Engaging Academic Staff in Transnational Teaching: The Job Satisfaction Challenge

Abstract

Transnational education (TNE) is an important facet of the international education learning and teaching landscape. Ensuring academics are positively engaged in TNE is a challenging but necessary issue for this form of educational provision if the risks inherent in TNE are to be successfully mitigated. This article explores job satisfaction for academics using the job characteristics model (JCM) to better understand the conditions that influence their involvement with TNE. The results highlight the important role that teaching-related interaction with host-country students and staff (the Feedback and Task Significance JCM dimensions) plays in academics’ satisfaction. Feelings of ownership and control of the TNE course (Autonomy and Task Identity) were also shown to be important determinants of satisfaction. It is therefore recommended that these aspects of TNE be encouraged and supported through university procedures and policies. Similarly, those aspects of TNE teaching that contribute to dissatisfaction, such as additional administration, need to be better understood, managed, and their impact mitigated where possible.

Keywords

job satisfaction transnational education (TNE)job characteristics model

Introduction

Transnational education (TNE) has been the focus of much research suggesting it is important to universities as a source of income independent of government funding, and for the achievement of “internationalisation” objectives (e.g., Doorbar & Bateman, 2008; Healey & Michael, 2015; Lang, 2011; Mahmud et al., 2010; Whitsed & Green, 2013). Involvement in TNE, however, exposes universities to financial and reputational risk (Hoare, 2012; McBurnie & Pollock, 2000), necessitating a focus on quality assurance (QA). Chapman and Pyvis (2013) suggest that much of the work of QA falls within the responsibilities of the academics involved in TNE because many of the factors that must be addressed in QA for TNE, such as curriculum content, appropriate pedagogy, entry requirements, assessment methods and standards, learning resources, and ongoing academic evaluation of programs (McBurnie & Pollock, 2000) are the primary concern of the academy. As such, the role of the academic in TNE is one that universities must consider carefully.

While academic job satisfaction has been extensively investigated in a number of different contexts, it remains underresearched in the context of TNE. Higher levels of academic job satisfaction have been shown to correlate with increased engagement, job performance, motivation, and reduced attrition rates (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Noordin & Kamarusaman, 2009). To highlight the importance of job satisfaction as a key component in TNE delivery, this article reports on a research project undertaken to identify and explore factors that influence academic job satisfaction for those involved in the design, delivery, and management of TNE courses. The research addressed the following question:

Research Question 1: How does the nature and degree of involvement with TNE influence academics’ job satisfaction?

Background

Academic Job Satisfaction

Many factors that have an impact on academic job satisfaction have been identified, most of which are associated with academics’ interactions with students and colleagues, potential for intellectual stimulation, and a sense of control over their workplace. Pearson and Seiler (1983), for example, note that factors associated with increased satisfaction for academics include “. . . the process of teaching, guiding, and moulding minds, along with the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge” (p. 37). Similarly, Paul and Phua (2011) found that teaching is the second most important factor in academic job satisfaction, behind relationships with students. Martin (2011) agrees, also suggesting that involvement in research is an important factor in job satisfaction for academics. In terms of teaching, Paul and Phua (2011) suggest that the primary way in which academics demonstrate autonomy and exert control is in course design, management, and delivery.

Job Characteristics Model (JCM)

To better understand job satisfaction levels of academics involved in TNE, we employed the Hackman and Oldham (1976) JCM. This model has been extensively used across a range of contexts and has been demonstrated to successfully model those aspects of a job that result in higher job satisfaction, motivation, high quality work performance, and lower absenteeism and attrition (e.g., Lambert, Hogan, Dial, Jiang, & Khondaker, 2012). The model suggests that to achieve these positive outcomes in a particular job, three critical psychological states need to be achieved: experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results. In turn, the model suggests there are five core job dimensions that affect on the critical psychological states, those being skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. These dimensions are defined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Job Characteristics Model.

Core job dimension	Definition	Impacts on which critical psychological state
Skill variety	The degree to which the job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills and talents	Experienced meaningfulness of the work (the degree to which the individual experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile)
Task identity	The degree to which the job requires completion of a “whole” and identifiable piece of work . . . doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome
Task significance	The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people
Autonomy	The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out	Experienced responsibility for the outcome of the work (the degree to which the individual feels personally accountable and responsible for the results of the work)
Feedback	The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job result in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance	Knowledge of the results of work (the degree to which the individual knows and understands, on a continuous basis, how effectively he or she is performing the job)

Source. Adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1976).

When viewed through the lens of the JCM, many of the factors seen to have a positive impact on academics’ job satisfaction can be related to one or more of the critical psychological states. Academics’ capacity to receive feedback from students and colleagues on their performance, and the impact academics have on the lives and work of those people, are represented in the Feedback and Task Significance dimensions of the JCM. The Autonomy and Task Identity dimensions are expressed in the control over the conduct and delivery of their course. The Skill Variety dimension is related to the range of interactions and involvement the academic has with the delivery and management of the course.

Method

To understand how the nature and degree of involvement in TNE teaching influences academic job satisfaction, we conducted a research project employing a mixed-methods approach to generate quantitative and qualitative data following Creswell’s (2014) explanatory sequential design. The first phase of the project employed an online questionnaire that asked a series of closed-ended questions, which comprised the quantitative component of the project. Qualitative data were collected from open-ended questions in the questionnaire along with a series of interviews with a purposive selection of the questionnaire participants. The design of the interviews was based on the analysis of the quantitative data and allowed for clarification and exploration of issues raised in the quantitative data and identification of other emergent issues.

The Research Sample

The participants were academics involved with TNE courses in information technology (IT)-related disciplines. The rationale for this decision was that it is the home discipline of the researchers, meaning they are familiar with the learning outcomes, content, and pedagogical approaches commonly used in the discipline. This familiarity allowed the researchers a deeper appreciation of the participants’ perspectives than may otherwise have been the case.

Initially, academics working in Australian universities that offer IT and related-field programs in TNE mode were identified from sources such as AusLIST,¹ in-country registers of TNE operations (e.g., Committee for Private Education [CPE]² in Singapore), and university websites. Fourteen Australian universities were identified as offering IT-related courses transnationally. Emails were sent to 202 academics inviting them to participate. A total of 47 responses were obtained, however, six were discarded as they were largely incomplete, leaving a total of 41 valid responses: a participation rate of 20.3%. This sample size is at the lower end of the requirements for multiple regression analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006) making the qualitative data collection and analysis important to understand and further explore the issues suggested by the quantitative component of the study.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was pretested by several academics selected from different universities to ensure it was appropriate to, and applicable across, a range of institutions. Their feedback was incorporated into subsequent versions of the questionnaire.

The first section of the questionnaire was biographical with items exploring the participant’s history of involvement in TNE: length of involvement, how many courses they had overseen in the last year, and the countries in which they had TNE responsibilities. The second section included items exploring the degree of interactions with TNE teaching colleagues and students, and the degree of autonomy or control that they had with regard to course content and conduct. Items were included to measure the levels of each of three aspects of interaction: Physical Delivery of classes, Student Contact, and Staff Contact. Three types of control were included: Content Creation, Assessment Creation, and Assessment Marking.

The third section asked about the academics’ degree of satisfaction with various aspects of TNE by asking them to indicate their degree of agreement with statements regarding their most recent experience of TNE (Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering) and with TNE in general (General Satisfaction with TNE). The final section included open-ended questions seeking participants’ perceptions of their involvement with TNE, including the benefits accruing to them, the impact TNE has on their other academic work, and the reward gained from their involvement in TNE.

The Interviews

In the interview phase, purposive sampling with maximum variation (e.g., Patton, 1990) was employed based on a strategy to focus on the experiences of academics with TNE, and to identify themes common across different experiences of TNE. Five academics who had completed the questionnaire were invited to be interviewed on the basis of the following characteristics:

Different institutions representing a range of the Australian university groupings³;

Different institutional approaches to TNE delivery (e.g., no student contact vs. fly-in-fly-out vs. extended teaching visits);

Different roles in TNE of the academics (such as degree coordinator), and different levels of involvement in teaching from completely hands-off to face-to-face teaching).

Prior to the interview, each interviewee’s questionnaire answers were reviewed, and areas that required clarification noted. The first part of each interview confirmed the survey responses with respect to the mode of delivery at the interviewee’s university. The second part addressed an issue raised in many of the survey responses regarding the synchronization between teaching periods at the home campus and the TNE location. This was followed by a discussion about how the interviewee would change the way that TNE was delivered by their university if they could. The final part of the interview was more general in its focus, allowing participants to raise other relevant issues.

Findings

Quantitative Data Analysis

Respondents to the questionnaire had substantial amounts of TNE teaching experience, with nearly half (46.3%) reporting involvement in TNE for between 6 and 10 years. Teaching was across 15 different countries, with less than one third (31.7%) indicating they taught in only one country. When asked to indicate the number of course offerings for which they had responsibility in the past year, 61.0% indicated between one and three. Two participants reported being responsible for more than 20 offerings. Analyses of these two possible outliers suggest that the large number of offerings for which they were responsible did not affect on their satisfaction ratings. This large number of offerings may occur when there are multiple TNE partnerships resulting in an increased number of offerings of the same course across different locations and teaching calendars.

Teaching arrangements differed markedly between participants. Sixty-one percent reported they had no face-to-face contact with TNE students, as a local academic staff member at the location conducted the face-to-face teaching. Levels of interaction were generally low, with 22% of the participants reporting they had no interaction at all with individual students, and only 5% reporting daily general contact with students. However, participants reported higher levels of contact with local teaching staff (34% had daily contact with those teaching their courses) with only 5% indicating they had no contact with the local teaching staff.

The participants had relatively high levels of control over the content in their most recent TNE offering, with all creating the lecture slides for the offering, and almost all (97%) creating the tutorial/laboratory exercises. Levels of creation of learning objectives (79%) and topic objectives (82%) were also high. The participants were also mainly responsible for the development of assessment items, with 77% being solely responsible, and only 3% having no involvement. Marking of assessment items was, however, more commonly undertaken by offshore TNE staff. The most common approach was for a marking guide to be provided to offshore TNE staff and for the participants to then moderate that marking (40%); only 13% marked all assessment items.

Participants’ levels of agreement with the items measuring satisfaction with their most recent TNE offering are presented in Table 2 and show participants to be generally satisfied. The highest level of agreement was with respect to the degree of enthusiasm shown by local staff toward the course (3.84/5). The lowest level of agreement related to the level of feedback that participants were able to provide to their transnational students (3.18/5).

Table 2.

Satisfaction With Most Recent TNE Offering.

I am satisfied . . .	N	M	SD
With the support in designing and running my transnational units/courses provided to me by the University	38	3.45	1.24
That my transnational students are receiving an equivalent experience of my unit/course to my local students	38	3.29	1.01
With the degree of control I have over the conduct of my unit/course transnationally	38	3.63	0.94
With the degree to which my transnational students communicate with me regarding their unit/course matters	38	3.24	0.91
With the degree of enthusiasm my transnational students demonstrate toward their studies when compared with my local students	38	3.50	0.89
With the level of feedback I am able to provide to my transnational students on their performance in the unit/course	38	3.18	0.98
With the degree to which the transnational teaching staff communicate with me regarding unit/course matters	38	3.63	1.00
With the degree of enthusiasm the local teaching staff demonstrate toward the unit/course	38	3.84	0.89
That the transnational staff are adequately qualified to teach my unit/course	38	3.74	0.92
With the level of support I need to provide to the transnational teaching staff	37	3.38	1.11

Note. TNE = transnational education.

Table 3 reports levels of agreement with the items measuring satisfaction with TNE teaching in general. While participants tended to perceive students studying in the TNE courses as their “own” students (3.45/5), very few were more satisfied with transnational teaching than with other forms of teaching (1.95/5). Levels of satisfaction with the “reward” associated with TNE teaching, be it financial or other, were not high (2.58/5).

Table 3.

Satisfaction With TNE Teaching in General.

	N	M	SD
I regard the students studying in my transnational units/courses as being “my” students	38	3.45	1.33
I look forward to teaching my next transnational unit/course	37	3.16	1.40
I am satisfied with the “reward” I receive for teaching my transnational units/courses	38	2.58	1.43
I am satisfied with the professional development opportunities that teaching transnational units/courses has provided me	38	2.76	1.42
I am more satisfied with transnational teaching than other forms of teaching	38	1.95	1.04
I am satisfied with transnational teaching because it provides me with an opportunity to reach students who would otherwise not have the opportunity to take my units/courses	38	3.11	1.23

Note. TNE = transnational education.

Summary variables were calculated for “Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering” and “General Satisfaction with TNE” as the mean of the individual item scores. Both scales proved to be of acceptable reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 for Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering, and .86 for General Satisfaction with TNE.

Multiple linear regressions, with simultaneous entry of all terms, were performed to determine if the different types of interaction and control influenced satisfaction (see Table 4). For Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering, the overall model was significant, F(6, 30) = 2.560, p = .040, and 33.9% of the variability in Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering was explained by the model (R² = .339). However, the results of the regression indicated that only Physical Delivery was associated with level of Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering (β = .364, p = .003), showing a moderate positive relationship. Neither of the other interaction variables, namely, Student Contact (β = .021, p = .745) and Staff Contact (β = −.008, p = .929) had a significant influence, nor did any of the Control variables, namely, Content Creation (β = .164, p = .152), Assessment Creation (β = −.016, p = .993), and Assessment Marking (β = −.187, p = .141). These results suggest that the extent to which the TNE academic is able to actually deliver the course is the major determinant of his or her satisfaction.

Table 4.

Multiple Regressions Examining the Impact of Interaction of Satisfaction With TNE Teaching.

	B	SE (B)	t	Significant
Satisfaction with latest TNE offering
Constant	3.141	0.758	4.146	<.001
Physical delivery	0.364	0.114	3.182	.003
Student contact	0.039	0.067	0.581	.566
Staff contact	−0.033	0.086	−0.379	.708
Content creation	0.164	0.111	1.471	.152
Assessment creation	−0.016	0.189	−0.085	.933
Assessment marking	−0.187	0.123	−1.511	.141
General satisfaction with TNE
Constant	2.140	1.066	62.007	.054
Physical delivery	0.406	0.161	2.520	.017
Student contact	0.208	0.094	2.206	.035
Staff contact	−0.263	0.121	−2.169	.038
Content creation	0.308	0.157	1.964	.059
Assessment creation	−0.125	0.265	−0.469	.642
Assessment marking	−0.009	0.174	−0.051	.959

Note. TNE = transnational education.

For General Satisfaction with TNE, the overall model was significant, F(6, 30) = 4.284, p = .003), and 46.1% of the variability in General Satisfaction with TNE was explained by the interaction and control variables (R² = .461). Each of the interaction variables was found to be associated with General Satisfaction with TNE, with Physical Delivery being the most influential. However, although Physical Delivery (β = .406, p = .017) and Student Contact (β = .208, p = .035) each had a positive association with General Satisfaction with TNE, Staff Contact (β = −0.263, p = .038) was found to have a weak negative relationship with General Satisfaction with TNE. Thus, it appears that although greater contact with students is satisfying, greater contact with TNE staff has the opposite effect. As with Satisfaction with Latest TNE Offering, none of the Control variables had a significant influence on General Satisfaction with TNE, namely, Content Creation (β = .308, p = .059), Assessment Creation (β = −0.125, p = .642), and Assessment Marking (β = −.009, p = .959).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Given the limited sample size for the regression analysis, thematic analysis of the associated qualitative data provided the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the issues suggested by the quantitative component of the study.

The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a commercial transcription service then analyzed together with the qualitative questionnaire data.

In the first cycle of the analysis, a descriptive coding method (Saldana, 2013) was used to allocate each single-issue phrase an initial code informed by the quantitative results and the JCM and determined by whether the phrase was concerned with TNE Staff, TNE Students, or Control over course delivery. It became clear that Workload was also an issue, so this was added to the initial coding schema. The second cycle of coding employed the pattern-coding method with subcoding (Saldana, 2013); all phrases coded in the first cycle were then coded with a subcode (see Table 5 for final coding schema). The coding of the qualitative data was conducted by one of the authors. A random sample (10%) of the data elements was coded by a third party familiar with the research project. There was approximately 90% agreement between the coders.

Table 5.

Final Coding Schema.

Level 1	Level 2
TNE staff	Academic collaboration
TNE staff	Administration
TNE students	Mode of interaction
TNE students	Impact on pedagogy
Control over course delivery	Moderation
Control over course delivery	Involvement in delivery
Workload	Recognition/remuneration
Workload	Timing
Workload	Nature

Note. TNE = transnational education.

The qualitative data confirm the positive attitude of academics toward their TNE students identified in the quantitative results. For example, one participant stated that the opportunity to interact with a different, more diverse, group of students than expected at the home campus led to the development of “. . . a better understanding of local international students.” Similarly, the opportunity to interact with students “in-country” and experience different cultural perspectives was “. . . as much a learning experience for me as for my students.” Many participants reported a positive recognition of the commitment and effort required of the students, suggesting it is “. . . is inspirational,” and “I have very fond memories of the students . . . who work so hard.” One academic particularly enjoyed his teaching at the TNE location because of the caliber of the students, who he said “. . . are quite clever guys and come from a really interesting background, and can actually add quite a lot . . .” Five participants reported dissatisfaction, though not with the students per se, rather with the lack of personal contact and opportunity to work with the students and the lack of time for quality interaction with the students.

While the quantitative data suggested a generally negative relationship between academic satisfaction and the amount of interaction with TNE teaching staff, the qualitative data suggested a more mixed picture, with just over 80% of the phrases coded with the two-level code TNE Staff: Academic Collaboration reflecting a positive attitude. This was most noticeable when discussing the input of TNE staff into the course in terms of collaboration in delivery or design: “. . . he takes real ownership of the [course] even though it’s not his material and he’ll make suggestions, give me feedback and so forth. And his marking is beautifully consistent.” Similarly, the opportunity for input from “another set of eyes” from a different cultural and/or pedagogical background was appreciated. There were also positive comments made in the context of long-standing relationships with individual TNE teaching staff who had made a positive contribution to the delivery of the course. “We’ve been extremely . . . fortunate, we’ve got a good bunch of local lecturers who’ve been with us . . . for seven, eight, nine years and they’re good.”

However, all comments regarding moderation of assessment marking were ambivalent, with comments such as “A lot depends on how good your local lecturer is” balanced with more negative comments such as “I’ve gone through every single paper and made adjustments as needed.” The two most negative comments suggested that the marking completed by TNE teaching staff was overly generous. Similarly, there was concern raised by one respondent regarding “coaching” of the students to perform better in examinations being a focus of the teaching.

Two other circumstances were reported by participants as being causes of dissatisfaction with the interaction with TNE teaching staff. The first is where there were multiple TNE teaching staff in a course. One participant complained, “. . . I have to carry out the same conversations with 2 or 3 lecturers delivering the same unit [course] because they are not even aware of each other’s existence.” Another complained that the interaction easily becomes more administrative and less collegial:

. . . my role is almost entirely composed of administration, creating spread sheets, marking assignments and (often unsuccessfully) attempting to train the lecturers on how to assess and teach students in the way that we would do at this university.

Bellamy, Morley, and Watty (2003), suggested that an important factor in determining academics’ job satisfaction is the degree of control they can exercise over their work. In the context of teaching, the primary ways that academics exert control is in course design, management, and delivery. The quantitative analysis demonstrated only a marginal relationship between control and satisfaction, though participants who do not have direct involvement with the delivery of the course commented that . . . “I have virtually no knowledge of how the courses are being offered offshore” and “I am unsure of how the content is delivered.”

The issue most commented on in the qualitative data was the workload associated with TNE. Only two of the 120 comments coded under the Workload top-level code could be seen to be positive in that they described the remuneration for involvement in TNE as being adequate. The remaining comments were divided equally between those describing the amount and timing of the TNE workload, and the recognition of TNE participation.

The scheduling of workload associated with TNE was seen by most participants as being a cause of dissatisfaction, particularly in that it tended to be spread out across the year, increasing the number of workload “peaks,” and impinging on time that might otherwise be allocated to other activities. This issue arises when teaching calendars at the TNE location and home campus are not aligned. One respondent stated that “it is very difficult to take holidays as TNE teaching regularly occurs when domestic students are on their winter or summer breaks” and another, “. . . our semesters and their trimesters fill the whole year except between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.” Just over 10% of the responses suggested that involvement in TNE interferes with the capacity to conduct research, with a typical comment being “It makes it much harder to be productive and my working week is more fragmented, and I am unable to get reasonable length periods to focus on research.”

Many of the participants complained about the amount of administrative work associated with TNE, particularly when they saw there being no return for their efforts: “The almost constant requirement to be writing assessment items, moderating and remarking offshore work, and creating endless spread sheets, exams, moderation reports and other volumes of administrative work occupy a lot of time and have little perceivable benefit.” This seemed to be more of an issue with participants who did not have any face-to-face interaction with the students, “These same tasks may not be perceived as being so negative if there was any kind of contact or engagement with the offshore students.”

Discussion

This study explored the relationships between academics’ job satisfaction and their involvement in TNE. The key findings are discussed below and suggest that academics’ satisfaction is enhanced by teaching-related interaction with host-country students and staff, but that communication with staff that is related to administration rather than teaching moderates the effect. This distinction between kinds of communication was enabled by the analysis of data from semistructured interviews with a purposive subsample of the questionnaire participants.

Interaction With TNE Students

The quantitative results suggest interaction with TNE students is a significant factor in academic satisfaction. While any degree of interaction appeared to result in some degree of satisfaction, it mostly appeared to arise from face-to-face contact in a learning and teaching environment. To explain these results in terms of the JCM, the higher the degree of interaction with TNE students, the more opportunities there are for Feedback from them. The qualitative results, based on analysis of semistructured interviews of a selection of the questionnaire participants and responses to the open-ended questions in the questionnaire, also suggest that increased involvement with students results in an increased sense of the meaningfulness of the work (Task Significance) associated with TNE, where the academic is in a position to be able to understand the positive impact he or she has on the student, and recognize the effort made by the students to succeed. TNE also affords the opportunity to increase Skill Variety because of the potential for working in a different environment with different cohorts of students and using different pedagogical approaches.

Interaction With TNE Teaching Colleagues

The quantitative data suggested, albeit weakly, that the more interaction there was between the home and TNE campus academics, the less satisfied the academic was. The qualitative data reinforced this when the focus of the interaction was related to close supervision and moderation of assessment marking. However, the qualitative data suggested that when the relationship is primarily concerned with teaching, and collegial in nature, then there is a higher degree of satisfaction for the academic. This appears to increase when there is an opportunity to develop a relationship over an extended period.

While these outcomes may seem to be contradictory, the positive outcomes associated with interaction with TNE staff arise from the home campus academic engaging with a colleague in a constructive context, thus enhancing both the Feedback and Skill Variety dimensions of the JCM. Feedback, because the academic is receiving information about how the course is progressing, and Skill Variety because it gives the academic the opportunity to interact with a colleague working in a different environment. However, when the interaction with the TNE teaching colleague becomes increasingly focused on administrative and QA-related tasks, there is a decrease in both Skill Variety and Task Significance leading to a decreased sense of the meaningfulness of the work, which has become boring, repetitive, and noncollegial.

Control Over Course Delivery

While the quantitative analysis did not demonstrate significant relationships between the control factors and satisfaction, it did suggest a marginal association that required further investigation, and the qualitative analysis identified that level of control over some aspects of the TNE offering of a course affected on the satisfaction of home campus academics. Moderation of assessment marking has impacts on the meaningfulness dimensions in that it is a mundane task that requires little in terms of skill (Skill Variety), it is a “fragmented” task in that it is not part of the “identifiable whole” of the teaching role (Task Identity), and that it is not seen as being particularly significant (Task Significance). Lack of direct involvement in the delivery of the course reduces the responsibility felt for the outcomes of the course (Autonomy). However, as discussed above, this appears to be less of a problem when there is stability and consistency in the workforce. Similarly, dissatisfaction associated with the “distance” from the delivery of the course is seen to be less when there is a strong collegial relationship between the members of the “teaching team” and useful interaction with the TNE students.

Workload Recognition and Remuneration

The addition of TNE to the academic workload is seen to be problematic in terms of academic satisfaction. Much of the dissatisfaction appears to arise from a feeling that the additional workload is either not recognized or recognized inadequately, and because of the reduced “downtime” for other scholarly activities such as research and course redesign. This is consistent with recognition as a content factor (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1967) and with the findings of Paul and Phua (2011) about dissatisfying factors for academics.

Conclusion

The research question posed in this article asks how the nature and degree of involvement with TNE influences academics’ job satisfaction. Academic job satisfaction is seen as being important in the context of TNE because it is associated with levels of academic engagement, job performance, and motivation of those involved in TNE (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Noordin & Kamarusaman, 2009). The article has presented the results of a mixed-methods study that explored academic job satisfaction in the context of the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), paying particular attention to the interactions between academics and their TNE students and colleagues, the control the academics could exercise over the conduct of their course, and the impact of TNE on their workload. The restriction of the sample to IT academics resulted in a relatively small sample size. This limitation should be addressed in future research by examining the phenomena in other discipline areas, thus strengthening the validity of the findings.

A core finding of this study is that academics’ job satisfaction can be enhanced where there is interaction with TNE students, particularly where there is some opportunity for in-country interaction. It is important therefore, that universities encourage this interaction, even if this is simply an annual visit to the TNE campus. Reducing the role of the academic in TNE to being providers of learning and teaching materials, as is the case in some institutions, would seem to be counterproductive in that it results in a less satisfied workforce.

The study also suggests that it is important to allow home campus academics to have a greater degree of interaction with TNE academics that is not primarily supervisory in nature such as collaborative development of course materials. While this can be problematic because of variations in TNE agreements and employment status of TNE academics, good quality relationships between home campus academics and TNE academics are essential for the success of TNE (Pyvis, 2011). Strategies to encourage stability in the teaching staff on both sides of the partnership may encourage the development of these collegial relationships.

However, there are also aspects of TNE that are not seen so positively by academics, arising from aspects of the work that are mundane, routine, unchallenging, and that reduce the academic’s sense of ownership and control over the TNE delivery process. Similarly, TNE is seen as being an additional impost in terms of workload and work scheduling. Work in the TNE context must be adequately recognized in academic workloads and not viewed as a “marginal activity” with little or no impact on actual workload. Planning of TNE academic calendars must be made with a degree of understanding as to how this affects on the individual academic, particularly in terms of workload peaks and spread across the year. Similarly, allocation of TNE teaching duties must acknowledge that academics require time when they are not required to be teaching or responsible for the conduct of a course, in order to fulfill the other aspects of their role.

The article has made several suggestions as to how universities can accentuate the positive aspects of TNE. The most important of these being the need to encourage and facilitate consistency in the workforce on both sides of the partnership to foster collegial working relationships, the need to adequately recognize and reward TNE teaching, and the need for there to be some meaningful interaction between home campus academics and TNE students. It is through these actions that universities can create an atmosphere in which TNE can be a satisfying activity for academics, resulting in a more engaged academic workforce. Further research that explores the issues raised in this project from the perspective of the TNE teaching staff is currently underway.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Danny Toohey lectures in Information Technology at Murdoch University in the areas of database design and analytics. His research interests include learning analytics and IT education. He has been involved in TNE since 2000.

Tanya McGill is an Associate Professor in Information Technology at Murdoch University. Her major research interests include e-learning, IT education and information security. Her work has appeared in various journals including Computers & Education, Decision Support Systems, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning and Behaviour and Information Technology.

Craig Whitsed (PhD) is Lead Advisor Academic Staff Development Teaching and Learning, Murdoch University. Craig is Co-Executive Editor of Higher Education Research & Development. His research areas included higher education internationalisation, internationalisation of the curriculum, teamwork pedagogies, employee engagement and leadership.

References

Bellamy

Morley

Watty

(2003). Why business academics remain in Australian universities despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction: An intellectual puzzle. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25, 13-28.

Bolliger

D. U.

Wasilik

(2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30, 103-116.

Chapman

Pyvis

(2013). Enhancing quality in transnational higher education: Experiences of teaching and learning in Australian offshore programs. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Doorbar

Bateman

(2008). The growth of transnational higher education: The UK perspective. In Dunn

Wallace

(Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 14-22). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Healey

Michael

(2015). Towards a new framework for analysing transnational education. Higher Education Policy, 28, 369-391.

Herzberg

Mausner

Snyderman

B. B.

(1967). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Hoare

(2012). Transnational student voices: Reflections on a second chance. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 271-286.

11.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Dial

K. C.

Jiang

Khondaker

M. I.

(2012). Is the job burning me out? An exploratory test of the job characteristics model on the emotional burnout of prison staff. The Prison Journal, 92, 3-23.

12.

Lang

(2011). Universities’ Perspective on Transnational Education and International Partnerships. In Stella

Bhushan

(Eds.), Quality assurance of transnational higher education: The experiences of Australia and India (1st ed., pp. 97-126). Delhi, India: Australian Universities Quality Agency and the National University of Educational Planning and Administration.

13.

Mahmud

Wallace

Sanderson

Singh

P. H.

Thuraisingam

Yeo

(2010, October). Collaborative approaches to moderation of assessment in transnational education. Paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference Engaging for the Future. Sydney

14.

Martin

(2011). On being a happy academic. Australian Universities Review, 53(1), 50-56.

15.

McBurnie

Pollock

(2000). Opportunity and risk in transnational education—Issues in planning for international campus development: An Australian perspective. Higher Education in Europe, 25, 333-343.

16.

Noordin

Kamarusaman

(2009). Levels of job satisfaction amongst Malaysian academic staff. Asian Social Science, 5(5), 122-128.

17.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

18.

Paul

E. P.

Phua

S. K.

(2011). Lecturers’ job satisfaction in a public tertiary institution in Singapore: Ambivalent and non-ambivalent relationships between job satisfaction and demographic variables. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33, 141-151.

19.

Pearson

D. A.

Seiler

R. E.

(1983). Environmental satisfiers in academe. Higher Education, 12, 35-47.

20.

Pyvis

(2011). The need for context-sensitive measures of educational quality in transnational higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 733-744.

21.

Saldana

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

22.

Whitsed

Green

(2013). What’s in a name? A theoretical exploration of the proliferation of labels for international education across the higher education sector. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 105-119.