective, it is essential that I specify here the exact biases about the pursuit of quality within the realm of transnational higher education which inform both my day-to-day work and the current research project. At the core of my beliefs are the findings from Coleman’s (2003) case study of Australian IBC’s in Malaysia and

Indonesia, that variations between home and branch campus curricula are not necessarily problematic; in other words, I believe that a well-conceived and operated IBC will judiciously hybridize its instructional practices in order to best serve the needs of the students, taking into account the cultural and pragmatic features of the host environment.

Furthermore, it is within the nature and scope of my work as the Resident Director of an

IBC to follow current trends in transnational higher education, including the tendency of universities in the U.S. to seek out overseas opportunities, among which are new revenue 51 streams, internationalization of curricula, cross-border movement of faculty and students, and enhanced global brand recognition. One of the major concerns in any institution’s plans for global expansion should be the question of how to maintain a consistency of quality in course and degree offerings across national and cultural boundaries. While formal guidelines for

American universities exist (New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on

Institutions of Higher Education, 2009), there is still much confusion among international educators and accrediting agencies about the definition of quality and how to measure it, particularly when it is confounded by cross-cultural misunderstandings and potentially divergent cultural values about education. My goal is to bring my experience to bear on these questions so as to provide more clarity for practitioners—in particular, faculty members and administrators who are facing the challenge of delivering a domestic curriculum in a foreign setting.

As is typical of qualitative research, in which the researcher is the instrument of the research (Merriam, 1998), my experiences are valued as an integral part of the analysis of the phenomenon; therefore, any of my own biases or preconceptions towards notions of quality within the IBC’s curriculum are herewith made transparent. I have been greatly influenced in my career as an educator by the philosophy of John Dewey, and below will express my beliefs about education (which in turn influence my attitude towards the curriculum in the SIM-UB program) in the manner of Dewey’s My Pedagogic Creed (1959). This brief work, originally published in

1897, is comprised of concise statements of Dewey’s personal beliefs, as in the following: “I believe that education … is a process of living and not a preparation for future living” (Dewey,

1959, p. 22). In fact, this statement forms the most essential core of my beliefs about education— that it is a living process which is experienced by living people within a living social setting. 52

In any case, here in the style of Dewey’s My Pedagogic Creed (1897) is a set of my personal beliefs about education; this has been developed over a career in education that has spanned over three decades and includes: 1) teaching Russian Literature in translation (2 years) and Russian language (1 year) as a teaching assistant at Cornell University; 2) teaching English as a Second Language to adult refugees in upstate New York (2 years); 3) teaching English as a

Second Language in university Intensive English Programs in New York and Illinois (over 5 years); teacher training of Russian teachers of English in Russia (5 years); and over 14 years of directing an American IBC in Singapore.

I believe that good education is active rather than passive, i.e., students learn better when engaged in the process of learning through various projects and interactions rather than merely listening to lectures or reading from textbooks (although both lectures and textbooks certainly have a significant place within the scope of available educational tools).

I believe that good education is student-centered, in the sense that it is interested in and responds to the needs of students in a particular context, rather than consisting of a rigidly pre- determined curriculum that is oblivious to specific student characteristics. (However, there might be exceptions to this generalization in certain fields of study connected with high-risk or highly regulated activities; for instance, the knowledge and skills of a commercial airline pilot should not be left to chance; similarly, to become a certified public accountant or pass the BAR exam requires more than a casual familiarity with the subject matter, and hence may necessitate a more predetermined, standardized curriculum).

I believe that good education employs continuous assessment, rather than a system whereby students are assessed through one or a few high-stakes, sink-or-swim-type examinations. Continuous assessment allows for a variety of methods for students to demonstrate 53 their learning, thus accommodating a diversity of learning styles and not penalizing students who suffer from exam anxiety of other conditions which might adversely affect performance in a monolithic assessment system. Moreover, continuous assessment allows both teachers and students to gauge their performance and adjust accordingly while the learning is still in progress, rather than discovering at the end that something was amiss.

I believe that good education (especially at the undergraduate level) is flexible and allows students to explore new areas or customize their curriculum to suit their personal objectives through elective courses, rather than consisting of a rigidly predetermined, lock-step program with little or no possibility for variation of course selection. I also believe that flexibility is advantageous at the undergraduate level for students who are undecided about their major.

I believe that education at the undergraduate level should be a broadening rather than a narrowing experience. The tradition at American universities of including a component of

“general education” within the curriculum, in which students take an ample number of courses outside of their majors and in a variety of disciplines, allows students to develop a familiarity with diverse modes of thinking, problem-solving, and analysis, as well as a foundational core of knowledge and skills that they might not otherwise derive through a narrowly focused course of study. Moreover, the exposure to courses in the general education component may help some students to discover a talent or passion for an area of study that was previously unknown to them.

I believe that good education strives towards authenticity. In undergraduate education, the types of activities that take place in the classroom and the types of projects and assignments that students complete should, to the extent possible, resemble the kinds of activities in which working professionals engage in their daily work functions. For example, case studies and business simulations help to replicate the kinds of situations that business people encounter 54 routinely in their work. Development of skills such as public speaking and professional communication, as well as the “soft skills” of collaborating with classmates on project work, managing workloads and timelines, and dealing with difficult colleagues are also valuable components of undergraduate education.

I believe that the ability to apply theory and concepts to novel situations is a more valuable skill than rote memorization.

I do not believe that there is a fixed formula or recipe for good teaching. I believe rather that it is important for all teachers to realize their own potential by taking ownership (to the extent possible within their institutional structures) of their classes and pedagogy. I believe that good teachers are the ones who are reflective about their work and can articulate the rationale for their choices in delivering their courses in a particular manner. Recognizing that there is no

“right or wrong” when it comes to teaching, good teachers will have formulated their own belief systems and act upon them accordingly.

I believe that the role of a good administration is to enable the educational functions of the institution to be carried out with maximum effectiveness. A well-functioning administration will put people in the organization—whether students, teachers, or staff—in the best possible position for success. In this manner, teachers can concentrate their efforts on teaching, and students can concentrate on learning.

I believe that my own beliefs about education have been shaped by my own experiences and that they are not applicable to all people and institutions in all situations. I believe that it is a good thing when students have a variety of options to choose from when seeking an education

(especially at the tertiary level) and can select the option that best suits their needs. Therefore, I respect the choices of individuals and the practices of institutions that do not coincide with my 55 personal beliefs. I believe that the best educational outcomes are achieved when the style of education serves to motivate the individual student to succeed.

I believe that educational institutions should strive to ethically provide the best quality product that they can to the students that they serve. They should represent themselves accurately and honestly at all times to prospective students and other stakeholders (such as parents and prospective employers).

The above statements represent my personal beliefs about education, especially at the undergraduate level. In terms of positionality, it should also be made transparent that this study is committed to creating a design that adheres to the normal standards for ethical research. The study will draw on my experience in navigating the international branch campus (of which I am the Resident Director) through 14 years of expansion and evolution, including the U.S. regional accreditation reviews and local quality assurance audits conducted internally by our partner institution and externally by the Singapore Ministry of Education (and its regulatory agency, the

Committee for Private Education, or CPE). For this purpose, a case study format is ideally suited; the SIM-UB program offers the advantage of convenience, since I am on location every day, year round (save for public holidays and scheduled vacation leave), in the course of my duties. Moreover, the program provides an abundance of material for study, insofar as it is the longest-running American international branch campus (over 14 years) in existence in Singapore.

However, it must be recognized that, along with the intimate familiarity I have with the program, there are also challenges that need to be addressed that stem from my position as its

Resident Director. Primarily, my position as Resident Director affords me some degree of authority over individuals who teach in the program, and influence in broader institutional decisions regarding the renewal of teaching assignments, prioritization and allocation of 56 resources, as well as the responsibility for evaluating the performance of classroom instructors.

Strictly speaking, however, I have no authority to affect the prospects for employment or promotion of tenured or tenure track faculty from the home campus, insofar as their assignments to teach at the branch campus originate in their academic departments. Therefore, the faculty members who have been selected to participate in the study either hold regular, full time faculty appointments at the home campus, or have moved on to employment at other institutions. (More specifically, no faculty members who hold adjunct appointments, whose positions are less secure, have been asked to participate.) There is therefore no risk for participants to their continued employment as a result of participation in the study. Furthermore, the selection of participants (which, according to this design, is purposeful) is based on their manifest commitment to delivering quality instruction in the IBC, as perceived by me in my role as

Resident Director. Their participation is purely on a voluntary basis, with the opportunity to opt out at any time; it has also been further clarified that their identities will be kept confidential.

Most of the participants in this study—current or former visiting faculty who teach (or have taught) at the SIM-UB program in Singapore—already have some background knowledge of the issues of cross-cultural pedagogy surrounding this project. For participants wishing to know more about the issues, a brief description of the study has been provided to contextualize it adequately. Moreover, the participants have been keen to contribute to the study and engaged with the findings since they are also stakeholders in the IBC, or in transnational higher education in general; they have been selected by virtue of a demonstrated interest in effective cross-cultural pedagogy and a commitment to providing quality education to their students. All participants were assured that they will have access to the study once it is complete, as well as the opportunity to verify any data attributed to them in the body of the study prior to its completion. 57

The collective experience of the participants in delivering their courses in a cross-cultural environment should yield valuable lessons for practitioners in IBC teaching and administration.

Research Paradigm: Constructivist

The paradigm of the research is constructivist (Hatch, 2002) in orientation. That is, my presupposition is that there is no objective reality (at least in the case of social organizations such as an international branch campus), but rather that reality is constructed from the shared experience of the members of a social community. The constructivist research paradigm seeks to create an understanding of the socially constructed reality through the purposeful interaction of the researcher with the object of the study (Ponterotto, 2005)—which, in this case, are the lived experiences of the visiting faculty members at the specific IBC under consideration (the SIM-UB program).

Research Design: Qualitative

A qualitative research design has been selected for this study so as to best capture the

“big picture” of the phenomenon being analyzed—namely, the challenges that visiting faculty members face in delivering their courses in an American international branch campus in

Singapore. The issue is one of the subjective life experiences of numerous individuals, and I am endeavoring to uncover and interpret their experiences with the object of contributing to a better understanding of the factors that constitute their approach to delivering course content in the cross-cultural environment of an international branch campus. Qualitative research is by nature interested in the “meaning people have constructed” (Merriam, 1998, p. 6), through their interactions with their social worlds. In this open ended form of inquiry, there is no hypothesis to be tested, as in a quantitative study (Merriam, 1998). Moreover, since IBCs have only recently

(within roughly the last 10-15 years) become an object of scholarly investigation, they can be 58 considered a “nascent” area of study (Edmondson & McManus, 2007); therefore, a qualitative design is more suitable than the more nuanced analysis of discrete elements as is typical of quantitative designs. According to Edmondson and McManus (2007), qualitative research is the best “methodological fit” for phenomena that have not been studied extensively.

Research Tradition: Case Study

It is somewhat controversial whether the case study is an actual method of research or rather that each “case” is instead merely an object of research embedded within another method, such as ethnography (e.g., Cresswell, 2013). However, researchers such as Yin (2009, 2012),

Hancock and Algozine (2006), Merriam (1998), and Stake (1995) argued for the position of the case study as a legitimate method and tradition in its own right in scholarly research. According to Merriam (1998, p. 27), the defining characteristic of a case study is its boundedness—that is, its focus on a phenomenon or entity that can be readily delineated from its surroundings (such as a specific person, program, policy, institution, and so on). The case study has been chosen in this situation for several reasons. First, the SIM-UB program matches the prototypical characteristics of a case in Merriam’s (1998) definition: it is a specific program offered by a specific university within a specific location during a specific time frame; hence, it is quite clearly bounded.

Moreover, the SIM-UB program has enjoyed an uncommonly long run of success (over 14 years, which makes it the longest running American IBC in Singapore), suggesting that it must be

“doing something right.” Insofar as many previous case studies of have focused on problematic areas of IBC operations, it would be a timely and valuable contribution to the scholarly literature to have a case which encompasses the entirety of a successful program from its origins until the present time. 59

In addition to its boundedness, the case of the SIM-UB program meets several other criteria that correspond to commonly identified features of the case study methodology. As

Merriam (1998) indicates, the case study is appropriate when the researcher is especially interested in questions of “how” a phenomenon occurs, and in processes which occur over an extended period of time. These characteristics of the case study method are aligned with the central research questions of this dissertation, regarding the processes of visiting faculty members at an IBC in adapting their courses for use within a foreign cultural environment. It is advantageous that many of the participants in the study have taught in the SIM-UB program for many years, thus allowing for insights into a process over an extended period of time and through many developments in the surrounding context. Indeed, one of the advantages of the case study method is its ability to capture the richness of how a particular phenomenon has evolved (Merriam, 1998).

Case studies can also be classified into various types, including particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic (Merriam, 1998). A particularistic study generally focuses on a particular problem of practice, and how an individual or group of people works to deal with it. A descriptive study is characterized by “thick description,” or an exhaustive description of the phenomenon in all of its rich complexity. The current study has both particularistic and descriptive features. It is particularistic in that it examines the processes of faculty members in adapting their curricula for use in an IBC; it is descriptive in that it provides a detailed account of the history and evolution of the SIM-UB program, and the context in which it is situated. A heuristic study attempts to offer new insights and understanding about a phenomenon; the current study entails this feature, as well, insofar as it attempts to illuminate the work of visiting faculty members in an IBC in relation to Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) theory of cultural dimensions. 60

In principle, the research should offer some degree of understanding as to whether the cultural dimensions are a salient factor in the adaptation of home campus curriculum to the IBC environment.

The SIM-UB program has been operating successfully for over 14 years. During its history, many of the essential questions about quality assurance in transnational higher education originally posed by Coleman (2003)—particularly with regard to the hybridization of the home institution curriculum to align with the local culture and students’ needs—have been dealt with through daily practice. Therefore, the experiences of its visiting faculty members which are explored in the study may be of interest and value to practitioners and scholars in the field of

TNHE. Additionally, I have direct and convenient access to the IBC, intimate knowledge of its historical development from the time of its inception, and access to the study participants and documentary materials which will provide the data for analysis. The SIM-UB program which I direct is thus both convenient and richly imbued with material for study.

Participants (Sample Size and Selection)

The participants in the study are past and present visiting faculty members of the SIM-

UB program. They have been selected purposefully (Creswell, 2012, p. 206) on the basis of their suitability according to specific criteria: a tenured or tenure-track position at the home institution or other American university; a record of sustained, successful teaching in the program; a keen sense of commitment to educational excellence; and an interest in matters of cross-cultural pedagogy. An objective of the case study is to include in the interview process at least one faculty member from each of the six major programs offered at the IBC (business administration, communication, psychology, sociology, economics, and international trade). Potential participants were contacted and asked if they would like to participate in the study. It was 61 explained that participation is voluntary, and that participants are allowed to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason without consequences. The objectives and potential advantages of the study were outlined, including the potential benefits to participants (i.e., the findings of the research may lead to a more coherent understanding of best practices in delivering a curriculum in a cross-cultural environment). Originally, the expected sample size was 6-12 former and current faculty members. According to Creswell (2012, p. 209), there is no definitive sample size in qualitative research, but studies typically range from 1-40 participants

(see also Creswell, 2013). The target of 6-12 participants in this study is considered to be ample in terms of the diversity of experiences in the program, while at the same time remaining manageable in terms of in-depth data analysis. Ultimately, 13 participants were identified and selected.

Recruitment and Access

Faculty participants were recruited by personal invitation from me. Participation was strictly voluntary, and the respondents had the opportunity to withdraw from the project at any time and for any reason without consequences. There is an intrinsic incentive for participants in the exploration of and contribution to the understanding of quality assurance issues at the IBC, but, as a token of appreciation, participants also received a coffee shop gift card.

As Resident Director of the site under investigation, I had ready access to the program participants for the purpose of recruiting. Permission was sought from the relevant supervisory personnel in both the home campus (UB) and the host institution (SIM) as a professional courtesy. Moreover, IRB approval was sought from Northeastern University with particular attention paid to my role as a program administrator with supervisory duties in the program that is the object of the case study; at the proposal stage of this project, it was indicated that IRB 62 approval would be obtainable in this case, provided that the ethical dimension of the research was duly and robustly explicated (K. Skophammer, personal communication, January 21, 2014).

Data Collection

Data were collected in interviews, which were conducted either in a face-to-face format in a conference room on the campus of the SIM-UB program or, in the case of former faculty members teaching at the home campus or working in distant locations, through Skype videoconferencing. Interviews were scheduled for one hour time slots. Follow-up or clarification questions were addressed through e-mail. Interviews were semi-structured so as to provide a starting point for areas of exploration, but with the flexibility to allow the participants to express their views fully without the constraint of a rigidly pre-determined agenda. The interview protocol is included in Appendix A. The interviews were conducted by me and recorded using a digital voice recorder. Three professional transcriptionists were engaged for the transcription of the interviews; a Transcriptionist Confidentiality Statement (see Appendix B) was signed by each transcriptionist.

The interviews were supplemented in the research by the analysis of documents such as university and program mission statements, online and print marketing materials, government documents, accrediting agency standards, and so forth. These types of documents are readily available to the public and posed no ethical or logistical challenge in terms of their collection or analysis. Additionally, course syllabi by the faculty participants were analyzed. Of particular interest were adaptations made over time within these documents to account for the adjustments faculty members made to accommodate for cultural differences encountered in Singapore. For these documents, the appropriate permission was sought from the relevant faculty member.

63

Data Storage and Management

The digital recordings of the interviews were transferred to my personal laptop computer

(password protected), which is always be kept in a locked cupboard in my office on the SIM campus while not in use. Backup files have been maintained on an external hard drive, which is kept in a locked drawer in my home office. All subsequent documentation in both electronic and paper formats continues to be kept securely locked in my campus office for the duration of the project. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the participants’ identities, all references to human subjects in electronic files and print documents have been encoded, and the key to the code is kept in a separate, secure location known only to me. In the data analysis and reporting, the identity of the interviewees was masked by the use of pseudonyms, and care was taken to mask any other potentially identifying information. During the course of the research, access to the data was restricted to me, my faculty advisor at Northeastern University (Dr. Lynda Beltz), and the professional transcriptionists who were sworn to secrecy, as noted above. All materials will be kept locked in my campus office for five years after the completion of the project and then will be destroyed.

Data Analysis

The interviews which form the essential core of the data were transcribed and rendered into a uniform format for ease of comparison. They were then coded using first and second phase coding techniques. In Vivo coding (and concomitant analytical memo writing) was used at the first stage for the development of a rudimentary interpretive framework. This technique was selected because of its suitability for novice researchers as well as its emphasis on generating codes directly from the language of the participants (Saldana, 2013); moreover, these features 64 were believed to be especially promising to the current researcher, whose academic background is in literature and applied linguistics.

The process of In Vivo coding consists of making a line-by-line analysis of the transcribed data by extracting exact, literal phrases from the text of the transcription; the researcher must be especially attentive to nuances of language and modes of expression to capture the essential meanings of the data as conveyed by the study participants. A variation of

In Vivo coding extracts phrases not from every line of transcription, but from larger units of text such as complete sentences or paragraphs. According to Saldana (2013), there is no definitive quantity for the amount of codes to be derived from a particular quantity of text, but the coding regime should be appropriate for the type of material under analysis and the objectives of the research. For this project, the second approach (extracting codes from larger chunks of text) was favored. The codes were then scrutinized carefully for unifying themes and linguistic commonalities; these were recorded and explored in the analytic memos which were compiled concurrently with the coding process. Copious use of multi-colored highlighters featured prominently in this process.

Following the first round of coding a variant of Axial Coding was used at the second stage in order to develop a more sophisticated and nuanced analysis (Saldana, 2013). Axial coding consists of the reorganization and renaming of the material gathered in the first stage coding process into coherent categories. These categories are typically organized around conceptual “axes,” with the most central or essential unifying characteristic at the center (such as the hub of a wheel), and with the supporting data arranged around it (such as the spokes radiating from the hub). This type of coding lends itself to visual representations of the data in concept map-like diagrams or charts. As with In Vivo coding, analytic memo writing is also a crucial 65 feature of the Axial coding process; memos are used to refine and document the thinking process which goes into the relabeling of first stage codes into second stage categories, and the subsequent organization of the data from a nebulous mass into a coherent system. Ultimately, the process of Axial coding translates the language of the study participants (as extracted verbatim in the In Vivo coding stage) into a form that renders it more efficient and elegant for subsequent analysis and exposition. For this project, the findings from the coding processes were ultimately organized graphically into a set of large multi-colored charts.

The resulting analysis from this two-fold coding and interpretation of the interview transcripts were compared with the data garnered from document analysis, which underwent an analogous process of coding and analytical memo writing.

While many forms of coding are available to the qualitative researcher, it is important that the approach to data analysis be congruent with the researcher’s skill set and competencies.

After all, in qualitative research, the researcher is the de facto instrument of research (Merriam,

1998, p. 7). Moreover, qualitative research requires “a good match between the type or research and [one’s] personality, attributes, and skills” (Merriam, 1998, p. 1). The choice of In Vivo and

Axial coding are aligned with my prior experience as a scholar of literature. Before embarking on a career in applied linguistics and higher education administration, I spent the early part of my career specializing in Russian language and literature. In this capacity, I routinely read and analyzed extensive literary texts (such as the novels of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy), often from a comparative perspective. This method of analysis (known as “close-text analysis” to scholars of literature) relies on focused reading with intense attention to the details of language in order to detect patterns which reveal something noteworthy (such as themes or motifs) about the texts.

The processes of In Vivo and Axial coding closely resemble the method of close-text analysis in 66 the study of literary texts. With extensive experience in this manner of interpreting textual data, I found that the combination of In Vivo and Axial coding produced a well analyzed and reasoned interpretation of the qualitative data in this research project.

Trustworthiness

In order to ensure the trustworthiness of the study, the data sources and analyses were carefully scrutinized in accordance with established qualitative research practices. The information gathered from interviews was compared to the information found in document analysis. This process of comparison of data from multiple sources and in multiple forms enhances both the credibility and accuracy of the research (Creswell, 2012, p. 259). In addition, the data collected through face-to-face and Skype interviews was subjected to member checking, or the process of having the interviewees confirm the accuracy and meaning of their accounts as extracted by me from the transcribed interviews and findings (Creswell, 2012, p. 259).

There are several factors that could potentially call to question the credibility of a study of this sort. Chief among these is the role of the researcher and the bias that he or she may bring into the process. In this case, as both director of the program under study and the instrument of research, it was imperative that I elucidated my interests as a professional in the field of international education and the preconceptions that exist about varying models of education and the cultural values about education which inform them (see the Positionality Statement section above). Similarly, participants in the research—visiting faculty members in the IBC—may likewise have their own biases and preconceptions about the central research questions. The relatively small sample size (13 participants) in this study could potentially exacerbate such a tendency. However, it is exactly this sort of phenomenon that the research seeks to discover and 67 explain. Ultimately, the study’s credibility is bolstered by the judicious and reasoned accounting of the research findings and their interpretation.

Protection of Human Subjects

Although there were no extraordinary physical risks involved in this research project, there were potential social and psychological risks which had to be mitigated. Human subjects involved in the research participated in face-to-face or Skype interviews conducted by me—both the researcher and Resident Director of the IBC under investigation. The physical aspect of the interviews was consistent with ordinary, day-to-day activities and posed no more risk than a routine conversation. However, given my position as one of authority within the IBC, participants could potentially have felt anxiety regarding their positions as faculty members within the program. Moreover, the revelation of personal perceptions about quality in a small community (the IBC is roughly the size of a small liberal arts college) could in principle have negative social consequences if the views expressed were sufficiently divergent from the social norm and the subject’s identity were not adequately masked. While these are valid concerns about the design of the research, I believed that the culture of the organization is such that actual concern (either social or psychological) on the part of participants would be minimal.

Nevertheless, the following robust mechanisms were put into place to ensure that the participants were amply protected in accordance with contemporary international research standards.

Participation in the research was purely voluntary, and the interviewees were provided with background information about the study and its potential benefits for both participants and a wider, global audience. For instance, the participants were informed that the findings may contribute to a better understanding of the pedagogical dynamics that visiting faculty members experience while teaching in an international branch campus; this understanding could in turn 68 have potential benefits for IBC faculty members and administrators in pursuit of best practices for their institutions, as well as for students enrolled in these programs. The potential benefits of the study to all stakeholders in IBCs worldwide should outweigh the potential risk to any individual or group in the specific IBC under investigation. Furthermore, all information revealed in the interviews—including any information which could potentially cause damage to one’s reputation as a scholar or individual— was thoroughly masked by the removal of any personally identifying information (i.e., pseudonyms were used) or any other idiosyncratic features which could reveal the subject’s identity. All participants were given the necessary informed consent information and forms relevant to the study, as well as the opportunity to withdraw from the project at any time and for any reason without consequences. The participants who completed the study were given the opportunity for member checking in order to verify the accuracy of any information attributed to them. They were compensated for their time and effort with a token of appreciation (a coffee shop gift card), and all interviewees are now welcome to read the final paper on its completion. All data collected are stored in a secure location (hard copies in a locked cabinet in my office, and electronic data on a password protected computer); all data will be destroyed five years after the completion of the project.

Informed Consent

Candidate participants were duly informed at the outset about the background of the project and the potential risks and benefits to individuals and stakeholders in IBCs in general as outlined above. As the researcher, I disclosed my positionality as a stakeholder in IBC administration with an interest in exploring in depth those features of the IBC phenomenon which contribute to quality and long-term sustainability. All participants were informed of their opportunity to refrain from answering any questions with which they felt uncomfortable for any 69 reason, or to withdraw from the project at any time without consequences. This information as well as in the Informed Consent Form (Appendix C), was provided verbally.

Obtaining the IRB Approval

In order to secure approval for this research, I applied to the Northeastern University

Institutional Review Board. The application detailed the information shown above about risks, consent process, confidentiality, as well as all of the other salient features of a qualitative research proposal. I had already received tentative approval from the IRB office at Northeastern that the project would be viable provided that my dual role as researcher and as Resident

Director in relation to the interviewees—faculty members in the international branch campus— were thoroughly explicated (K. Skophammer, personal communication, January 21, 2014).

Accordingly, IRB approval was received on September 12, 2018 (see Appendix D for a copy of the approval form).

As a professional courtesy, I also sought and received approval from the administration of SIM, which hosts the UB IBC in Singapore, and from the administrative unit in Buffalo, New

York, USA (the Office of International Education), which oversees UB’s international programs.

70

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter consists of three parts. Part I is a narrative description of the historical and cultural context of the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York undergraduate program at the Singapore Institute of Management, as well as my own background and experience as both the researcher in this project and the Resident Director of the program. It provides a detailed account of the evolution of the SIM-UB program from its launch in 2004 to the present time, and of the Singapore educational landscape in which it is situated. It has been compiled through the use of my personal archive of e-mails and program documents, and information that is publicly available through institutional and governmental websites. As

Resident Director of the program from its beginning, with primary on-site responsibility for quality assurance, I have a unique perspective from which to view the history of the program and its development.

Part II reports on the findings gleaned from the interviews with 13 visiting faculty members who have taught in the program and participated in the research. It contains an introductory section to provide a profile of the faculty participants and their connection to the

UB program at SIM. The subsequent presentation of the findings follows closely from the interview protocol, which addresses in turn: 1) adjustments made by visiting faculty from the home campus to their course curricula when teaching in Singapore; 2) perceptions of differences in students from Buffalo and Singapore in terms of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (1984); and

3) lessons that visiting faculty have learned in the SIM-UB program and are keen to share about teaching in a cross-cultural context. 71

Part III provides an analysis of documents including course syllabi, faculty handbooks and orientation materials, program brochures, and marketing materials. These are examined in relation to the findings from the faculty interviews.

Part I: Historical Background and Context

This section provides the context for the case study of the University at Buffalo, the State

University of New York undergraduate program at the Singapore Institute of Management. It was compiled from sources in my personal archive of program documents and e-mails collected during my experience as Resident Director of this program from 2004 to the present (fall 2018); in addition, I also used documents such as program brochures and marketing materials, faculty and student handbooks, and publicly available information from institutional and governmental websites. It is intended to serve as a frame of reference for the visiting faculty interviews which comprise the primary source of data for this research, and the formal document analysis which follows. After introducing myself, the University at Buffalo, and the Singapore Institute of

Management, it will address various aspects of the SIM-UB undergraduate program’s evolution over the past 14 years, including the curriculum; faculty, staff, and students; the regulatory environments in which the program operates, and the program’s quality assurance regimes; the

Singapore higher education landscape; and other significant events and developments.

My Background

My tenure as Resident Director of the SIM-UB program began on January 1, 2004. I spent the first three months of 2004 in Buffalo, New York, working with the staff of the Office of International Education to learn about relevant university policies and procedures, admissions standards, and about our partner institution in Singapore and the Singapore system of education.

On April 1, 2004, I came to Singapore and spent the next two months preparing for the launch of 72 the program. This entailed working with the Singapore staff to prepare program documents such as the student handbook, meeting with and orienting the local instructors to the program, and preparing for the first student orientation and intake.

I took over the Singapore program following a five year term (1998-2003) of teacher training and public diplomacy in the Russian Federation. This work was supported by a grant program of the United States Information Agency (later subsumed by the U.S. Department of

State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs): the English Language Fellow Program (which at that time was administered by the School for International Training in Vermont and is now administered by Georgetown University). The teacher training experience I gained in this position proved to be very helpful in orienting local instructors in Singapore to the American system of education. While in Russia I also served for two years as the Regional Coordinator of the Urals, Volga Region, Siberia, and Russian Far East, supervising the work of other fellows stationed in these regions.

Previously, I also worked as an ESL teacher in intensive English language programs at the University at Buffalo (1993-1995), Southern Illinois University (1995-1997), and the

University of Illinois (1997-1998). I also taught ESL to adult refugees from Russia in upstate

New York from 1991-1993. In 1987-1989, I taught Russian literature in translation/freshman composition and, in 1990-1991, I taught Russian language at Cornell University, where I earned a Master of Arts degree in Slavic Studies in 1992. My undergraduate education was at Bowdoin

College in Brunswick, Maine, where I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Russian Studies in

1984. I attended public schools in Connecticut and Massachusetts, where I was educated in the tradition of Deweyan experiential learning. 73

Institutional Background: University at Buffalo (UB)

The University at Buffalo, the State University of New York (UB), is a large public research university located in western New York State. It is the largest of the 64 campuses which comprise the State University of New York (SUNY) system, with an enrollment of

31,503, including 21,607 undergraduates and 9,896 graduate and professional students (fall

2018), and 2,533 total faculty (2017-2018). It was founded in 1846 as a private university and became part of the SUNY system in 1962.

The university has a rich and dynamic international character, in part because of its location close to the U.S. border with Canada. It has also been one of the leading American universities in terms of international enrollment for the past 16 years, ranking in the top 25 during that time. There are currently more than 5000 international students from 115 countries enrolled in UB. The university maintains ties with 90 universities around the world; the undergraduate program at the Singapore Institute of Management is the largest of its international programs.

Institutional Background: Singapore Institute of Management (SIM)

The Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) was founded in 1964 by Singapore’s

Economic Development Board to develop managers and management education to meet the needs of the growing economy. Originally focused on professional development and training for adult learners, it expanded in the subsequent decades to include numerous partner programs with foreign universities offering a wide variety of diploma and degree programs for traditional undergraduates. In 2005, its longstanding degree programs from the Open University of the UK became a separate entity which was granted independent status and recognized as Singapore’s first private university, SIM University (also known as “UniSIM”). In 2017, UniSIM was 74 renamed as the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), and given the status of

“autonomous” (public) university. SUSS and SIM share a common campus, although plans are being made for SUSS to move to a new location.

SIM maintains its status as part of Singapore’s private education sector, with its foreign partnership programs housed under its “Global Education” (SIM-GE) arm. It currently offers programs from twelve other foreign partner universities in addition to the SIM-UB program; four are from Australia, one is from France, and seven are from the UK. Total enrollment in the SIM-

GE programs is about 19,000, of whom about 20% are international students from 40 countries.

The Origins of the SIM-UB Undergraduate Program

The SIM-UB undergraduate program had its provenance in a successful collaboration between the University at Buffalo’s School of Management and the Singapore Institute of

Management, which launched an Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) degree program in 1996. Based on the ongoing success of this program, the Office of International

Education at the University at Buffalo, under the leadership of Dr. Stephen Dunnett, Vice

Provost for International Education, began to explore the possibility of offering undergraduate degree programs. The program was outlined in a proposal prepared by Dr. Dunnett (2003; see

Appendix G). It provided a thorough rationale for the program, based on many of the “push” and

“pull” factors that have been identified as motivations for US universities to enter the arena of transnational higher education (Green et al., 2007). These include: 1) adding to Singapore’s higher education capacity, especially by providing access to a highly regarded and desirable

American degree program; 2) taking advantage of Singapore’s strategic position as a well- developed and English speaking country, facilitating the transfer and internationalization of faculty and students from the home campus; 3) fulfilling UB’s aspiration to establish a campus in 75

Southeast Asia, to promote its brand image and provide inroads into the growing opportunities for research and collaboration in the region; and 4) providing UB with a source of new students—from Singapore and the surrounding region—who could potentially pursue graduate studies at the home campus.

In addition to these “push and pull factors,” there were other features of Singapore and its educational landscape that were appealing as a location for a University at Buffalo branch campus. In 1999, Dr. Dunnett had spent a half year while on sabbatical from UB teaching and doing research at the National Institute of Education of Nanyang Technological Universities (one of the two public research universities in Singapore at that time). The recognition of the potential for research opportunities for UB faculty members and a branch campus as a “gateway to the rest of Asia” for UB students was reported in a briefing document to then President John Simpson

(Dunnett, 2005, p. 6; see Annex G). The branch campus “would create opportunities for UB students, faculty, and staff to gain international experience through education, teaching, or research in Singapore. In other words, overseas sponsored programs such as this should contribute to the home campus … The UB faculty who teach in the SIM program enrich their curricula and gain a more nuanced cross-cultural perspective on their subject and their teaching.

They return to their UB classrooms enriched by their instructional experience abroad” (Dunnett,

2005, p. 6; see Annex G). It was thus an explicit goal of the SIM-UB program to promote the internationalization of the home campus in Buffalo.

The establishment of the undergraduate program (Bachelor of Science in Business

Administration) was formalized in a signing ceremony at the U.S. Embassy in Singapore on

November 5, 2003. 76

Launching the Program

The SIM-UB undergraduate program was launched in summer 2004. The students convened for freshman orientation on Monday, May 31, and classes began the following day.

The first intake consisted of 54 students, who were all enrolled in one major—Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration—offered by UB’s School of Management. The first semester consisted of courses in English, Mathematics, Economics, and World Civilizations. In addition to directing the program, I taught one section of English (freshman composition). We had one visiting faculty member from Buffalo, who taught English and World Civilizations, and three local instructors, who taught Mathematics, Economics, and English. It was a modest beginning.

The program is jointly administered by the Office of International Education at the

University at Buffalo, under the supervision of the Vice Provost for International Education, and a staff in the Higher Education Division of the Singapore Institute of Management—Global

Education. The curriculum is provided by UB, and the degrees earned by the students are awarded by UB and are in no way different from the degrees awarded at the home campus. The admissions and graduation requirements are the same at both campuses. SIM provides the facilities for instruction and office space for UB faculty and staff, as well as logistical support with visiting faculty housing, visa applications, and program marketing and the recruitment of students. The partnership is also bolstered by the indispensable expertise with and knowledge of the local higher education landscape and regulatory environment provided by SIM.

Instruction and Academic Calendar

Sixty percent of instruction in the program comes from visiting faculty from the home campus. There are numerous arrangements for sending faculty, depending on how the relevant academic department operates at the home campus. In many cases, professors come to Singapore 77 to teach six-week summer terms. Others come to teach for an entire spring or fall semester, and in some cases departments organize team-teaching assignments in which two professors or a professor and a doctoral student will split the time of a regular semester in Singapore. Some departments have hired adjunct faculty members to be stationed year round in Singapore. A small number of courses is offered in an online or hybrid format, in which the professor is located in Buffalo, and a local instructor serves in Singapore as a teaching assistant; these courses are also offered in these formats at the home campus, so there is no difference in the type of instruction that students receive across campuses.

Forty percent of the instruction is provided by local instructors who are approved to teach in the program by the relevant academic department in Buffalo, as well as SIM’s Academic

Board. They must have the same academic credentials to qualify for an adjunct teaching position at the home campus in order to teach in the SIM-UB program, and are normally expected to have at least two years of teaching experience at the tertiary level. The recruitment, orientation, and mentoring of the local faculty is a major component of my work as Resident Director, and ensuring that their teaching is consistent with the expectations of American university education is one of the key elements of maintaining the academic quality of the program.

The academic calendar in Singapore is the same as the academic calendar in Buffalo, with adjustments made to account for differences in public holidays. However, in Singapore, there is a full complement of courses offered during the summer, such that students enrolled in the SIM-UB program are able to study year round and complete an entire Bachelor’s degree program within three years. This arrangement appeals to many Singaporean students and their families, insofar as they are generally eager to graduate as quickly as possible. However, students have the same flexibility as students at the home campus to customize their own 78 schedules, and can take a reduced course load or a leave of absence if they prefer to progress at a more deliberate pace.

Program Growth

After its modest beginnings in 2004, the SIM-UB program experienced rapid growth over the next several years. In 2005, a second major was launched, the Bachelor of Arts in

Communication (BAC), which quickly became and remains the largest major in terms of enrollment. In 2007, the Bachelor of Arts in Psychology (BAP) program was added, along with the first Double Degree (BSCBA and BAP) and Double Major (BAC and BAP) offerings. By fall 2008, the intake of students reached a then record number of 243, necessitating a move of the freshman orientation to the Grand Hall, the largest auditorium on the SIM campus. Additional majors were added in 2009 (Bachelor of Arts in Sociology, BAS), 2011 (Bachelor of Arts in

Economics, BAE), and 2013 (Bachelor of Arts in International Trade, BAIT). As of 2016, students were also able to combine any two Bachelor of Arts degrees into a double major, and the Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with any Bachelor of Arts degree for a double degree. In addition to the courses offered by the majors, the scope of general education and elective classes was expanded (e.g., French and Korean languages were launched in 2015, and Japanese and Yoga were added in 2016). By 2011, the 2500th student had been admitted to the program, and by 2014—the 10th year of the program—a solid, steady state enrollment of approximately 1500 was reached.

Admissions

SIM-UB offers three intakes each academic year: in spring, summer, and fall. The academic standards for admissions to the UB program at SIM are the same as the standards for admission to the home campus. Indeed, according to Middle States accreditation standards, there 79 can be no difference between admissions standards at the two campuses. However, the program has had to respond to changes in the Singapore regulatory environment over time.

When the SIM-UB program was launched in 2004, it was allowed by the Singapore

Ministry of Education to admit students who had completed GCE O-level exams. O-level (or

“ordinary”) exams are taken after the completion of secondary school, or tenth grade, in

Singapore. For admissions to local universities, it is customary for students to attend an additional two years of college preparatory study at junior college, following which they take

GCE A-level exams (“advanced”). Since the O-level exam threshold is roughly analogous to an

American high school diploma, students with this qualification had historically been able to enter

UB and other American universities and excel. Being able to enter with this qualification was seen as advantageous to prospective Singaporean students as it would save time to the completion of the bachelor’s degree by eliminating the need for two years of A-level studies.

Approximately one third of the students who entered the UB program in the early years came from this academic background; these students would need to earn the minimum of 120 credits to graduate from UB with a bachelor’s degree. Students are also eligible to apply for admission with A-level credentials, in which case they receive advanced standing (such as Advanced

Placement students in the US). They can also apply for admission with a polytechnic diploma from Singapore; the polytechnics offer three-year diploma programs which are roughly equivalent to an associate’s degree in the U.S.; hence, these students also receive advanced standing in the UB program. In the early years, approximately one third of the SIM-UB students had completed the A-levels at the junior colleges, and one third were diploma holders from the polytechnics. There were also some international (non-Singaporean) students from around the 80

Southeast Asian region; these students were admitted on the basis of whatever qualification corresponded to a high school diploma in their home countries.

In spring 2015, it was announced by the Council for Private Education that tertiary institutions in Singapore—including SIM-UB—would no longer be able to admit Singaporean students with only an O-level qualification (personal communication with Lim Kuan Meng,

April 7, 2015). While this represented a major shift in the regulatory environment in which the

SIM-UB program was operating, in actuality it had little impact on the number of students being admitted to the program. As of the January 2015 intake, the number O-level applicants had dropped sharply from the early intakes; only 5 out of a total of 126 new students in spring 2015 had been admitted with O-level qualifications; the other 121 were admitted via A-levels (38), polytechnic diplomas (78), or other foreign credentials (5). Enrollments have remained robust since the last O-level students were admitted; however, the change to the admissions regime for local applicants reflects a growing degree of regulatory standardization within the Singapore private education sector.

Orientations for Students, Parents, and Faculty

On admission to the SIM-UB program, students are invited to a freshman orientation which is held prior to the start of each semester, three times per year (fall, spring, and summer).

The first orientation was held on May 31, 2004. The orientation is meant to familiarize students with the general characteristics of American higher education and the specific details of

University at Buffalo academic policies, graduation requirements, and SIM-UB administrative procedures. Emphasis was also placed on the academic and study skills needed to be successful within the context of an American degree program. The orientation was expanded in subsequent 81 years to include presentations by the SIM Library Staff, Student Life division, and the SIM-UB

Student Council to present a more holistic view of the undergraduate experience.

In the first several semesters that the UB program was operating in Singapore, it was observed that parents of enrolled students frequently had questions or concerns about the program’s policies and practices. These issues stemmed largely from misunderstandings about the pedagogical orientation of an American university program, which was unfamiliar to many of the parents and at odds with some of their expectations, which align more closely with a British or Australian model. Some parents wondered, for example, why their children were expected to attend class regularly rather than just taking a final exam at the end of the semester.

Communications with parents were further complicated by differences in the terminology used to describe various components of the educational system. For example, in Singaporean English, the term “module” is used to refer what in American English is termed a “course” or “class”

(e.g., Psychology 101). A “course” in Singapore English may be taken to mean an entire academic “program” (e.g., Bachelor of Science in Business Administration). These kinds of misunderstandings may seem inconsequential, but if a parent is advised that his or her son or daughter should “drop a course,” and it is interpreted as “withdraw from the program,” the result can be far from trivial. As a consequence of these misunderstandings, a parents’ orientation was initiated in summer 2005, and is held each semester. The content closely parallels the content of the student orientation, but is adapted for a more parental perspective. The orientations for parents did not entirely eliminate all potential misunderstandings, but were helpful in reducing them by providing the essential information about the SIM-UB program, especially with regard to salient differences between the American and Singaporean systems of education. 82

Visiting faculty also receive an in-country orientation on arrival in Singapore. Like the student and parent orientations, the faculty orientation is meant to minimize misunderstandings that could occur as a result of cross-cultural variations. While much of the orientation concerns the administrative and procedural aspects of teaching in the SIM-UB program, there is also content related to the cultural norms of Singapore that are evident in the classroom environment, along with suggestions on how to account for expected cultural differences both pedagogically and in terms of classroom management. For instance, in order to account for the purported collective orientation of Singaporean students, it is recommended that faculty a) allow students to spend more time discussing among themselves in small groups before engaging in any large- group or whole-class discussions, and b) learn the names of the students as quickly as possible to create a sense of individuation. It is also stressed that the students in Singapore are expected to meet the same academic and graduation requirements, have access to the same electronic resources, and receive the same credentials as students at the home campus. Finally, practical matters about living in Singapore—such as using the public transportation and adjusting to the equatorial climate—are addressed.

Local instructors who teach in the program are also given an orientation prior to their first teaching assignment. The focus of this orientation is to ensure that they understand the objective of the SIM-UB program to deliver a distinctly American degree program in Singapore. The content therefore includes all of the policy and procedural divergences between the SIM-UB program and the more familiar ways of doing things in Singapore, where most of the higher educational programs are rooted in traditions from the UK and Australia. They are also advised on how to adjust their teaching so that it will align more closely with the traditions of UB and

American education. While some of the local instructors have earned their undergraduate or, 83 more commonly, their graduate degrees in the U.S., others have no prior experience with

American education; therefore, creating a common understanding of the pedagogical principles which guide the activity of our faculty is a major component of the program’s quality assurance regime.

Academic Advisement

In the early years of the program, academic advisement was provided by me in my role as

Resident Director, with occasional assistance from the staff of the Office of International

Education from UB during their academic oversight visits to Singapore. However, as student enrollment grew, it became untenable for me alone to provide academic advisement to the students. Therefore, in fall of 2007 a full-time academic advisor was hired on site to tend to the needs of students regarding course registration, graduation requirements, selection of elective courses, and similar issues. A second full-time advisor was added in spring 2011.

Student Council

During the first year of the SIM-UB undergraduate program, students were primarily involved with academics. However, recognizing the need for a more comprehensive undergraduate experience, a Student Council was launched with the assistance of SIM’s Student

Development department. This was a significant turning point as it helped to motivate the student body to become more involved in campus activities and to foster their own initiatives for the development of a unique UB student culture in Singapore. For, example, the first student council helped to orient the new students of the second intake during the freshman orientation, thus launching a process whereby the continuing students are able to share their experiences with the newcomers. When the second student council was elected a year later, they built on the prior years’ experience to organize an overnight Freshman Orientation Camp at an off-campus site, 84 allowing for a greater degree of bonding and sharing of information. Over time, the council expanded its activities to include sporting events, an annual “dinner and dance” (prom), community outreach and charitable activities, talent shows, publications, “welfare week” (the handing out of goodie bags prior to final exams), and now conduct a comprehensive 2-day 1- night off-site Freshman Orientation Camp each semester. The merchandising arm of the council has negotiated with UB to secure permission to use the UB logo and other branding features to produce a wide variety of tee shirts, hats, accessories, plush toys, stickers, water bottles, lanyards, etc., which can be purchased by the students at a significant savings over having them imported from the UB Bookstore in Buffalo. The students wear their UB attire with great pride and stand out among the student population at SIM as having extraordinary school spirit. The role of the student council in creating this strong sense of community cannot be overestimated.

UB Bound and SIM-UB Scholarship / Study Abroad / Assistant Resident Director

One of the unique selling points of the UB program in Singapore is that students are admitted to the program as bona fide students of the University at Buffalo (unlike some other off-shore programs, in which students do not enjoy this status). This allows the students to continue their studies at the home campus—a program now known as “UB Bound”— if they are so inclined (although the program is fully self-contained and all graduation requirements can be met at the Singapore campus). The opportunity to study in Buffalo gives the students several meaningful advantages, including 1) the experience of living and studying in a foreign country, away from their parents; 2) exposure to the numerous research opportunities and wider selection of major and elective courses available at the home campus; and 3) eligibility for Optional

Practical Training (OPT), which allows students who spend an entire academic year or more in

Buffalo to extend their student visas for one year to pursue work or internships in the USA. 85

While the expense of studying in the US is substantially higher than studying in Singapore, many students find this a worthwhile investment, especially considering Singapore’s position as a hub for global commerce, where overseas living and study experience are highly valued by employers.

The first two SIM-UB students left for UB in fall of 2005; at that time, various social media platforms which allowed for quick and easy sharing of pictures and messages were becoming commonplace, and the students in Singapore began to develop their first real sense of a connection with the home campus based on communications from their classmates in Buffalo.

As a result, the program quickly gained traction and the number of students transferring to

Buffalo for their final semester or year of studies grew substantially. The increased movement of students to the home campus became logistically challenging, such that a new full-time staff member was needed to oversee the various administrative processes and human interactions involved in this aspect of the program. Hence, an Assistant Resident Director was hired and began work in Singapore in fall 2010. Between fall 2010 and fall 2017, over 650 students had participated in UB Bound.

In fall 2008, the SIM-UB Scholarship was launched. This is a merit-based scholarship which provides the cost of tuition, housing, and round trip transportation from Singapore to

Buffalo for a UB Bound student. The award is offered twice a year, in fall and spring semesters

(although in SIM-UB’s 10th anniversary year, 2014-2015, two scholarships were given each semester). The award recognizes students who show the potential to serve as “student ambassadors” and to promote awareness of the SIM-UB program at the home campus. The scholarship winners typically report that they often have to correct American misconceptions that

Singapore is located in China! 86

The Assistant Resident Director handles not only the UB Bound program, but also assists with general program administration, including student development initiatives. The Assistant

Resident Director also liaises with the Study Abroad office in Buffalo to facilitate the movement of students from the home campus to Singapore. A substantial number of students (typically 20-

40) come to Singapore each summer for a six-week intensive course in Asian Business. Students are also welcome to come from UB to study at SIM during spring and fall semesters, but this typically attracts a smaller number of students (generally between 1-6). The Singapore-based students also have the opportunity to go on non-UB outbound study abroad programs organized through SIM’s in-house Global Learning department, including such destinations as the London

School of Economics, Korea University, and the University of California at Berkeley. The students at SIM can thus avail themselves of rich opportunities for foreign study.

Technology

Students in the SIM-UB program receive UBITs (user names) and passwords which allow them access to the same array of online services and resources that students enjoy at the home campus. These include UB’s electronic library resources, course management system

(UBlearns), and the online course registration system (HUB), through which students can also access their grades, transcripts, and academic advisement reports. In addition, SIM-UB students have access to the SIM student portal (SIMConnect) used for site-specific announcements, and to the online resources of the SIM library. Naturally, over the 15 years that the SIM-UB program has been in operation, these platforms have undergone various upgrades and improvements. A notable upgrade has also been made to UB’s course evaluation system, which was enhanced in

2014 to allow students to complete online evaluation forms using their mobile phones through a

Wi-Fi connection; this had the advantage of potentially boosting response rates, insofar as 87 students could complete the forms during class rather than having to go to a computer outside of class. Another major improvement was made between fall 2014 and fall 2015, during which time all local instructors in the SIM-UB program were also issued personal UBITs, thus equipping them with the same access to resources as visiting faculty and students; previously they had been issued generic “conference accounts” which only provided limited access. These and other upgrades to program technology have been motivated to a large degree by increased reporting and compliance issues from UB’s regional accrediting body (Middle States) and SIM’s oversight agency, the Committee for Private Education (CPE).

The Regulatory Environment, Academic Oversight, and Quality Assurance

The University at Buffalo is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher

Education (MSCHE); the Business Administration degree program under the School of

Management is also accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

(AACSB). For Middle States reaccreditation purposes, the UB’s program at SIM is reviewed along with all of UB’s other international programs. However, the launch of the UB program in

Singapore constituted a “substantive change” and the program was evaluated accordingly as a new instructional location in a site visit on September 28-October 1, 2004. This visit produced very positive results, concluding that the program “is in every way…an appropriate extension of the University at Buffalo’s home campus program,” and that “the program shall succeed by being a high-quality offering worthy of a top American university” (Kneedler, 2004; see

Appendix G). A subsequent university-wide comprehensive reaccreditation exercise in spring of

2014 yielded similarly optimistic results, with UB’s Middle State accreditation being officially reconfirmed on June 26, 2014. 88

UB also maintains rigorous internal oversight of its international programs. The Council of International Studies and Programs (CISP) is a faculty body which advises the Provost on

UB’s international activities and initiatives. The CISP sent its then chair, Dr. Barbara Bunker, on a site visit to Singapore in spring, 2005. In her report, Dr. Bunker observed:

When UB establishes its own degree program in a culture that values education

but has very different educational methods and traditions, we are engaged in the

task of creating a cultural island that our students must cross on to from their

own culture if they are to be successful and fully benefit from the experience.

This creates all the cross cultural issues we are familiar with as US students

study abroad or international students come to the UB campus to study. It may,

however, be more difficult to see and appreciate them when students are taking a

US degree in their home culture.

The [Resident] Director and SIM administrative staff have been leading this

effort with great awareness of this issue, in recruiting and socializing faculty as

well as students. Establishing any new program and creating the new culture is

never easy, and both have to happen simultaneously in overseas programs. It

appears that we have made a good beginning. (Bunker, 2005, p. 2; see Appendix

G)

From this report, it is clear that the objective of creating a distinctly American educational culture—yet one that is cognizant of its host environment—was present in the SIM-UB program from its outset.

Operationally, the SIM-UB program is robustly overseen to ensure that its academic quality remains on a par with that of the home campus in Buffalo. This oversight comes from 89 multiple sources. The Office of International Education (OIE) under the leadership of Dr.

Stephen Dunnett, Vice Provost for International Education and Primary Investigator for the SIM-

UB Program, serves as a central point of contact between the UB and SIM staff in Singapore and the academic, administrative, and support units in Buffalo. In addition to communication via regular teleconferences between OIE and the Resident Director in Singapore, Dr. Dunnett normally visits Singapore in person at least twice per year. In January, a comprehensive academic review is held jointly with SIM senior leadership and staff, including the CEO of SIM

Global Education. A second visit takes place each July for the SIM-UB graduation ceremony, and also involves senior members of the delegation from Buffalo, including President Satish

Tripathi and the Deans of the School of Management and College of Arts and Sciences.

President Tripathi has been coming to Singapore continuously since 2010 (at which time he was

UB’s Provost; he became UB’s President in April, 2011). That senior administrators from UB routinely visit Singapore helps not only to maintain the strategic direction of the program, but also to symbolize the enthusiastic support of UB for the continuing collaboration with its academic partner halfway around the world.

Moreover, administrative staff from the Office of International Education provide ongoing support and guidance in all matters pertaining to accreditation standards, academic policies, and curricular revisions at the home campus. For example, UB’s Director of

International Enrollment Management makes frequent visits to Singapore during his recruiting trips to Asia, providing valuable opportunities for face-to-face discussions about program operations and marketing strategies. The Resident Director also remains in continual contact with the Senior Associate Vice Provost for International Education about all matters pertaining to academic quality assurance, such as the approval of local instructors and course syllabi, and 90 the review of course evaluations. The Senior Associate Vice Provost is also in regular contact with the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, regarding any matters concerning UB academic policies and curricular oversight. Finally, a dedicated SIM-UB

Program Manager who is based in Buffalo helps to keep track of any revisions to the individual major programs and university-wide graduation requirements, so as to ensure that all SIM-UB program documents are properly updated.

Additionally, academic oversight is provided for each major program by a coordinator who is appointed by the relevant department. The coordinators communicate regularly with staff in OIE and at SIM to ensure that departmental expectations for academic quality are met. Faculty coordinators also occasionally make site visits to the SIM-UB Program in Singapore. These visits typically include classroom observations of new visiting and local instructors; meetings with instructors on curricular matters; meetings with Resident Director and SIM-UB program staff; focus groups with current and former students; and the recruiting and interviewing of prospective local instructors. The Resident Director also communicates with the appropriate department heads about the oversight of general education and elective courses.

On the Singapore side, the passage of the Private Education Act in December 2009 created a rigorous set of standards by which private education institutions (PEIs) in Singapore must abide in order to obtain “EduTrust” (accreditation) status. The regulatory agency which was set up to oversee the private sector—the Council for Private Education, which has subsequently been renamed the Committee for Private Education (CPE)—originally focused on consumer protection issues such as refund policies and the provision of student medical insurance, and the monitoring of student attendance. These concomitant compliance requirements prompted SIM to create its own internal Quality Assurance department in spring of 2010. Since that time, the QA 91 staff regularly advises the staff of UB and other partner institutions at SIM on the evolving regulatory standards within the private sector of higher education in Singapore. Moreover, they routinely conduct internal audits to prepare the institution and its myriad component parts for the formal, comprehensive CPE audits, which are held every four years. SIM was originally awarded

EduTrust status in 2010 and is currently accredited through 2022. Current trends in the scope of

CPE audits indicate a growing attention to curricular matters, a further indication of the

Singapore government’s apparent interest in standardization and the alignment of the private educational sector with Singapore’s future workforce needs. In 2016, the Singapore government launched the SkillsFuture initiative, which took control of the CPE and aims to prepare

Singaporeans for the demands of the future economy by providing educational programs that are relevant and well-integrated with industry requirements.

Singapore Higher Educational Landscape

Singapore has a well-developed and highly organized system of education; currently, there are multiple paths that lead from secondary to post-secondary education and beyond

(including new initiatives for lifelong learning under the government’s SkillsFuture initiative). A scheme showing the various pathways is included in Appendix E. Following secondary school, students have the opportunity to continue their education at 1) The Institute of Technical

Education (ITE), which offers vocational training; 2) one of Singapore’s five Polytechnics

(Singapore, Ngee Ann, Temasek, Republic, and Nanyang), which offer diploma programs leading to employment (similar to associate of science degrees in the US), or further study at the degree level; and 3) further academic study at a junior college, leading to the A-level exams and potential entrance into a university. 92

At the time that the UB undergraduate program was launched at SIM (2004), there were three public universities in Singapore: 1) National University of Singapore (founded in 1905);

Nanyang Technological University (1987); and 3) Singapore Management University (2000).

The demand for higher education in Singapore is strong, and a private higher education sector has provided additional opportunities for those students who fail to gain admission into the national universities. Some of the notable private providers which offer various degree programs through partnerships with foreign universities are Singapore Institute of Management (1964),

Management Development Institute of Singapore (1956), PSB Academy (1964), East Asia

Institute of Management (1984), and Kaplan Higher Education Academy (2005). James Cook

University of Australia has operated a stand-alone branch campus in Singapore since 2003.

Many Singaporean students opt to go abroad to study at universities in Australia, the UK, the

US, Canada, and elsewhere.

Singapore has also continued to expand its public university sector, by establishing the following “autonomous” (public) universities: Singapore University of Technology and Design

(SUTD, 2008); Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT, 2008); and Singapore University of

Sciences (SUSS, 2017), which evolved from UniSIM (Singapore’s first private degree granting institution, established in 2005).

Summary

The SIM-UB Undergraduate Program has enjoyed nearly 15 years of successful operations, growth, and evolution. Table 3 details some of the major developments and events in the program’s history.

93

Table 3 SIM-UB Program Timeline

Academic years Programs/ Faculty/ Singapore, Higher Significant (starting in Curriculum Staff/ NY, & US Education SIM-UB Events May, ending in Students Regulatory Landscape April) Environment 1996 UB EMBA launched at SIM 1997-2003 SMU (2000) January 23, 2003: MOU between UB and SIM; November 5, 2003: SIM-UB Signing Ceremony at US Embassy

2004 – 05 (1) Summer 04 BSCBA Resident May 31 Marketing, IB Director, 1 Launch of visiting faculty Program member, (Student 3 local Orientation) instructors, June 1st Classes 54 students begin Fall 04 MSACHE site visit Spring 05 CISP site visit Formation of 1st student council 2005 – 06 (2) Summer 05 BAC 1st UB Study May 5 Abroad 1st Parents’ Program (Asian Orientation Business) at SIM Fall 05 1st Library 1st students to Founding of Workbook UB Bound (2 UniSIM students) Spring 06 UniSIM begins 2nd Student classes Council elected 2006 – 07 (3) Summer 06 Financial 1st freshman Analysis Orientation delivered by Student Council Fall 06 November: ALS lecture on Academic Quality at UB; 1st faculty handbook and expanded In- 94

Country Orientation Spring 07 March 12 January 12 New South 1st Graduation Wales Asia ceremony opens May 23 UNSW Asia announces closure June 28 UNSW Asia closes

2007 – 08 (4) Summer 07 BAP DD (BSCBA & BAP) DM (BAC & BAP) Fall 07 September 1st Academic Advisor arrives on site Spring 08

2008 – 09 (5) Summer 08

Fall 08 Largest intake 1st SIM-UB to date (243 Scholarship students), orientation in Grand Hall Spring 09 January Establishment of Council for Private Education (CPE) 2009 – 10 (6) Summer 09 BAS

Fall 09 1st regular December SIT, SUTD semester UB Private formed Study Abroad Education Act Student Spring 10 SIM QA launched in 2010; SIMConnect initiated in 2010 2010 – 11 (7) Summer 10 Tripathi’s 1st graduation (as Provost) 95

Fall 10 August 2010 1st Assistant Resident Director arrives Spring 11 Addition of 2nd April HUB Academic Yale-NUS preparation Advisor launched April 11: Tripathi becomes UB President 2011 – 12 (8) Summer 11 BAE Move to Ngee DM (BAC & Ann Poly Block BAS) 82; DM (BAP & HUB launched BAS); Admissions reach 2500 Fall 11

Spring 12 1st CPE Audit 16 March April 23-25 Annex (Block B) Opens 2012 – 13 (9) Summer 12

Fall 12 1st Internal Audit Oct 29-30 Spring 13 BAIT June 20, 2013: March 7 Visit DD (BSCBA & new syllabus from US DoS BAE) format is DD (BSCBA & mandated at UB BAIT) DM (BAE & BAP) DM (BAIT & BAP) 2013 – 14 (10) Summer 13 Revision of Syllabi Fall 13 Revision of Yale-NUS SIM Connect Syllabi begins classes in Launched Enrollment: Singapore 1510 Spring 14 New syllabi Middle States 10 Dis-continuation February 22: implemented Year Review; of SIM-UB Move to Block March: EMBA program C in SIM HQ CPE Audit, announced valid through May 19, 2018 2014 – 15 (11) Summer 14 Campus Labs June 26 2014 July: evaluations Re-accreditation 10 Year launched (pilot) by Middle States Anniversary Observed 96

Fall 14 Beginning of UBIT issuance for all local faculty (Middle States mandate); Campus Labs evaluations launched (full) Spring 15 1st site visit to CPE prohibits 1st PBK SIM re. new UB future O-level induction, April curriculum; qualification for 29; Over 500 university 6 study abroad students have admissions students from gone to UB UB Bound 2015 – 16 (12) Summer 15 graduation 1st Pre- week: site visit Enrollment re. UBC Reception

Fall 15 All local faculty have UBITs; French and Korean electives added Spring 16 Japanese and O-levels no Yoga electives longer accepted added for SIM-UB admissions 2016 – 17 (13) Summer 16

Fall 16 Launch of UB October 3 October 3 Nov. 2016 Curriculum at CPE renamed SkillsFuture OBHE UB; UBC site Committee for launched conference in visit to SIM, Private Kuala Lumpur Nov. 7 - 9 Education on QA in TNHE Spring 17 March 17 UniSIM becomes SUSS 2017 – 18 (14) Summer 17 June 19-23 Site visit re. UBC and Library Fall 17 Launch of UB Shift in focus of Curriculum at CPE audit to SIM; curriculum Over 650 students have gone on UB Bound Spring 18

2018 – 19 (15) 97

Summer 18

Fall 18

Part II: Faculty Interviews Introduction

In this section, the findings from the faculty interviews are reported. These semi- structured, open-ended interviews were conducted between October 3 and November 2, 2018. A total of 13 visiting faculty members who had taught (or continue to teach) in the SIM-UB program were interviewed, using the semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix A). The interviews consisted of 1) an introductory set of questions to learn about the faculty member’s background, including teaching assignments in the SIM-UB program and any other international teaching experience; 2) general questions about their teaching experience at SIM-UB, particularly in regard to the kinds of adaptations they make to their courses from Buffalo to

Singapore; 3) questions about adaptations in response to the four cultural dimensions of Hofstede

(1984)—Individualism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity—and the usefulness of these concepts in guiding their adaptations; and 4) concluding questions about lessons learned from teaching in Singapore and advice for other would-be instructors in cross- cultural scenarios. Each of these sets of questions is discussed in turn.

Taken as a whole, these interview questions address the central and secondary research questions of this dissertation. The central question explored in this case study is as follows:

What are the challenges faced by visiting faculty in delivering their courses at an American

IBC in Singapore? A secondary research question is concerned with the theoretical framework of Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) cultural dimensions: Do the kinds of factors described in Hofstede’s 98 theory of Cultural Dimensions (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism) play a role in the design or delivery of course content by visiting faculty members in an IBC?

This section concludes with a brief summary of the findings, which will then be discussed in more detail in the discussion section of Chapter Five.

Introductory Questions & Faculty Profile

The set of introductory questions (questions 1-3 in the interview protocol) was conceived in order to collect information on the participants’ background and experience UB program in

Singapore, as well as prior and subsequent education and experience. It was especially interesting to learn of any previous or subsequent international teaching experience, since I was already familiar with their teaching experience in Singapore as Resident Director of the SIM-UB program. This information was gathered as needed through follow up questions about their professional background.

All 13 respondents were interviewed between October 3 and November 2, 2018; they were given the pseudonyms “Professor A,” “Professor B,” “Professor C,” etc., through

“Professor M,” sequentially as the interviews progressed. Two of the interviews were conducted on the SIM campus in a face-to-face format; the remaining interviews were conducted via Skype.

The duration of the interviews ranged from 24.5 to 60 minutes, with an average length of 45 minutes. No follow-up interviews were conducted, but in some cases follow-up questions and clarifications were conducted via e-mail.

The 13 faculty members represented six majors offered in the University at Buffalo program at SIM (Business Administration, Communication, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, and International Trade). There were between one and three professors interviewed for each major; Business Administration, Communication, and Psychology were represented by three 99 each, insofar as these are the oldest and largest majors, while Economics and International Trade were represented by one each since they are the newest and smallest. Sociology occupies the middle ground in terms of both age and enrollment, and had two representatives. Table 4 summarizes the relevant information about their departmental affiliation, gender, nationality, and age/length of teaching experience.

Table 4 Profile of Faculty Participants

Department Business Communication Psychology Sociology Economics International Administration Trade 1 Female Female Male Male Male Male American American American Foreign Foreign American Middle Junior Middle Senior Middle Middle 2 Female Male Female Female American American American American Middle Middle Junior/Middle Middle 3 Male Male Male Foreign American American Middle/Senior Senior Middle

So as to better preserve the anonymity of the participants, the specific nationality of the foreign faculty members is not given. The terms “junior,” “middle,” and “senior” are relative and somewhat flexible terms to indicate age and length of teaching experience; although they could be thought to correspond roughly with assistant, associate, and full professor appointments, this is not strictly the case. Rather, these descriptors are used to give a general indication of the range of ages and degrees of teaching experience of the participants, as follows: junior = less than 10 years of teaching experience; middle = between 10-20 years of teaching experience; senior = more than 20 years of teaching experience. The accumulated university teaching experience of all of the participants amounts to over 226 years, with an average length of 17.5 years. (It should 100 be remembered that much of this collective experience has been accrued since the UB-SIM program was launched 14 years ago.)

The 13 faculty members had various levels of teaching experience in the SIM-UB program. Between them, they had a combined 123 discreet teaching assignments starting from spring semester of 2006 through the fall semester of 2018. A “teaching assignment” means being assigned to teach or co-teach one or more courses during a given semester (fall or spring) or summer term (summer terms are 6 or 12 weeks in length); in most cases, the professors taught one or two sections of the same course, but in some cases they taught more than one course, and in a full semester (fall or spring) may have taught three or four sections. The assignments were of various types, including face-to-face 6-week summer terms, 12-week summer terms, full semesters, and half semesters taught in a team teaching arrangement; some also taught in full semester online (“Digital Access”), 12-week summer online, and hybrid arrangements. The number of teaching assignments per professor ranged from 3 to 25, with the average of 9.5. A summary of their teaching assignments is shown in Appendix F; to preserve the anonymity of the participants, they are shown according to number of teaching assignments, rather than by their pseudonymous letters. All told, the collective experience of the participants is both lengthy and diverse.

Concerning prior or subsequent international teaching experience, most of the interviewees indicated that Singapore was their first and only experience in this regard. Of the 13 participants, seven indicated that they had no other international teaching experience outside of the SIM-UB program. Six others mentioned various conference presentations, short seminars, and similar types of scholarly activities at international conferences, but only one of these had done any sustained, credit-bearing teaching in a foreign country. One interviewee mentioned that 101 she had not taught internationally other than in SIM-UB, but had encountered many international students in her classes at the home campus, while another mentioned that he had taught graduate level classes at the home campus in which almost all of the students were from China. For most of the participants, therefore, teaching in the SIM-UB program was their first and only significant overseas teaching experience.

A final element of the teaching experience of these faculty members to consider is the nature of the courses that they teach. Most of the visiting faculty members coming to Singapore are engaged specifically to teach the highly specialized 300 and 400 level courses within their disciplines. This has been a general program feature since the SIM-UB program was launched, and is intended to provide students with an experience similar to what they would find at the home campus—namely, that upper division academic content is delivered at a research university level by highly specialized and qualified personnel. Introductory level, general education, and elective courses, on the other hand, are typically taught by local instructors who are well-qualified, but do not necessarily have the same level of intensive research activity.

(However, there are some exceptions to this general practice, as some departments have chosen to allocate home campus personnel to “101” and other foundational courses; this provides the students with early exposure to departmental expectations, thus “setting the tone” for the students’ subsequent classes within the major. On the other hand, engaging a local instructor to teach the “101” classes has its own advantages, especially in that it allows the students a more gradual transition from the Singapore to the American educational system.)

In any case, the visiting faculty primarily teach upper division (300 and 400 level) courses within their discipline; some of these may be required courses, while others may be electives. Among these courses, some are courses of a fairly subjective nature, of the sort which 102 require interpretation and analysis of information with no clearly defined right or wrong

“answer” as the outcome. Within the business major, for instance, some courses rely on a case study approach, in which students work towards a well-reasoned yet open-ended solution rather than the reproduction of declarative knowledge. Similarly, some of the upper level courses in the social sciences (communication, psychology, and sociology), tend to be oriented toward some form of applied project work or research paper (although they are by no means devoid of declarative knowledge). In contrast, many of the more foundational classes taught in the early levels of instruction (at the 100 and 200 levels), tend to be more technical in nature, and readily assessable through exam questions which have objective, right or wrong answers: “101” level introductory courses, mathematics, statistics, research methods, accounting, and the like. The differences between the kind of material being delivered and the level at which it is delivered may be a salient factor in the adaptations that faculty members make to their courses when delivering them in the context of the international branch campus. These nuances were also discussed in follow-up questions about the faculty members’ teaching experiences in the SIM-

UB program.

General Questions about Teaching in Singapore

Alterations to curriculum: Global

Following the introductory questions on the academic background and teaching experience of the participants, the interview turned towards faculty members’ experiences in the

SIM-UB program, starting with the following question (#4): “Based on your experience in teaching at SIM-UB, is there anything you do differently in your teaching in Singapore as compared with your teaching in the U.S.?” 103

The responses to this questions were mixed, and dramatically so. Some participants were adamant that they made no changes whatsoever, while others were adamant that it was imperative to make changes, for various reasons; still others conceded that there were some changes, but they were largely superficial in nature.

For those who reported making no changes, it was commonly mentioned that it was a clearly stated objective of the program to deliver an American style education that is consistent with the offerings at the home campus. In fact, several professors specifically mentioned the orientation program which they receive on arrival in country, in which this objective is explicitly stated. (Evidence of this we will be seen later in the section on document analysis.) For instructors of Digital Access classes, which lack a face-to-face component, there was also no perceived need to change anything, insofar as the virtual space in which an online course is conducted does not involve a particular local culture which needs to be taken into account. (The unique characteristics of the Digital Access environment will be discussed separately in Chapter

Five.)

Those faculty members who reported making substantial changes felt that changes were warranted and necessary given the different geographical and cultural context of the teaching.

These differences in geography and culture imparted the need to incorporate more Singaporean examples, to provide more opportunity for group work and formal in-class presentations, to incentivize active participation, and to generally make the learning more “hands on.” Some of the minor or superficial changes mentioned included adjusting for structural differences in the class timing, duration of the semester, class size, office hours or “consultation time,” and so on.

However, these sorts of adjustments were not considered to be impactful in terms of the curricular content or style of delivery. 104

As analysis of the subsequent sections will show, some of the faculty members realized that their initial answers to the global question about adjustments to their curricula were not always accurate; when prompted to reflect further and to dig down into some of the detailed areas of course design, content, and delivery, some of them subsequently conceded that the adjustments were more extensive than they had originally imagined. As an example of this, let us look at Professor A.

To Question #4, “Based on your experience in teaching at SIM-UB, is there anything you do differently in your teaching in Singapore as compared with your teaching in the U.S.?,”

Professor A reported making some changes to his teaching, recognizing that American and

Singaporean students have different motivations and ways of thinking. One of the changes he reported was using PowerPoint slides for the first time in Singapore, having never used them previously in Buffalo: “My first two weeks were a disaster, and I told myself, ‘Well, I have to do something.’ The moment I started using PowerPoint, you know, the classes changed entirely just having things written on the board” (p. 4). The realization that Singaporean students prefer a very structured form of instruction prompted this professor to immediately make this highly visible change to his teaching. However, other changes were not so dramatic and easily recognized. Later in the interview, when discussing the cultural dimension of Uncertainty

Avoidance, he remarked:

You see, without being fully aware of what I’ve been doing, I’ve been changing my way of

teaching … I need to adapt, myself, but I never said ‘Oh, let me point to a flowchart about

how I am going to adapt. (pp. 10-11)

The interview itself proved to be a process of discovery for many of the participants, and the recognition of subtle changes in one’s teaching over time was a common theme. 105

Alterations to curriculum—Course design (Question #5)

The interview then began to address specific elements of the visiting faculty members’ curricula, beginning with course design, including such components as types of assignments and assessment schemes. Several professors mentioned that there were no changes to the design of their courses because of the emphasis placed specifically on providing an American education, because this is how the program is marketed, this is what the students are paying for, and the degree they are earning is a Buffalo (not SIM) degree. Therefore, most of them felt strongly that the original design from Buffalo needed to be retained. However, almost all of the faculty members indicated that they had begun to incorporate more Singapore examples in their courses, in order to make them more relevant to the students. On further prompting, this in turn led to the recognition of other types of changes.

These other changes to course design included: different assessments (especially in the short 6-week summer sessions); examples taken from Singapore newspapers; more examples from Singapore and Asia in general; clearer guidelines given in instructions; more small group consultations; more participation points; more emphasis on participation; more group projects; more frequent changes to the assessment scheme and tests; more open note exams; and a reduction in amount of material covered in order to provide more depth in 6-week summer terms

(adopting a “less is more” strategy). Since many of the professors teach their courses in a 15- week format at the home campus, the need for a compression of content and restructuring of course elements in the shortened time frame of the Singapore 6-week summer terms was found to be a common theme. 106

Alterations to curriculum—Course content (Question #6)

In terms of course content, again almost all of the participants indicated that the most prevalent change was the inclusion of more Singapore examples in order to provide more meaningful and relevant material for the students. Even for an online course on a highly technical and culturally neutral subject matter, in which both Buffalo and Singapore students were co-enrolled, the instructor reported replacing up to 40% of the examples with items from

Singapore. However, some faculty members were insistent that there were no changes in content

(again because of the dictates of the home campus curriculum), while others qualified that the decision to modify course content (or not) was influenced by the nature of the course material.

That is, it was commonly agreed that more generic subjects, such as statistics or marketing research, required fewer adjustments than courses with content of a more culturally variable nature, such as abnormal psychology or international marketing.

Faculty also reported some other changes that were specific to their own courses or disciplines. For example, the psychology faculty members all gave more attention to research practices in their teaching because students in Singapore have fewer opportunities for direct participation in research than students in Buffalo (given the difference in scale of the two campuses). Others indicated adjustments to content including: more attention to local data

(government and economic reports, current events as reported in local news media, etc.); more discussion of future career opportunities within the discipline; and bringing in guest speakers with specialized content area knowledge about the subject in relation to Singapore. These were primarily in response to the strong level of interest expressed by Singaporean students in these topics. 107

Two professors specifically mentioned that they avoid political topics in class or at least treat them carefully out of concern that it may be an uncomfortable subject for some students. As a rule, however, there was no widespread concern that course content should in any way be diminished or truncated on account of differences between Buffalo and Singapore.

Alterations to curriculum—Course delivery (Question #7)

Once again, faculty members generally felt that there were few differences in this area of course delivery, which was taken to include such things as style of teaching, interaction with the students, classroom management, and any other elements of the course that have not been covered in the previous categories. As in their answers to previous questions, some interviewees felt that the only differences were based primarily on structural differences such as class size, the accelerated pace of a 6-week summer term, and the lack of a teaching assistant to assist with grading and administrative tasks. The compression of time in the summer term, for example, was mentioned as an explicit reason for allowing students to select their own teammates for group projects in Singapore, whereas these groups would normally be assigned at random during the lengthier 15-week semester at the home campus. Professor I discovered that this was an auspicious adjustment, because “there’s always an elite group or two of students who take tremendous pride in their work … I actually love it because [their work] ends up being a much better example for the rest of the class to see” (p. 3).

However, there were also some responses regarding some of the specific behaviors of

Singapore students. Professor B, for example, commenting on the relative lack of participation in

Singapore, said, “I do more begging and pleading for them to communicate with me in

Singapore” (p. 3). Several instructors indicated that they allotted more points for participation in

Singapore than they normally would in the US. (The faculty members are advised in the SIM-UB 108 syllabus template to allocate at least 10% to “attendance and participation” in order to encourage active participation, although it is left to the instructors to implement this according to their own best judgement.)

The topic of punctuality was also a prominent theme in this line of questioning. Several instructors indicated ongoing struggles to compel their students to come to class on time; for many of them, the rules are the same across campuses, but they require more enforcement in

Singapore than in Buffalo. Professor E, for example, reported that

My policy [on classroom behavior] is the same in the US and Singapore, but I have to say

something many more times in Singapore. So it’s not really a modification but I found

myself yelling at the students for their classroom behavior much more in Singapore,

oddly enough, than I do in the US. (pp. 7-8)

One of the participants who teaches a “Digital Access” course raised an interesting point about this form of instruction. The Digital Access courses are offered in an online format, in which students in both Singapore and Buffalo view the same recorded video lectures asynchronously and participate in and complete various online assignments and projects over the course of a 15-week semester. The professor of this course described the virtual environment as

“culturally agnostic” (Professor F, p. 7); in other words, it has no specific national culture connected with geographical boundaries. In this course, all students meet in this shared virtual space and are expected to follow the same syllabus and the same set of rules for the completion of the course. This has the effect of eliminating (or at least minimizing) cultural considerations from the delivery of the course content; the implications of the Digital Access format will be revisited in Chapter Five. 109

Finally, one faculty member—Professor M—mentioned a particularly vexing challenge to teaching in Singapore: learning names takes more time! (p. 3).

Alterations to curriculum to achieve learning outcomes (Question #8)

In the original interview protocol, the question concerning learning outcomes was as follows: “Are there any differences you have in your expectations of learning outcomes based on your experience with students in the U.S. and Singapore?” However, this question turned out to be unhelpful in this form, insofar as the learning outcomes as specified in course syllabi are exactly the same at UB and at SIM. In fact, the exact specification of learning outcomes became a standardized requirement in all University at Buffalo course syllabi as of spring 2014.

Therefore, instructors rightfully indicated that there were no differences in their expectations because there were no differences in the specifications. However, upon further reflection, the question was modified to elicit different information: “Based on differences you have experienced in teaching students in Buffalo and Singapore, is there anything you have to do differently to achieve the same learning outcomes?” When posed in this manner, the question produced very valuable and insightful—but also contradictory—results.

About half of the participants felt that it was necessary to devote more time and effort to get students to think critically rather than to focus merely on their scores on assessments or other details that fall short of the “big picture”. As Professor D described it, her learning outcomes

“developed a little bit to include an emphasis on learning versus studying” (p. 6). Several respondents also mentioned the challenge of needing to be more proactive in encouraging participation as a means of achieving the development of “soft skills,” such as confidence in public speaking; in some cases, professors felt the need to do this even if it was not formally specified as a learning outcome. 110

On the other hand, about half of the participants felt that no major adjustments were needed to achieve the same learning outcomes in Singapore as in Buffalo. However, it was conceded by some that the structural differences—length of semester, class size, lack of TA support in Singapore—did create some minor challenges. Several instructors felt that the enthusiasm and motivation of the students in Singapore made the attainment of learning objectives easier in general, although certain components (especially critical thinking) were mentioned as exceptions. One professor gave a poignant account of how rewarding it is to work with the Singapore students (where her students score on average 15 points better than her students at the home campus, on the exact same assessments): “I hate to say it, I think I have to do less in Singapore ... If they’re tired, they put their heads on each other’s shoulders, like they’re supportive in groups in a way that they aren’t here [in Buffalo]” (Professor I, p. 7).

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Familiarity with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

In the original version of the interview protocol for this research, there was no explicit question asking whether or not the participants had prior knowledge of Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) cultural dimensions. However, in the interest of efficiency, I found that it was better to clarify in advance how much they knew, so as to minimize the amount of time needed to explain and contextualize the subsequent questions on the individual dimensions. This proved to be very helpful not only as a time management technique, but also because it exposed me to nuances of interpretation of Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) theory which in some instances may have differed from my own. This helped to inform my own understanding and articulation of the dimensions in subsequent interviews. 111

So, were the participants familiar with Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) cultural dimensions?

Some were, and some weren’t. Five professors indicated that they were familiar with Hofstede’s theory, including two who taught cultural dimensions explicitly in their classes. (Not surprisingly, these two taught the types of classes in which Hofstede’s cultural dimensions would naturally tend to occur, i.e. within disciplines connected with organizational and cross-cultural communication.) Three others categorized themselves as somewhat familiar with the construct.

Five further participants had no prior knowledge of them.

How faculty responded to questions about each of the dimensions is now addressed in turn. The questions were posed as follows: “Have you made any conscious alterations to your

Singapore classes based on a perception of differences in dimension IDV (PDA, UAI, or

MAS)?” In what follows, the interviewees’ responses are discussed in turn.

Individualism

According to Hofstede’s (1984, 2001), the US has the highest score (91) of all countries surveyed on the individualism dimension, giving it the top ranking in this category. Singapore, on the other hand, has a relatively low score of 20, ranking in the 39-41 range. One would therefore expect to see fairly pronounced differences in the behaviors of students on this dimension. In fact, this is the area where most faculty members felt most strongly that differences between American and Singaporean students exist and have an influence on their teaching.

Overall, 8 of 13 professors indicated that they perceived that the students in Singapore exhibited more collectivist tendencies than their students at the home campus in Buffalo, and that this was primarily manifested in their preference for studying together and working on group projects. One professor also observed a tendency of students to talk about Singaporean 112 phenomena in general, but not in relation to themselves as individuals. Most of the interviewed professors reported making accommodations to these students by providing more extensive group work and allowing students to select their own groups rather than assigning groups at random. It was typically felt by these professors that this made the students more comfortable and was therefore more conducive to learning. However, this was not a universal response to the topic of individualism vs. collectivism in the Singaporean context.

Two professors felt that the students were very much self-aware of their status as members of a collectivist society, but that they were actually more individualistic than they realized. Another professor rejected altogether the notion that Singaporean students are less individualistic than American students, citing the expressions of individualistic tendencies such as distinctive manners of dress, hairstyles, and fashion accessories, as well as a desire among some students for individual possession of both material and intangible things (including knowledge). These students might not ask questions about the course content in class, for instance, but will rather ask them privately in consultation in order to possess something that is not shared with classmates. Several professors also indicated that they made no changes to their courses, regardless of whether the students are more or less collectivist or individualistic, so as to maintain consistency with the courses as offered at the home campus.

Hence, the expected collectivist tendencies of Singaporean students are widely but not universally observed, and ways of adapting courses in response to differences by faculty members who perceive them are various; however, there is a strong tendency among most faculty members to accommodate Singaporean preferences by incorporating more group work into their course designs. 113

Power Distance

Similarly to differences on Individualism (IDV), according to Hofstede (1984, 2001), there is an expected difference in the American and Singaporean values with regard to Power

Distance (PDI). The US has a medium rating of 40 (ranked 38th), while the Singaporean rating of

74 is high (ranked 13th). In the classroom context, this would be apparent in a relative difference in the degree of deference to or acceptance of the authority of the instructor, with the expectation that Singaporean students would be more deferential than American students. As with the

Individualism dimension, it was again found that most professors observed that Singaporean students are more respectful than their American counterparts, though not to such a large degree.

Of the 13 faculty members interviewed, 7 agreed that there was a difference in the level of Power Distance between the Singapore and American classrooms. The primary indicators of this difference were the formality and respect with which Singaporean students approached their instructors; several professors also mentioned the lack of “pushback” encountered in Singapore as opposed to Buffalo. For some professors, this was a welcome change (one claimed that it made maintaining classroom discipline much easier in Singapore, for example); for others, however, this tendency had a tangible effect on their teaching. Three professors reported that they took specific measures to reduce the level of power distance between themselves and their students; for instance, one professor insisted that students address her by her first name, while two others reported being very purposefully “nice” to their students in order to make them feel more comfortable with a less authoritarian form of classroom interaction.

Of course, the responses to this question were not unanimous. Three professors felt that there was really no difference at all between the students in Buffalo and Singapore, and thus those respondents made no modifications to their courses, while another felt that the Singaporean 114 students may appear to be more deferential on the surface, but are more passive-aggressive than

American students. However, none of the professors felt that the Singaporean students were less respectful than the American students at the home campus.

Uncertainty Avoidance

As with Power Distance and Individualism, the US and Singapore would, according to

Hofstede (1984, 2001), differ on the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension. The US is ranked as medium on UAI (with a score of 46 and a ranking of 43), while Singapore is ranked as low (with a score of 8 and a ranking of 53). According to the results of Hofstede et al.’s (2010) analysis, the higher the score on the UAI dimension, the more uncomfortable students would be with uncertainty (p. 63). Therefore, it would be expected that American students would be more uncomfortable with uncertainty, would prefer closed-ended assignments and activities with clear right and wrong answers, and would regard any form of disagreement with the instructor as culturally inappropriate. Singaporean students, on the other hand, would be more comfortable with uncertainty, and would prefer open ended assignments, the opportunity for original thought, and intellectually stimulating disagreements with the instructor.

As it happens, the findings from the interviews largely—but not entirely—contradicted the expectations. Specifically, six of the 13 professors felt that the Singaporean students were less comfortable with uncertainty than American students. One interviewee described the students as being “perplexed” (Professor A, p. 10) by open-ended questions, while two others reported making adjustments to their teaching in order to instruct students on how to learn in the context of American higher education (one termed it “meta-teaching”) (Professors B and E, p.

10 and 14, respectively). Several professors indicated the strong need of students in Singapore to have very clear instructions for all of their assignments; to describe this tendency, one 115 respondent used the term “fine country”, a reference to the practice in Singapore of doling out fines to people who violate the myriad rules that govern day-to-day life in this small but extremely orderly city-state. To this professor, the students’ requirement for absolute clarity on everything related to the course was a natural extension of their rule-based existence in

Singapore (Professor D, p. 10).

On the other hand, three instructors felt that there was no difference regarding the avoidance of uncertainty between students in Buffalo and Singapore. Of these, two professors felt that American students were no less demanding of clarity than Singaporean students (and after all, this is what is expected, according to Hofstede (1984, 2001)). Another questioned whether students’ asking for clarification was a sign that they were uncomfortable with uncertainty as opposed to normal academic rigor or test anxiety (Professor G, p. 10). Several interviewees also reported that they always, as a matter of course, provided complete, unambiguous clarity to their students in the US; by following the same regime in Singapore, they did not experience any problems with students along this dimension in either location.

It would appear then that the UAI dimension is controversial. Faculty to a large degree perceived that Singaporean students were more uncomfortable with uncertainty than would normally be expected according to Hofstede’s findings. It must be remembered that Hofstede’s

(1984) original research was conducted a long time ago (roughly a half a century), and that the culture in general has no doubt evolved over that time; moreover, it is plausible that the evolution of student culture in particular has outpaced evolution in other areas. In any case, there is a clear mismatch between the expected behaviors of Singaporean students with regard to uncertainty avoidance and the actual experiences of visiting faculty in the UB program at SIM. 116

One of the other interesting insights to come from the exploration of this dimension was that many professors reported becoming more attentive to detail and more committed to providing absolute clarity for their students on returning to teach in Buffalo.

Masculinity (MAS)

According to Hofstede’s research (1984, 2001), both Singapore and the US are ranked as medium on the Masculinity dimension, with scores of 48 and 62 and rankings of 28th and 15th respectively. Hence, it would be expected that the observed differences on this dimension would be less pronounced than on the others.

In fact, this area is the one in which the fewest differences were observed between students in Singapore and the US. For the most part, faculty members felt that there were not substantial differences in the behaviors of students based on gender differences, although some observed that there was a slight tendency in Singapore of male students to speak up more in class discussions or take the lead more in group activities than female students. This observation was also generally qualified as possibly being attributable to differences in the “chemistry” of individual classrooms, rather than broadly applicable cultural currents.

In terms of the expectation that students in a more “masculine” society (such as the US.) would tend to be more direct and openly competitive and less concerned with maintaining harmony (as one might expect in a slightly less masculine society such as Singapore), this was not borne out by the observations of the instructors. Some felt that Singaporean students are even more competitive than the American students at the home campus. However, this was again difficult to isolate to a single cause (such as a cultural value of masculinity, in Hofstede’s (1984,

2001) assessment) and could be attributable to the high degree of motivation and diligence seen in many Singaporean students. 117

General usefulness and applicability of the dimensions

After discussing each of the four cultural dimensions (Individualism, Power Distance,

Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity), I asked the participants if they felt that these were useful categories for guiding the adaptation of their teaching in the context of UB’s campus in

Singapore. It was notable that the instructors who had prior knowledge of Hofstede’s Cultural

Dimensions generally felt that they were useful in one way or another, although not necessarily on account of their accuracy. Some found them to be a useful framework for way of approaching their overseas teaching assignment and analyzing the behavior of students, but with the widespread caveat that each set of students must be taken as unique and potentially divergent from any of the expected norms. It was a common theme that the dimensions are a good starting point from which to begin interpreting a cross-cultural situation, but that any adjustments to curricula must ultimately be rooted in actual observations and experience, and carried out with sound judgement. Hence, the dimensions were seen by the study participants as more of a tool with both utility and limitations than as a simple recipe for cross-cultural teaching success.

Other faculty who were less familiar with the concept of cultural dimensions generally indicated a favorable disposition towards them as a potential analytical device, but again with the qualification that they would not be a substitute for reasoned analysis and implementation of curricular adjustments based on personal observations and experience. The contrast between individualistic and collectivist behaviors stood out as the most pronounced, and were felt to give some credibility to the notion of large scale cultural variations between American and

Singaporean students. There was a general resistance, however, to the unanalyzed application of stereotypes to groups of students in any location. Moreover, one of the participants felt that the dimensions were actually detrimental, in that they invoked and even reinforced stereotypical 118 expectations that were incorrect, thereby impeding a realistic interpretation of empirical phenomena. This professor cited the example of juvenile delinquency in Singapore, which, according to students who have come to believe that they themselves are collectivist in nature, does not exist, since juvenile delinquency is quelled by collectivist behaviors; this distracts from the reality that juvenile delinquency does exist (even in Singapore) and needs to be addressed

(Professor L, p. 12).

All told, then, Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) cultural dimensions may have some value to some visiting faculty members as an analytical frame of reference, but should be applied judiciously and with the recognition of their limitations.

Summary

To summarize the participants’ actual experience of teaching in Singapore and their observations of student behaviors in relation to expectations according to Hofstede’s (1984,

2001) cultural dimensions, it is necessary to recognize above all that there was no unanimity regarding any of the dimensions, their accuracy, or their usefulness. However, overall, there were some general tendencies which can be drawn from the participants’ experiences. These are shown in Table 5, which captures the changes that were made by those faculty members who reported observed differences and making changes accordingly.

Table 5 Comparison of American and Singaporean Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 1984) and Common Adjustments Made in Response to Perceived Differences

PDI UAI IDV MAS Power Distance Uncertainty Individualism Masculinity Avoidance Singapore 74 (high) r13 8 (low) r53 20 (low) r39-41 48 (medium) r28 119

USA 40 (medium) r38 46 (medium) r43 91 (high) r1 62 (medium) r15 Expected Medium Medium Large Small to none Difference in Experience Difference as Generally as Generally Generally as Mostly as Reported by expected, but contrary to expected expected Faculty with expectations reservations Typical Concerted effort Increased More group Very little; some Adjustments by to make students attention to work and formal slight Faculty Who more clarity of in-class encouragement Made Them comfortable instructions; presentations of female with informal more attention to (group and students to speak classroom critical thinking individual) up more atmosphere and “meta- teaching” r = rank

Some of the commonly observed adjustments shown here will be revisited in the Document

Analysis section later in this chapter.

Concluding advice

To conclude the interviews, the participants were asked to share any valuable lessons they had taken away from their experience of teaching in Singapore, as well as any advice for other instructors who might be embarking on an overseas teaching assignment for the first time.

There were several notable themes that emerged from their answers.

First, several instructors mentioned the importance of learning as much as possible about the target culture—in this case, Singapore—both ahead of time and once on the ground in the host country. Those instructors who took the time to read up on Singapore in advance found that this facilitated their adjustment on arrival in country. Several participants also mentioned the usefulness of the in-country orientation for first-time faculty members for gaining a better understanding of the Singapore educational system, and how it differs from the American system. As one professor observed, understanding the Singaporean system in turn helped him to 120 understand what Singapore students regard as academic “success,” which he perceives as different from success as we understand it in the American system. This understanding then becomes a key feature in the process of education as a transformational experience:

I think you do have to learn as much as you can about the local culture and in our

field obviously you need to learn as much as you can about the educational system—

what’s the approach, what’s the philosophy, you know, success in the Singaporean

educational system is very different than what I would call “success” (inaudible)…

and, so you need that in order to understand how your students are going to be when

you get them.

And then if your educational values, goals, and as you said, learning outcomes are

counter to those, it’s good to know what you’re going to have to fight and come up

with a plan to help get them from where they’re at currently to where they need to

be. So that to me is kind of the biggest lesson.

You can’t just come in and impose your will. You know, you have to help them

along and I don’t think… At least with [SIM-UB] the goal is an American style

education. So, we don’t change what we do, what we value, what we offer to our

students. We need to take a student who is a product of this [Singaporean] particular

system and get them to a place where they’re getting what we want them to, and I

think that applies everywhere. (Professor E, p. 16)

In other words, to help the students reach their educational goals, it is first necessary to have a thorough understanding of where they are coming from.

Beyond understanding the mindset of students regarding education, another professor pointed out the importance of understanding some critical differences in the physical 121 environment and day-to-day living habits of the students; for instance, recognizing that even the physical space in which students study differs greatly from the U.S. to Singapore has an impact on their approach to learning, which she views as more collectivist in Singapore:

I think a lot of it has to do with just the nature of their community, and their family

life. The one thing that always sticks with me is they don’t have any real room, most

of them don’t have room where they live, so they’re always studying on campus or

they’re in the library, and that just really struck me... And maybe that goes into more

of the collectivism, is that they’re just together … They’re just together on a daily basis

more than they ever would be here in Buffalo or probably in the U.S., and that’s the

first thing I would look for, what are their study habits, and what is their home life like

in general, and how does that impact how they work and study, and what effect that

has on their groups and things, because they’re always together. (Professor I, p. 14)

Learning about the physical environment may thus be helpful in understanding the source of cultural values and behaviors.

A second theme concerned the need for flexibility and adaptability. There were many variations in the expression of this theme, but it was stated quite succinctly buy one professor who said, “have a good plan in place so that when things need to be moved around and restructured you have a framework in which to work, to be flexible” (Professor D, p.15). Another advised first time instructors to “expect uncertainty [and the] unexpected,” because even for a highly experienced instructor, there will be surprises, and even a very comprehensive orientation program cannot account for every exemplar or nuance of difference between two cultures

(Professor C, p. 8). 122

A variation on the theme of flexibility and adaptability is the theme of being observant and open-minded. As one professor explained, the capacity to adapt is rooted in an awareness of differences that are observed over time. This professor noted, for example, that it became much easier to make students feel at ease in the classroom over his 11 years of teaching in Singapore

(suggesting a reduction during that time on the Power Distance dimension of Singaporean students) (Professor K, p. 16). Of course, the value of being observant can apply to teaching in any environment, domestic or foreign. Professor G remarked that it is equally important to be observant in Buffalo as it is in Singapore:

I think you just, even in one place, you need to constantly be observing to see how things

are going …. There might even be more variation [within Buffalo] from class to class,

lower division to upper division or undergraduate to graduate than there is between the

same course in Buffalo versus Singapore. (p.12)

A third theme was the theme of compassion. Several instructors felt that the experience of teaching in Singapore gave them a heightened sense of empathy for students in general, including both international and domestic students at the home campus. Moreover, teaching in

SIM-UB was reported by some professors to have made them more tolerant. One professor also recognized that the things that cause students stress may differ from one culture to another, but are salient conditions to be accounted for nonetheless:

And so I’m always struck by the stress that these Singapore students feel. That’s really

important to think about when you’re teaching and interacting with these students. I feel

like they’re vulnerable, I feel like they are needy and they just have had a lot of stress in

their lives before they get into my class in a way that is a little different from Buffalo

students. (Professor L, p. 16) 123

Finally, there was another common theme that was somewhat unexpected, but very encouraging for me as an international educator to hear. Several instructors mentioned very specifically and sincerely how much the experience of teaching in Singapore had been a transformative experience for them. They believed that it had informed and helped to improve their overall teaching skills, and some had intentionally incorporated some of the teaching techniques they had experimented with in Singapore back in Buffalo. A commonly mentioned import, for instance, was that they were much more careful about giving instructions to

American students after teaching in Singapore, with good results. In terms of course content, it had helped some instructors become less “western-centric” and more aware of how the scholarly literature in some disciplines is heavily oriented toward research conducted predominantly in the

West, and the limitations that this implies. Beyond the impact on their teaching, they also spoke of how it had made them more confident in general, and comfortable with the idea of taking on other overseas teaching assignments if given the opportunity. As one professor said, “I feel much more comfortable working in a place that is not the United States … I’m not as fearful as I once was!” (Professor J, p. 17).

Part III. Document Analysis

In this section, the findings from an analysis of various program documents are reported, with particular attention to how they relate to the findings from the faculty interviews. The documents analyzed include course syllabi of the 13 visiting faculty members who participated in the interviews, syllabi templates, visiting faculty orientation materials and handbooks, student and parent orientation materials, and program marketing materials and brochures. Of primary interest are the actual course syllabi used by the faculty participants in their classes in Singapore, insofar as these provide insights into the modifications (or absence thereof) made by the faculty 124 members during their teaching experience in Singapore. The other materials provide further insights into the evolution of the program as described in the historical background and context

(Part I in the present chapter). A complete inventory of the documents which were analyzed can be found in Appendix G.

Course syllabi

During the interviews, the visiting faculty who participated in this research indicated overwhelmingly that they made no major changes in their course syllabi other than the ones that were imposed by the standard SIM-UB syllabus template, which was fashioned early in the development of the program to ensure that generic program policies specific to the UB program were not omitted. It was noted earlier that faculty participants subsequently came to recognize various previously unmentioned modifications to their courses (e.g., the inclusion of more group work, presentations, or other measures to promote participation) as the interviews progressed.

Similarly, a close textual analysis of the syllabi revealed that, in some cases, there were subtle changes over time—more than one would expect from the initial account given by the faculty participants.

The syllabi were collected and analyzed systematically in the following manner. For each faculty member, the SIM-UB syllabus archive (which dates back to 2010) was searched for the most recent semester in which the faculty member taught; then, the archive was searched for the earliest example of the same syllabus by the same professor. In most cases, it was possible to retrieve a syllabus for the same course, but in some cases the records are incomplete, and it was necessary to compare syllabi from two different courses by the same professor. Moreover, some of the earliest available versions were from courses which were team-taught; these syllabi were eliminated from consideration since some of the professors who co-authored them were not 125 participants in this study. While the comparisons derived from these sets of syllabi may therefore be imperfect, they are nonetheless informative.

In order to preserve the anonymity of the study participants, the syllabi that were analyzed cannot be identified in detail. However, they can be generally described as follows. The dates of the syllabi ranged from summer 2010 to fall 2018. The longest gap between the first and second syllabi was 8 years plus one semester (8.33 years); the shortest gap was one year. The average gap between syllabi was 4.5 years. The syllabi pairs are shown in Table 6, listed in order of the length of time elapsed between the first and second versions. For these data, the professors are listed as numbers, rather than by letter, so as to disguise their identity.

Table 6 Syllabi Analyzed

Version 1 Version 2 Same / Different,

Gap in Years

1 Summer 2010 Fall 2018 Different Courses, 8.33

2 Summer 2010 Summer 2018 Different Courses, 8.0

3 Summer 2010 Summer 2018 Same Course, 8.0

4 Summer 2010 Summer 2017 Same Course, 7.0

5 Spring 2010 Spring 2017 Same Course, 7.0

6 Summer 2012 Summer 2018 Same Course, 6.0

7 Summer 2014 Summer 2018 Same Course, 4.0

8 Spring 2013 Spring 2016 Same Course, 3.0

9 Summer 2015 Summer 2018 Same Course, 3.0

10 Spring 2016 Summer 2018 Different Courses, 2.33

11 Summer 2011 Summer 2012 Different Course, 1.0 126

12 Summer 2017 Summer 2018 Same Course, 1.0

13 Summer 2017 Summer 2018 Different Courses, 1.0

Once collected, the syllabi pairs were compared side by side for the following features: policies; assessment scheme; course requirements; learning outcomes and related content. The policies examined were the idiosyncratic instructor policies about such matters as classroom comportment, submission of assignments, communication practices, and so on. The generic

University at Buffalo and SIM policies regarding academic integrity, make-up exam requests, and so on were not examined, insofar as these are standardized in the syllabus template.

Academic course content was also not analyzed, since knowledge of these disciplines is beyond the scope of my expertise.

Four of the syllabi pairs exhibited no discernible differences between the first and second versions. However, the other nine pairs were found to have at least some minor differences above and beyond the predictable updates in generic program policies. The two most commonly observed modifications were: 1) a simplification or conflation of assignments and 2) an elaboration in some manner to encourage or incentivize class participation. These revisions are consistent with the findings from the interviews. In the first case, faculty participants had reported a reconsideration of the number and type of assignments which were plausible in a relatively short summer term; this is indeed witnessed in the revisions over time, especially to 6- week summer term courses. In the second case, it was also a common theme in the interviews that faculty generally need to work harder to evoke participation from Singaporean students, who tend to be more reticent than their counterparts at the home campus.

In addition to these two widespread revisions, some other common revisions to the course syllabi were also noted. Several of the faculty participants bolstered their policies regarding 127 make-up assessments and missed in-class activities, in some cases with direct reference to the commonly encountered and readily available “MCs” (Medical Certificates) which can be used by students to justify absences. Others made forcefully worded references to the importance of punctuality, and in one instance the grading scheme was modified accordingly to penalize latecomers. Finally, several of the revised syllabi incorporated new language, conditions, or deadlines by which students could contest their grades on discrete assignments or their final course grade. These modifications, while generally small when taken individually, reflect the overall impressions reported by many of the faculty participants in the interviews regarding the kinds of small adjustments they needed to make while teaching in Singapore on account of the cultural differences between Singaporean and American students.

Finally, with regard to learning outcomes, the revisions to the syllabi were, for the most part, entirely predictable. In accordance with a mandate from the University at Buffalo Provost from spring 2013, all syllabi must include a formal statement of student learning outcomes, as well as the specification of how course assessments are linked to specific outcomes. These features were incorporated in various formats in the latter versions of the syllabi pairs that spanned the pre- and post-mandate eras. However, it was also interesting to see if any other revisions had been made beyond those required by the mandate. In one case, a professor had included a short essay on the advantages of active over passive learning. In the interview, this professor spoke about “meta-teaching,” or the need to teach Singapore students about how to learn in the American higher educational context. This is a clear example of how this professor’s pedagogical views as expressed in the interview were tangibly reinforced for the students’ benefit in the content of the course syllabus. 128

Syllabi templates, faculty orientation materials and handbooks

All visiting faculty who come to teach at the UB campus in Singapore receive a syllabus template and faculty handbook prior to departure, and an in-country orientation on arrival. A selection of these items was collected and analyzed by comparing changes in content over time.

The analysis focused on content related to cross-cultural pedagogy and the changing educational landscape of Singapore, rather than superficial changes such as office locations, hours of operation, and other administrative details. The list of documents in these categories is shown in

Appendix G.

Overall, the documents showed a considerable evolution to account for changes in SIM-

UB policies in response to the establishment of the CPE (Council for Private Education) in

January, 2009. For example, there was much added content about attendance requirements and reporting procedures, as the monitoring of attendance, especially of international students, was a major objective of CPE’s regulatory function. Likewise, changes in exam administration rules and make-up exam procedures were common to both the syllabus template and in-country orientation slides as changing measures to discourage the spurious submission of MCs (medical certificates) were implemented. These revisions were significant in terms of program administration and regulatory compliance, but were seldom mentioned by faculty participants during the interviews as influencing their actual course delivery.

Of greater interest was the content that remained constant throughout the faculty orientation materials. It is clearly evident throughout that the objective of the SIM-UB program is to deliver and American-style higher education in Singapore, in adherence to all University at

Buffalo graduation requirements and Middle States accreditation standards. For example, in the very first extant SIM-UB Visiting Faculty Orientation program, dated July 3, 2006, there was an 129 agenda item of “creating U.S. classroom environment in Singapore”. (There were no accompanying PowerPoint slides at this stage of the program’s development; the new faculty intake was still quite small.) As of 2010 (by which time a PowerPoint presentation had been developed), the in-country orientation included more detailed information on this account, including “give students more time to respond; allow them to discuss in small groups prior to large group discussions; emphasize the concept of a discourse community; and start out as a strict disciplinarian.” There was evidence that this advice had been taken to heart by the visiting faculty members who participated in the interviews, particularly in the reported measures to promote classroom interaction among students who are otherwise prone to reticence.

The in-country orientation slides from 2010 onward also consistently emphasize the cohort system of the SIM-UB program, in which students typically progress through their degree programs with the same set of classmates, due to the relatively small size of the Singaporean program and the highly structured course sequence. The various ramifications of this system— such as the capacity of students to work well together on group projects—were observed by several of the faculty participants in the interviews. Professor I, for example, mentioned the mutual support that students provided for each other, unlike the more independently-minded students in Buffalo.

Finally, there is a clearly communicated message in both the faculty handbook and the in- country orientation slides that students in the UB program in Singapore have enrolled in a

University at Buffalo degree program, and both expect and are expected to be educated accordingly. The affiliation of students at an international branch campus may sometimes be unclear, but in the case of the SIM-UB program, it is made explicit. As stated concisely in the in- country orientation slides: “MAKE NO MISTAKE: these are UB students!” 130

Student and parent orientation materials, program marketing materials and

brochures

These documents were analyzed out of an interest in finding consistencies or divergences in the messages received by students and their parents regarding the SIM-UB program. Since visiting faculty members do not typically attend student or parent orientations, they would not be expected to comment on them during the interviews. It may nonetheless be informative to see how students are initiated into the program, insofar as this would influence their interactions with visiting faculty members during the course of their studies. The documents which were analyzed for this section of the paper are listed in Appendix G.

The most notable changes in the orientation and promotional materials over time were connected with the changing regulatory environment, following the establishment of the CPE

(Council for Private Education) in January, 2009. As with the faculty orientation materials and handbooks, new content appeared after 2009 to reflect the new requirements for attendance and other features of regulatory compliance, as well as consumer protection measures (such as refund policies and grievance procedures). Beginning with the 2013 version of the student and parent orientation, for example, it became mandatory to include slides displaying the mission statements of UB and SIM prominently at the beginning of the presentation. The number of slides referring to attendance policies and procedures at SIM, for the purpose of regulatory compliance, increased from 0 in 2006 to 12 in 2010; by 2013, there were 21 slides devoted to regulatory issues, including 11 on attendance alone. By 2018, these were consolidated and condensed to only 9 slides. The content of the program brochures exhibited similar revisions over this time period. 131

A more interesting evolution is observed in the content of the orientation and briefing slides that conveys the pedagogical orientation of American higher education and the UB program. In the earliest versions of these slides (2005-2006), the content was rather abstract and philosophical, contrasting transmission versus experiential models of learning. However, by

2010, this content was completely abandoned and replaced with more pragmatic information about concrete aspects of student success, such as understanding the assessment system, calculating and understanding GPA, admission requirements for the major, and so on. Much emphasis was placed on the importance of active participation in the determination of final grades, as well as its contribution to the learning outcomes connected with soft skills and the development of personal attributes such as self-confidence. Also beginning in 2010 was the promotion of the opportunity for students to continue their studies at the home campus in Buffalo

(referred to in subsequent years as the UB Bound program), thus emphasizing the connection between the Singapore and Buffalo campuses, and reinforcing the notion that students in

Singapore study at the SIM campus, but are nonetheless bona fide UB students.

A parallel evolution occurred in the program brochures, which in their earliest iterations

(2004- 2005) were rather technical depictions of the program, course descriptions, admissions requirements, course fees, and similar program features. However, there was little mention of the distinctive characteristics of the interactive style of education offered by American universities in general and the UB program in Singapore in particular. Later versions of the brochure incorporate student and faculty testimonials to address the classroom experience, although a specific account of the learning environment is lacking even in the latest version (2018). On the other hand, a very prominent series of revisions from 2005 to 2018 is the portrayal of student life at SIM. From modest beginnings in the early years of the program, the scope of student services 132 and development opportunities provided by SIM has increased dramatically; these now include a full array of student clubs, workshops, leadership programs, career development and networking events, wellness programs, counselling and academic support services, and so on. The 2018 version of the brochure even features a page on student and alumni activities specific to the UB program at SIM, including the Freshman Orientation and Career Conversations (an annual event in which alumni share their experiences since graduation with currently enrolled students). All told, the program orientation and promotional materials contribute to a strong sense of identity of the UB program as a specifically American educational experience in Singapore, as was observed by many of the faculty participants in this study.

Conclusions

Referring to the delivery of home campus curricula in international branch campuses,

Coleman (2003) suggested that inter-campus variation is not necessarily problematic. As the analysis of documents has shown—particularly in the actual course syllabi authored by visiting faculty members—some degree of variation is apparent in the delivery of courses at UB’s international branch campus in Singapore. While the essential elements of course delivery, such as learning outcomes and course content, remain more or less unchanged, some adjustments are observed to account for cultural and structural differences between the two campuses. These are primarily manifested as an increased attention to the Singaporean context by the inclusion of more local examples, modification of activities and assessments to elicit greater participation from the students, and restructuring of course design elements to better fit the time frame of the

Singaporean academic calendar. All of these occur within a self-consciously purposeful orientation towards delivering an American—and, more specifically, a UB degree—within an otherwise foreign educational landscape. 133

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This chapter begins with a discussion of the findings, particularly as they relate to the research questions about the challenges that visiting faculty members face when adapting their curricula for use in an international branch campus. It also addresses the limitations of the study, which are manifested primarily as the inherent weaknesses of the case study methodology.

Recognizing that the uniquely bounded characteristics of any case study must be considered carefully before its findings are generalized to other scenarios, venues for further research are suggested, including the possibility of additional case studies of IBCs in other cultural and geographic settings. The chapter then concludes with implications for practitioners in the field of transnational higher education.

Part I: Discussion of the Findings

This study has explored the experiences of visiting faculty members at the international branch campus (IBC) of an American university in Singapore. Specifically, it has examined the manner in which highly experienced professors from the University at Buffalo, the State

University of New York, adjust their course curricula to account for the cultural bridge that they cross while teaching at UB’s campus at the Singapore Institute of Management. It has examined this issue in relation to Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions, a framework widely used in cross- cultural contexts to describe the typical values found within national cultures. The purpose of the study has been to elucidate the processes of hybridization that faculty members use when adapting their home-campus curricula for use in a foreign environment. These processes play a role in the quality assurance regime of a transnational educational program, such as an IBC, in which practitioners face the problem of delivering a product which is relevant to the target 134 audience in the foreign setting while remaining faithful to the home campus’ objectives and standards. This problem of practice was raised in a case study of Australian IBCs in Malaysia and Indonesia (Coleman, 2003), and the current research follows from and adds to this line of inquiry by examining an American IBC in Singapore.

Specifically, this case study set out to explore the following primary research question:

What are the challenges faced by visiting faculty in delivering their courses at an American

IBC in Singapore? It was found that these challenges fall into two broad categories. The first challenge is structural. Numerous faculty members spoke of the complexities of fitting the syllabus into a different time frame (e.g., fitting a 15-week semester-long course into a 6-week summer term). Even though the number of contact hours is the same in both cases, the compression of time into a shorter duration creates challenges with the assessment scheme, such as engaging in more extended forms of project work, and the quantity of content that can be covered in depth. Moreover, the extended teaching hours can be exhausting and require some getting used to.

The second type of challenge is cultural in nature and involves the values and behaviors of the students. Although the faculty participants invariably indicated that it was a pleasure to work with these students, it generally required more effort to get them to speak up and participate in class, and there were some reports of frustration in dealing with students coming to class late and speaking among themselves in class. However, despite these behaviors, the students were on the whole found to be extremely diligent, highly motivated, and eager to learn, which made the challenge worthwhile and the overall experience of teaching in Singapore a very rewarding one. 135

The secondary research question was: Do the kinds of factors described in Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions (IDV, PDI, UAI, and MAS), play a role in the design or delivery of course content by visiting faculty? Overall, the answer to this question is negative, at least in the original formulation of the dimensions. While some faculty recognized that the cultural tendencies predicted by the dimensions are indeed evident in the behaviors of the students, they were hesitant to concede that they played a role in adjusting their course syllabi. This was primarily due to the fact that the program is purposefully and self-consciously American, so the faculty felt the need to maintain a commitment to the standards of the home campus, and thus strove to design and implement their courses accordingly. However, it was very widely practiced among the faculty to alter the content used to illustrate course material by incorporating examples that would be more familiar to the Singapore audience. This local contextualization, while not diverging from the course objectives or learning outcomes, was seen to be a very helpful way of connecting with and motivating the students.

On the other hand, most faculty (especially those with prior knowledge of Hofstede’s

Cultural Dimensions) felt that the dimensions comprised a useful framework by which to approach the problem of delivering the UB curriculum in a foreign environment, and that, despite their limitations, it is better than no framework at all. In the end, the faculty generally concurred that their decisions about curricular adaptations and course implementation were based more on their own observations of and interactions with the students at the branch campus than on the basis of cultural stereotypes.

It is also of interest that the theme of overlapping or otherwise indistinct boundaries between the specific cultural dimensions was commonly noted (again, especially by those faculty members who had prior knowledge of Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) theory). There was considerable 136 uncertainty about whether a particular observed behavior is due to one dimension or another. For example, is the persistence of students to clarify points about course material an indication of a high degree of avoidance of uncertainty (UAI)? Or, alternatively, is it a manifestation of a high degree of masculinity (MAS), in the sense that students are very competitive and want to score well on graded assessments? It might also be considered to be neither of the above, but rather a mere indication of a genuine intellectual curiosity and eagerness to learn as much as possible about the subject.

Ultimately, Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) cultural dimensions may or may not be suitable for every individual in every context, but some form of structured, purposeful way of thinking about and assimilating the experience of overseas teaching was generally considered to be very helpful.

In short, in order for visiting faculty members to be successful in their overseas teaching assignments, a first step is to recognize that differences exist, and not to expect “business as usual.” The faculty participants in this study generally found that by learning as much as possible about the host culture in advance, while maintaining a flexible, observant, and open-minded attitude, they were able to deliver their courses in Singapore in an effective and enjoyable manner.

Part II: Limitations of the Study

As a case study, this research is by nature limited by the boundedness of the case; the results are therefore limited in terms of generalizability (Merriam, 1998, pp. 42-43). This study explores a specific program (the SIM-UB undergraduate program) in a specific cultural context

(Singapore) during a specific time frame (2004-present). Accordingly, any conclusions drawn from these limited parameters must be interpreted very carefully before being generalized to any larger or different context. However, the application of reason to any case study can nonetheless 137 yield pragmatic benefits if judiciously considered in relation to differing sets of parameters. This should certainly be the case with the present study and its findings.

As for the specific characteristics of this case study, its limitations can be identified more precisely as follows. First, the sample size of only 13 visiting professors is small in relation to the hundreds of faculty members who have taught in the program since its inception in 2004.

Moreover, these faculty members represent only the disciplines which offer majors in the SIM-

UB program, and are selected only from a pool of those with tenured or tenure-track positions; excluded are instructors who teach general education or elective courses, and instructors who are hired as adjuncts. Faculty members in these categories could potentially offer differing perspectives on the research questions. Furthermore, the preponderance of courses taught by the instructors who participated in the study were upper division courses; faculty who teach introductory or other lower level courses may report different experiences (especially insofar as juniors and seniors would have had more time to acclimate to the American style of education than freshmen and sophomores).

Second, Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions are a relatively well known framework for cross-cultural analysis, but they are not without their own limitations. Hofstede’s (1984) initial research was based on IBM employees, who are not necessarily indicative of entire national cultures, and may certainly differ from the students who are representing Singapore in this study.

The findings of Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) research were also generated at a time before the students currently studying at the tertiary level in Singapore were born, so the passage of time and evolution of cultural norms must also be taken into account.

Finally, it must be recognized that Singapore is a distinct culture, and that the findings of this study are not necessarily transferable to other cultures—even the ones that may be 138 geographically proximate to Singapore. Be that as it may, some of the findings, when properly analyzed, may surely be salient across cultures, space, and time.

Part III: Avenues for Future Research

This research into the case of the SIM-UB undergraduate program provides some insight into the unique cross-cultural dynamic of an American research university’s international branch campus in Singapore. Of course, there is in principle no limit to the number and type of case studies that could be conducted of other American IBCs from other types of institutions in other locations and cultures. For example, a case study of a graduate level program from a non- research university in a culture dissimilar to Singapore’s could potentially uncover other useful findings about pedagogy in the transnational context. However, beyond these diverse combinations of institutions and cultures, there are some more specific areas that would be worthy of future research.

First among these possibilities is a more in-depth consideration of the nature of courses taught by visiting faculty, and how variations in subject matter might influence the degree to which adjustments to the curriculum are necessary or desirable. For example, it was felt by some participants in this study that some courses were more needful of adjustment than others. The courses that are more technical or culturally generic in content—such as mathematics, statistics, or research methods—might be approached differently than the courses with distinctive and salient cultural content—such as organizational communication, organizational behavior, abnormal psychology, or international marketing. Further research in this area could potentially lead to more sophisticated models to guide the adaptation of courses according to some combination of factors including the nature of the academic content in relation to the degree of dissimilarity between cultures. While there may be no absolute solution to the question of how 139 much hybridization is appropriate in every case, the development of a coherent framework in which to approach the problem would be welcome.

An additional area for further consideration would be the kinds of cultural phenomena not accounted for in Hofstede’s (2001) framework of cultural dimensions. In other words, there may be axes of experience that fall outside of Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,

Individualism, and Masculinity. For instance, the role of pragmatism among the Singaporean stakeholders in the SIM-UB program appears to be strong, but it has not been explicitly researched insofar as it is not included within the scope of the aforementioned dimensions.

Finally, it would be valuable to learn about the perception of the American-ness of programs such as the SIM-UB program from the perspective of the students who study in them.

Part IV: Implications and Conclusions

There are two separate but related implications to this study that are worthy of further consideration. The first concerns the case study by Özturgut (2008) of an American offshore program in China, which asked: How “American” is the American education offered in the program in China? It is fair to ask the same question of the University of Buffalo program in

Singapore. How “American” is it, really? On the basis of my interviews with the 13 visiting faculty members who participated in this study, as well as the analysis of program documents including student and faculty orientation materials, it was clear that the program operates from a very purposeful and self-consciously American perspective. This is, essentially, its niche within the Singapore educational landscape, and it is both marketed and delivered as such.

However, this is not to say that no concessions have been made to the local environment or culture. There are operational and course design adjustments that stem from structural issues—class scheduling and the types of assessments that can be deployed in a shortened time 140 frame, for example. There are also differences resulting from cultural factors, which require increased attention to policies and procedures specific to the Singapore campus—for instance, elaborate schemes to encourage participation or punctuality, or for making up missed exams and other assessments on account of medical certificates, or “MCs”. However, there is no doubt that the program has a strong and deliberate American character, in which the faculty members are actively engaged. This is in fact one of the key features and unique selling points of the SIM-UB program within in a highly competitive landscape, and differentiates the program in substance from programs from the UK, Australia, and elsewhere.

A second implication concerns the issue of cultural imperialism in international branch campuses, as raised by Smith (2010). It has already been established that the SIM-UB program strives to provide an American education in Singapore, and this message is delivered consistently to both prospective students and their parents in the program’s marketing materials, and to current faculty and students through orientation programs and materials. However, in terms of curriculum, we have also seen that most faculty attempt to localize their course content to make it more accessible and germane to the experience of Singapore students—and in some cases import their experiences from Singapore back to the home campus in Buffalo. The SIM-UB program therefore has some of the characteristics of the “cultural contact zones” advocated by

Smith (2010), in which students and faculty from disparate cultures come together to explore and learn from their differences as well as their commonalities.

It seems plausible that the “Digital Access” courses from University at Buffalo, which are offered in an online format to cohorts of students in Buffalo and Singapore concurrently, would be a promising platform for the development of a more intentional form of cultural contact zone.

As Professor F, an instructor of one of these courses, pointed out, the virtual environment in 141 which these courses take place is “culturally agnostic.” In other words, in the virtual space of

Digital Access instruction, no one culture has a sort of “home field advantage,” as might be the case with face-to-face instruction in a physical location. In principle, there is thus great potential for more purposeful cross-cultural interaction between the cultures of Singapore and Buffalo within this digital neutral ground.

With regard to quality assurance in international branch campuses, let us conclude by revisiting Coleman’s (2003) premise that variation between campuses is not necessarily problematic. Practitioners of transnational higher education may wonder: to what degree is the hybridization of curricula compatible with the assurance of quality, if quality is understood as the exact replication of the home campus curriculum? In this understanding, there are two conflicting forces at play: one is the well-recognized demand that the program maintain its original (in this case, American) perspective; the other is the need to make the courses relevant and useful to the target audience within the host environment (in this case, Singapore). If exact replication were the only consideration, then any degree of hybridization would be unwarranted.

However, when we take a different view of quality—one that it is centered on the transformative nature of the students’ experience—it becomes clear that finding an appropriate balance between home campus objectives and branch campus adjustments is not only possible, but imperative.

The findings of this study are thus consistent with the premise of Coleman (2003). With careful consideration, it is possible to localize the curriculum through judicious adjustments based on observed cultural and structural differences, without dispensing of core curricular objectives or pedagogical orientations.

Lastly, it was extremely gratifying to discover a surprisingly interactive relationship between the home and branch campuses, which is helping to realize one of the primary 142 objectives of the SIM-UB initiative—namely, that faculty and curricula are not only being exported to Singapore, but are being brought back into Buffalo with fresh, internationalized perspectives. This would not be possible if the delivery of the UB curriculum at SIM were constrained by a slavish preoccupation with exact replication and nothing more; indeed, the

“campus variation” (Coleman, 2003) seen in the hybridization of courses from Buffalo to

Singapore and Singapore to Buffalo is at the very core of this productive, interactive relationship between the two campuses.

143

References

Banks, M., & McBurnie, G. (1999). Embarking on an educational journey--The establishment of

the first foreign full university campus in Malaysia under the 1996 Education Acts: A

Malaysian‐ Australian case study. Higher Education in Europe, 24(2), 265-272.

Bennett, P., Bergan, S., Cassar, D., Hamilton, M., Soinila, M., Sursock, A., & Williams, P.

(2010). Quality assurance in transnational higher education (Workshop Report 11). The

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Helsinki. Retrieved

from https://enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop-and-

seminar/ENQA%20workshop%20report%2011.pdf

Chapman, A., & Pyvis, D. (2006a). Dilemmas in the formation of student identity in offshore

higher education: A case study in Hong Kong. Educational Review, 58(3), 291-302.

doi:10.1080/00131910600748190

Chapman, A., & Pyvis, D. (2006b). Quality, identity and practice in offshore university

programmes: Issues in the internationalization of Australian higher education. Teaching

in Higher Education, 11(2), 233-245. doi:10.1080/13562510500527818

Coleman, D. (2003). Quality assurance in transnational education. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 7, 354-377. doi:10.1177/1028315303255597

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1959). Dewey on education: Selections. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. 144

Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586086

Gopal, A. (2011). Internationalization of higher education: Preparing faculty to teach cross-

culturally. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3),

373-381.

Green, M., Eckel, P., Calderon, L., & Luu, D. (2007). Venturing abroad: Delivering U.S.

degrees through overseas branch campuses and programs. Washington, DC: American

Council on Education.

Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research: A practical guide for

beginning researchers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of

the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw Hill.

Jung, I., Wong, T. M., Li, C., Baigaltugs, S., & Belawati, T. (2011). Quality assurance in Asian

distance education: Diverse approaches and common culture. The International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 63-83. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.991

Kinser, K. (2010). The private nature of cross-border higher education. ASHE Higher

Education Report, 36(3), 107-119. 145

Kinser, K. (2011). Multinational quality assurance. New Directions for Higher Education,

2011(155), 53-64. doi:10.1002/he.444

Lane, J. E. (2011). Global expansion of international branch campuses: Managerial and

leadership challenges. New Directions for Higher Education, 2011(155), 5-17.

doi:10.1002/he.440

Lane, J. E., & Kinser, K. (2011). The cross‐ border education policy context: Educational hubs,

trade liberalization, and national sovereignty. New Directions for Higher Education,

2011(155), 79-85. doi:10.1002/he.446

Lee, J., Jones, B., & Anantharaman, S. (2010). A cross-cultural comparison of service

expectations among MBA students. International Journal of Business Research, 10(3),

104-112.

Lim, F. (2008). Understanding quality assurance: A cross country case study. Quality Assurance

in Education, 16(2), 126-140. doi: 10.1108/09684880810868411

Mazzarol, T., & Hosie, P. (1997). Long distance teaching: The impact of offshore programs and

information technology on academic work. Australian Universities’ Review, 40(1),

20-24.

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education in

Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education,

42(1), 85-105. doi:10.1023/A:1017572119543

Merola, R. (2016). How international branch campuses stand out from the crowd. International

Higher Education, 87, 11-12. doi:10.6017/ihe.2016.87.9502

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 146

Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2017). Singapore’s education system: An overview

[infographic], Retrieved January 29, 2019, from:

https://www.moe.gov.sg/images/default-

source/album/education/landscape/images/education-landscape-overview-2017.jpg

Moodie, G. (2004). The neglected role of a neglected body: Academic boards’ role in assuring

“equivalent” standards. Australian Universities' Review, 47(1), 35-41.

New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher

Education. (2009). Procedures for the evaluation of overseas instructional locations.

Retrieved from https://www.neche.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/12/Pp49_Procedures_for_the_Evaluation_of_Overseas_Instruction

al_Locations.pdf

Özturgut, O. (2008). Political, economic, socio-cultural, and educational challenges of

administering a Sino-US joint venture campus in China. International Journal of

Progressive Education, 4(3), 6-33.

Ponterotto, J. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

Rudner, M. (1997). International trade in higher education services in the Asia Pacific Region:

The ASEAN experience and the role of APEC (Vol. 33). Asian Pacific Research and

Resource Centre, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University.

Saarinen, T. (2005). ‘Quality’ in the Bologna Process: From ‘competitive edge’ to quality

assurance techniques. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 189-204. doi:10.1111/j.1465-

3435.2004.00219.x 147

Saarinen, T. (2008a). Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research.

Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 719-728. doi:10.1080/03075070802457090

Saarinen, T. (2008b). Whose quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national

higher education policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(2),

179-193. doi:10.1080/01596300801966807

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Sidhu, R. (2005). Building a global schoolhouse: International education in Singapore.

Australian Journal of Education, 49(1), 46-65. doi:10.1177/000494410504900103

Sidhu, R., & Matthews, J. (2005). International education for what? Under what conditions? The

global schoolhouse project. Social Alternatives, 24(4), 6-12.

Sidhu, R. (2009). The ‘brand name’ research university goes global. Higher Education, 57(2),

125-140. doi:10.1007/sl0734-008-9136-2

Skinner, R. A. (2008). The challenges of transnational online learning. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 12(2), 83-89.

Smith, K. (2010). Assuring quality in transnational higher education: A matter of collaboration

or control? Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 793-806.

doi:10.1080/03075070903340559

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Treuthardt, L., Huusko, M., & Saarinen, T. (2006). Management by results and higher education

evaluation as fashions and success stories: The case of Finland 1. Higher Education in

Europe, 31(2), 209-217. doi:10.1080/03797720600940914 148

Wilkins, S. (2010). Higher education in the United Arab Emirates: An analysis of the outcomes

of significant increases in supply and competition. Journal of Higher Education Policy

and Management, 32(4), 389-400. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2010.491112

Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in

higher education. Higher Education, 64, 627-645. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9516-5

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yokoyama, K. (2007). Changing definitions of university autonomy: The cases of England and

Japan. Higher Education in Europe, 32(4), 399-409.

Yokoyama, K. (2011). Quality assurance and the changing meaning of autonomy and

accountability between home and overseas campuses of the universities in New York

State. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 261-278.

doi:10.1177/1028315309342577

Ziguras, C. (2003). The impact of the GATS on transnational tertiary education: Comparing

experiences of New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. The Australian

Educational Researcher, 30(3), 89-109. doi:10.1007/BF03216799

149

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Central Research Question

What are the challenges faced by visiting faculty in delivering their courses at an American

International Branch Campus (IBC) in Singapore?

Potential Secondary Research Questions

1. How do visiting faculty in such a program approach these challenges?

2. Do the kinds of factors described in Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions (e.g., collectivism vs individualism) play a role in professors’ design or delivery of course content in

Singapore?

3. What are practices that facilitate effective delivery of a U.S. curriculum in a foreign cultural context?

Semi-Structured Interview Questions: Introductory

1. Please tell me about your professional background.

2. How long have you been teaching at UB’s home campus and at UB-SIM?

3. Which courses have you taught in each location?

Semi-Structured Interview Questions: General

4. Based on your experience in teaching at SIM-UB, is there anything you do differently in your teaching in Singapore as compared with your teaching in the U.S.?

5. Have you made any modifications to your course design?

6. Have you made any adjustments to course content? 150

7. Do you make any other adjustments to course delivery, such as your teaching style, classroom management techniques, etc.?

8. Are there any differences you have in your expectations of learning outcomes based on your experience with students in the U.S. and Singapore?

9. Have you made any conscious alterations to your Singapore classes based on a perception that

Singapore is a collective culture, whereas the U.S. is more individualistic (IDV)?

10. Have you made any conscious alterations to your Singapore classes in relation to perceived attitudes toward authority (PDI)?

11. Have you made any conscious alterations to your Singapore classes to account for perceived differences in tolerance of ambiguity (UAI)?

12. Have you made any conscious alterations to your Singapore classes based on a perception of differences in gender roles?

Semi-Structured Interview Questions: Concluding

13. Is there anything you have learned from your experience in Singapore that you feel would benefit you if you were going to teach in some other part of the world?

14. Is there anything you have learned from your experience in Singapore that you feel would benefit other professors who were going overseas to teach in an American university’s offshore program for the first time?

151

Appendix B: Transcriptionist Confidentiality Agreement

(adapted from University of Chicago: https://sbsirb.uchicago.edu/page/confidentiality-agreement-transcriptionists-sample)

Confidentiality Agreement for Use with Transcription Services

Research Study Title: Faculty Experiences in Delivering an American University Curriculum in an International Branch Campus 1. I, ______, transcriptionist, agree to maintain full confidentiality of all research data received from the researcher(s) related to this research study. 2. I will hold in strictest confidence the identity of any individual that may be revealed during the transcription of interviews or in any associated documents. 3. I will not make copies of any audio-recordings or other research data, unless specifically requested to do so by ______. 4. I will not provide the research data to any third parties without the client’s consent. 5. I will store all study-related data in a safe, secure location as long as they are in my possession. All audio recordings will be stored in an encrypted format. 6. All data provided or created for purposes of this agreement, including any back-up records, will be returned to the research team or permanently deleted. When I have received confirmation that the transcription work I performed has been satisfactorily completed, any of the research data that remains with me will be returned to the researcher(s) or destroyed, pursuant to the instructions of the researcher(s). 7. I understand that Northeastern University and/or the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York has the right to take legal action against any breach of confidentiality that occurs in my handling of the research data. Transcriptionist’s name (printed) ______Transcriptionist’s signature ______Date ______

152

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form Request for Consent to Participate in a Research Study

[Date] Dear [name of faculty member], I am proposing to conduct a case study on faculty experiences in delivering their courses at the University at Buffalo undergraduate program at Singapore Institute of Management. The goal of this research is to better understand the challenges involved in delivering an American university curriculum in a foreign environment (i.e., at an international branch campus, or IBC). The findings are hoped to help practitioners in transnational higher education (TNHE) in the delivery of quality cross-cultural educational programs. In keeping with the normal standards of informed consent, I would like to note the following: 1) Participation in the project is not expected to pose any physical risks to you; all participation will either be face-to-face in a conference room at the SIM campus, or via e-mail or Skype as convenient. 2) Participation in the project is not expected to pose any threat to your psychological or professional well-being. While I function as the Resident Director of the program under study and in which you teach, you have been selected on account of your positive contributions to the program through excellence in teaching. Therefore, your continued service to the program is of intrinsic value and importance to me. Moreover, I have carefully selected participants whose job security is ensured through tenured appointments at the home institution over which I have no influence or control. 3) While complete confidentiality of your participation can not be ensured (due to the closeness of faculty relations in the UB program in Singapore), I will not use your name or any other uniquely identifying information about you in any publication of the study’s findings. All digital audio recordings of interviews will be destroyed following transcription and analysis. The purpose of the study is in no manner to evaluate your work or performance, but rather to learn from your experiences. 4) There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study; however, you and your colleagues who work in transnational higher education may benefit indirectly from any findings that lead to better a better understanding of and practices in the dynamics of teaching in a cross- cultural environment. Students in the program may likewise benefit from improved pedagogy. 5) Your participation in the project is entirely voluntary. There are no consequences for not participating. You may withdraw from participating at any time without the need for explanation and without consequences for you. You may decline to answer any questions during the interview(s). 6) You will have the opportunity to review all comments and information that is ascribed to you in my analysis, and I will honor any request for revision or deletion of anything that you deem unsuitable. 153

7) As a token of my appreciation for your time, I will provide each participant with a S$20.00 gift certificate from Starbucks. For your participation in this research project, I am requesting your consent for the following: 1) Interview(s). I plan to conduct at least one semi-structured interview with each participant. The expected time frame is 1 hour. The goal of the interview is to explore how you have adjusted your teaching from what you normally do at the home campus to accommodate for differences (cultural or otherwise) at the SIM campus. A follow-up interview may be requested depending on the outcome of initial analyses of the data. 2) Documentation: I would like to compare your past and present course syllabi from the home campus with your past and present course syllabi in Singapore, for the same or analogous courses that you teach at both campuses. The goal of this comparison is to explore how you have adjusted your syllabi to accommodate for cultural or other differences. In addition, if you have any other course documents that are worthy of comparison (such as assignments, grading rubrics, etc.), they would also be welcome for submission. Your review of my interpretation of data collected in the project is an important contributor to the validity of my research. Therefore, I will actively seek your review of my findings for verification. Recognizing the value of your time, I hope to make this process as efficient as possible; your input into all aspects of this project including the corroboration of my conclusions is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact me at [email protected] or 65-6248-9650, or you may speak to me in person in my office, SIM HQ, Block C, Room #08-01A. You may also contact the Principle Investigator, Dr. Lynda Beltz, at [email protected] or 724-961-8663. If you have any questions regarding your rights in this research project, please contact Kate Skophammer, IRB Coordinator, Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies, Tel: 617-373-4588, email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish. Please indicate your consent by signing below. Participant’s name (printed) ______Participant's signature ______Date ______

Researcher’s name (printed) ______Researcher's signature ______Date ______

154

Appendix D. IRB Approval Form

155

Appendix E. Singapore’s Education System

Reproduced from: Ministry of Education, Singapore (www.moe.gov.sg, 03/2019)

156

Appendix F. Teaching Assignments of Faculty Participants (sorted by number of teaching assignments)

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2006 SP DA 2006- SU 12 2007 FA SP DA 2007- SU I 12 2008 FA SP DA 2008- SU 12o I I I 2009 FA SP DA 2009- SU III I III I 2010 FA SP DA 2010- SU III III I I I 2011 FA SP X DA 2011- SU III III I I I 12 2012 FA X SP DA DA T.1 2012- SU I I I I 12 I 2013 FA DA X SP DA DA T.2 X 2013- SU III I I I III III 2014 FA DA X X SP DA DA T.1 X T.2 2014- SU I I I I III I III 2015 FA DA X SP DA DA X T.1 T.2 2015- SU I I I I III I III I 2016 FA DA X X SP DA X DA X X 2016- SU I I I III I III III 2017 FA DA SP H X X 2017- SU I I DA I III I I III III III 2018 FA DA SP H X 2018- SU I I III III III I III III 2019 FA DA X Assignments 25 13 12 12 11 11 9 8 5 5 5 4 3 Years Exp. 18 23 24 12 23 6 31 10 28 12 12 12 15.5 Average number of teaching assignments: 9.46 Average years of teaching experience: 17.42

Key: SU = Summer; FA = Fall; SP = Spring; I = Summer I; III = Summer III; 12 = Summer 12 week; 12o = Summer 12 week online; T.1 = Team Teaching, 1st half, T.2 = Team Teaching, 2nd half, DA = Digital Access; X = Full Semester; H = Hybrid 157

Appendix G. Inventory of Documents Analyzed

A. Visiting Faculty Course Syllabi (not identified so as to preserve the anonymity of the participants) B. Syllabi Templates, Faculty Orientation Materials and Handbooks 1. Visiting Faculty Syllabus Templates Fall 2009 Fall 2011 ` Fall 2015 Summer 2018 (current) 2. Visiting Faculty Orientations In-Country Orientation Program, July 3, 2006 Visiting Faculty Orientation Slides, Fall 2010 Visiting Faculty Orientation Slides, Fall 2013 Visiting Faculty Orientation Slides, Fall 2015 Visiting Faculty Orientation Slides, Fall 2018 3. Faculty Handbooks Top Ten Things to Know about Teaching at SIM and Living in Singapore, December 2006 SIM/UB Visiting Instructor Handbook, Spring 2008 SIM/UB Visiting Instructor Handbook, Spring 2012 SIM/UB Visiting Instructor Handbook, Spring 2016 C. Student and Parent Orientation Materials, Program Marketing Materials and Brochures 1. Student and Parent Orientation Materials SIM/UB Orientation Program, May 5-6, 2005 Student Orientation Slides, Summer 2005 Parent Orientation Slides, Summer 2005 SIM/UB Student Council Orientation Proposal, 2006 Student Orientation Slides, Summer 2006 Student Orientation Slides, Summer 2010 Parent Orientation Slides, Spring 2011 Student Orientation Slides, Summer 2013 Parent Orientation Slides, Summer 2013 Student Orientation Slides, Summer 2018 Parent Orientation Slides, Summer 2018 2. Briefing Sessions Info Session, August 31, 2007 Suntec Presentation, February 25, 2010 Info Session, July 11, 2011 158

Info Session, May 2015 Info Session, January 13, 2018 3. Program Brochures Year 1, 2004 (BSCBA) Year 2, 2005 (BSCBA and BAC) 2007-2008 (BSCBA, BAC, BAP) 2012 (BSCBA, BAC, BAP, BAS) 2015-2016 (BSCBA, BAC, BAP, BAE, BAIT) 2018 (March 2) (BSCBA, BAC, BAP, BAE, BAIT) D. Other Historical Program and Accreditation Documents Stephen Dunnett, Proposal for a Cooperative Education Program in Singapore between University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and Singapore Institute of Management, March 3, 2003 Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Site Visit Report, September 30, 2004 Richard Needler, Report to MSACHE, November 16, 2004 Stephen Dunnett, Memorandum to Provost Satish Tripathi, November 23, 2004 Barbara Bunker, Report on Visit to SIM/UB Undergraduate Business Degree Program, February 1, 2005 Stephen Dunnett, Briefing Document on Singapore and UB’s International Programs, June 21, 2005 Kevin McKelvey, Follow-Up to Recommendations of Dr. Barbara Bunker, August 3, 2005 Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Statement of Accreditation Status, March 1, 2010 E. Resident Director Kevin McKelvey’s Annual Reports, 2005-2017 F. SIM CEO Briefings, Spring 2009-Spring 2019 G. Presentations by Resident Director Kevin McKelvey 2016 Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) Global Forum, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, “Institutional Perspectives on Quality Assurance and Transnational Higher Education,” panel presentation.

2012 Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) Global Forum, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, “Staffing an International Branch Campus: In-country Challenges,” panel presentation.

2006 Annual Lecturers’ Symposium, Singapore Institute of Management, Singapore “Quality in Higher Education: The UB Experience,” paper.