Transnational Higher Education and the Factors Influencing Student Decision-Making: The Experience of an Irish University

Abstract

Increasingly, universities have been engaging in transnational higher education (TNE), and such activity provides students with an additional study option. While much is already known about the TNE activities of universities in larger countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, very little is known about universities from smaller countries, such as Ireland. This article examines an Irish university with international branch campuses in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. The results of a survey exploring the factors that influenced students’ choice of location, institution, and program and conducted among three cohorts of students over a 2-year period are presented. The results suggest that, above all other factors, the university’s international ranking and the accreditations and rankings of its Business School are particularly influential in students’ decision-making process. This finding highlights a potential exposure in terms of the scale of the institution’s student recruitment and revenue streams should it ever experience a decline in its rankings or international reputation.

Keywords

student decision-making international students transnational push–pull factors Singapore Hong Kong Sri Lanka Ireland

Introduction

There has been much debate over the years regarding the degree to which marketization and consumerism have become increasingly evident in the education field (see Lynch, 2006; R. Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005; Yang, 2003). Students now appear to have greater choice regarding where to study and the subject area that will form the basis of their study (Wu, 2014). Students may choose to study with a domestic education provider in their home country, in a university outside their home country, on a foreign provider’s international branch campus, or on a “twinning” program between a local and an international institution (Ziguras & Pham, 2014). As suggested by Wilkins and Huisman (2011b),

The competition for international students has increased significantly during the last two decades, and as a result students face an increased range of choices, which include universities in countries where English is the native language, universities not in English-speaking countries but which deliver programmes in English, well-respected universities in countries closer to the student’s home, and, most recently, international branch campuses. (p. 300)

With the increasingly competitive nature of the higher education (HE) sector, higher education institutions (HEIs) have begun to engage in transnational higher education (TNE) activities (Padlee, Kamaruddin, & Baharun, 2010), and it has been suggested that this is now an important feature of internationalization in the HE context (Mok & Han, 2016). TNE is an additional option now available to students (Fang & Wang, 2014), and it has become an appealing one for students in “emerging education hubs in Asia” (Ahmad & Buchanan, 2017, p. 651). TNE involves the provision of degree programs to students in a country that is different from the home country of the institution or awarding body (Altbach, 2004; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). Such activity is sometimes referred to as “offshore education” or “overseas programs” (Hoare, 2012, p. 273). In other words, “a student can earn an Australian degree in Malaysia or Vietnam without ever setting foot in Australia” (Altbach, 2004, p. 23). The most common modes of TNE delivery are franchising, twinning or collaborative programs, program articulations, branch campuses, distance learning, and corporate programs (V. Naidoo, 2009; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). TNE also includes the development of linkages with other international HE providers (Padlee et al., 2010).

The rise in the number of international branch campuses (Healey, 2016), the most “visible form” of TNE (Wilkins, 2017, p. 1386), has generated much scholarly interest (Shams & Huisman, 2016). However, despite the considerable growth in TNE activity that has been reported (Hoare, 2012; Yang, 2008), a dearth of research is evident with respect to a number of important issues. For example, as noted by Wilkins and Huisman (2011a), insufficient research on the views of international students on overseas branch campuses is evident. Furthermore, an insufficient understanding of the reasons students choose this particular option in one of the new education hubs is also particularly apparent (Wilkins, Balakrishnan, & Huisman, 2012). This study shines some light for the first time on the factors influencing students’ choice of location, institution, and program in the context of a TNE provider where the home country is Ireland but that offers degree programs in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. Ireland is a small country, with a population of 4.76 million (Central Statistics Office, 2016) and is not generally associated with TNE activity.

The article is structured as follows: It begins with an overview of the literature on the growth of TNE programs. It then proceeds to outline why students (who Wilkins, 2017, p. 1388, suggests are the “primary consumers of transnational education”) choose international study and TNE in particular. The article then examines the factors students consider when choosing a geographic location for study purposes, a particular HEI, and a program of study. Following this overview, the results of a 2-year study conducted among transnational students enrolled on the undergraduate and graduate programs offered by an Irish HEI in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sri Lanka are presented.

Growth of TNE programs

TNE activity has increased (Wilkins, 2017) and “grown exponentially as a worldwide phenomenon in recent years” (Kosmützky & Putty, 2016, p. 9). The demand for students to study overseas is driven by a range of complex factors (Healey, 2008). During recent decades, an inadequate supply of HE places to satisfy demand became evident in South East Asia, for example, and this has resulted in students seeking education opportunities in other countries (Wilkins & Huisman, 2011a). This apparent insufficient supply of HE places at both undergraduate and graduate level in countries such as China, Hong Kong, and Malaysia has been cited as one of the reasons for the considerable increase in TNE (Böhm et al., 2004). Indeed, V. Naidoo (2009) notes that among the significant exporters and significant or emerging hosts of TNE are Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

The majority of this growth in TNE activity has manifested itself in the establishment of international branch campuses (Wilkins & Huisman, 2012), and these have tended to be opened primarily by countries, such as Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom (Becker, 2009). Indeed, a number of countries, most notably Singapore and Malaysia, have created education hubs and have been attracting international universities to establish branch campuses in these locations as a means of increasing capacity and satisfying demand (see Mok, 2008; Nachatar Singh, Schapper, & Jack, 2014; Padlee et al., 2010; Sidhu, Ho, & Yeoh, 2011; Wilkins & Huisman, 2011a). Wilkins et al. (2012) also note that Singapore and Malaysia, for example, have been benefiting from an increasing number of Asian students seeking to study in another Asian country. The growing number of HEIs opening offshore campuses aims to offer programs of study that mirror their home programs in terms of the language of instruction and the kinds of “teaching, learning and assessment” methods adopted (Wilkins & Urbanovič, 2014, p. 406).

Yet, despite the significant growth in TNE activity in recent years, and while the literature in the field has grown (Kosmützky & Putty, 2016), gaining an insight into the scale of international branch campus activity is relatively difficult given the absence of any single intergovernmental agency responsible for collating data on student enrollments (Ziguras & Pham, 2014). It has also been suggested that while TNE has been growing quite considerably (Hill, Cheong, Leong, & Fernandez-Chung, 2014), there has been limited research to date with respect to students’ choice of TNE (Fang & Wang, 2014) and international branch campuses (Kosmützky & Putty, 2016), the reasons they choose this particular option (Pyvis & Chapman, 2007), and more generally students’ motivations for studying overseas (Brooks & Waters, 2010). Furthermore, research on the experiences of students engaged in TNE programs “has been very small scale” (Hoare, 2012, p. 274). While the literature does provide us with some understanding of the decision-making process of international students with regard to the location of study (geographic and institution), further investigation is needed into the factors behind a student’s decision to pursue their studies with a TNE provider either in the student’s home country or elsewhere.

An increasing number of students from the United States and Europe are now studying in Asia (Chou, Roberts, & Ching, 2012), yet little research has been conducted on “the experiences of international students in emerging education hubs in Asia” (Nachatar Singh et al., 2014, p. 463). There is a significant dearth of research generally on the TNE activities of European universities in Asia, and the author has been unable to locate any research on the TNE activities of HEIs in Ireland. This article is an attempt to address this gap by examining an Irish university that has a long history of TNE activity through its offshore/international branch campus operations.

Why Do Students Choose International Study and TNE?

As some students enrolled in a program with a transnational provider may have moved from their home country to undertake that program, it is useful to examine the reasons students might choose international study before moving on to consider why they might choose to undertake their studies through a transnational provider. Much of the literature on the decision-making of international students refers to the “push–pull” framework developed by McMahon (1992). Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) draw on this “push–pull” model to explain the flow of international students. “Push” factors relate to the student’s home country and stimulate a student’s decision to study in another location. “Pull” factors relate to the host country and are those characteristics that make it an attractive location to study. Among the “push” factors identified in the study conducted by Fang and Wang (2014) were the difficulty in accessing local/domestic HEIs, lack of availability of preferred subjects or majors, and the influence of family members. Böhm et al. (2004) set out six “pull” factors that attract students to their study location of choice: affordability, accessibility, the quality of education, prospects for employment, personal security, and lifestyle. In the research conducted by Wu (2014), three key factors were considered important when choosing to study overseas: exposure to other cultures, the desire to study in an English-speaking environment, and future career interests. In the case of international students studying in Malaysia, the “pull” factors identified as significant related to social and cultural issues, and these were considered more important than the characteristics related to specific institutions (Nachatar Singh et al., 2014). Indeed, students’ perception of their safety in the host country was seen as particularly important by the international students who took part in the Sidhu et al. (2011) study. Research conducted by Wilkins and Huisman (2011b) suggests that pull factors were seen as much more important than push factors.

With respect to TNE in particular, students in Fang and Wang’s (2014) study identified a number of “pull” factors, including exposure to “foreign culture and foreign teaching methods” and “advanced foreign knowledge and concepts,” the opportunity to improve their foreign language capability, and the location of the programs offered (p. 9). Students’ desire to gain “international exposure” was further highlighted by Pyvis and Chapman (2007, p. 236) as a reason for choosing to study with an international university on an offshore campus. While identifying some overlapping factors in the traditional push–pull model and those identified by students studying at an international branch campus, Wilkins et al. (2012) also found some additional reasons for students’ decision to study at a branch campus. For example, students’ “ineligibility to enroll in state/public higher education” was a push factor identified, while “convenience and country-specific advantages” were acknowledged as pull factors (p. 427).

The decisions made by students on where to study—both the geographic location and the institution itself—are of particular significance to those countries competing for international students (Ahmad & Buchanan, 2017). It is important to separately consider students’ choice of location and institution in contexts where they may travel from another country to study in an offshore location (as is the case for many students enrolled with the Irish TNE provider discussed later in the article). Let us first consider how students choose the geographic location for their studies.

How Do Students Choose a Study Location?

In choosing an international study location, it has been suggested that students move through a three-stage decision-making process (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). First, influenced by the “push” factors evident in the home country, a decision to study internationally rather than at home is made. Second, the country in which to study is selected (i.e., the host country) and the “pull” factors between various countries are considered. A range of factors are deemed influential at this stage of the decision-making process, including ease of access to information on the host country, the general level of knowledge of the host country in the student’s home country, positive recommendations or endorsements of the host country received from family and friends, direct and indirect costs associated with studying in the host country, the geographic closeness of the host country to the student’s home country, the local environment in the host country, and the student’s social connections in the host country (see Mazzarol, 1998). Finally, the student chooses the university or institution in which he or she would like to study. Once again, the “pull” factors between various institutions are considered.

How Do Students Choose an Institution?

Wong, Ng, Mak, and Chan (2016,) note the importance of appreciating the factors that shape a student’s choice of institution, particularly in the context of an “intensely competitive environment for HEIs to recruit students” (p. 457). The literature, while remaining largely silent on how students choose a TNE provider, provides some insight into the various considerations taken into account by international students when choosing an institution to study with. In a research conducted by Mazzarol and Soutar (2002), international students identified a number of important factors deemed important when selecting an institution. These factors included the reputation of the institution in terms of quality in general and of its faculty, its collaborations with other institutions that the student is familiar with, its alumni network, and the number of registered students. Similarly, Wilkins and Huisman (2011b) identified the reputation of the institution and faculty, course quality and content, and rankings as particularly influential factors in choosing an institution. The importance of institutional reputation was also highlighted in Sidhu et al.’s (2011) study of international students enrolled at the National University of Singapore.

How Do Students Choose a Particular Program?

The literature provides us with some understanding of students’ motivations for choosing a program in an overseas location. Wu (2014, p. 436), for example, identified a number of such motivating factors, including the ranking of the course in question, the quality of teaching, enhanced career opportunities, “the attraction of subject-related jobs,” and the fact that they simply liked the program. In understanding why students feel it is important to choose an international degree, the work of Chapman and Pyvis (2006), setting out the primary reasons students choose an international degree, is particularly useful. Among the reasons they identified included

. . …anticipated opportunities to acquire international perspectives on the theories and practices of one’s profession; to engage in academic exchange with western lecturers; to have the freedom to voice opinions; and to experience “foreign” curricula and teaching styles. (p. 237)

In choosing a particular TNE program to undertake, students tend to consider a number of factors, including “reputation, cost, syllabus, mode of delivery, resources, major fields, and country origin” (Fang & Wang, 2014, p. 490). In other studies, students cited a number of reasons for undertaking an offshore program (Chapman & Pyvis, 2006; Pyvis & Chapman, 2007). These included its cost; program timetable; delivery approach; nature of assessment; accreditation; guidance received from friends, family, and parents; individual interests and career path; and the reputation of the campus itself. Interestingly, the research by Pyvis and Chapman (2007) also highlighted an important finding in that students were not necessarily choosing a degree from a particular country (an Australian degree program in this case), but were instead choosing an international degree.

The next section presents an overview of the research study undertaken in the context of an Irish HEI and the findings of a survey conducted among undergraduate and graduate students registered to a TNE program with this institution.

Method

Background and Aim of the Study

The School of Business at University College Dublin (UCD), the largest university in Ireland, has been engaged in transnational education activities in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sri Lanka since the early 1990s. Both bachelor’s and master’s programs are offered in collaboration with a local private institution that provides classroom facilities, administrative, marketing, and student recruitment support. UCD is responsible for all academic program matters, including student admissions, curriculum and teaching, learning, and assessment matters. In line with the definition of a TNE program, the degrees are awarded by the home institution. The Hong Kong and Singapore programs cater for two intakes annually (undergraduate and graduate; April and September), and the Sri Lanka program caters for one intake annually (undergraduate; September). A survey of study location, institution, and program choice commenced in April 2014. The aim of the study was to examine the factors students considered important when making a decision on three key issues: the geographic location of their studies, the university to study at, and the degree program considered to best meet the individual needs of the student.

This study makes an important contribution to our understanding of TNE in a number of ways. The literature in the TNE field that deals with European universities engaged in TNE activities in other countries tends to predominantly focus on the United Kingdom, and there has been little discussion to date of any other European countries engaged in such activities. While UCD has seen increasing demand in recent years for its degree programs in Singapore and Sri Lanka, this might at first glance appear surprising given the small size of the Republic of Ireland in terms of its population, the relatively low position of its seven universities in international university rankings, and the fact that Ireland and the quality of its HE system might be much less well known in these locations compared with larger countries, such as the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the research captures the views of two types of students who have selected one of UCD’s transnational programs: students already residing in one of the three locations (predominantly as permanent residents) and who have opted not to study with a local university for whatever reason; and students who have moved from their home country to undertake a degree in another location—in this case in one of the three UCD branch campuses.

The Research Sample

Over a 2-year period, students enrolled on the UCD School of Business TNE programs were asked to complete an online survey on qualtrics.com. In March 2014, the UCD Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the study. The research was conducted in line with the UCD Code of Good Practice in Research and the UCD Research Ethics policy. All full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate students enrolled on the April 2014 (Cohort 1), September 2014 (Cohort 2), and April 2015 (Cohort 3) intakes were asked to participate in the study. Upon commencement of their studies, the local Program Managers circulated details of the study to all newly enrolled students, including an information sheet detailing the aims of the study.

Table 1 provides an overview of the profile of the respondents.

Table 1.

Profile of Respondents.

	Cohort 1	Cohort 2	Cohort 3	Total
Number of enrolled students	803	1,377	718	2,898
Number of respondents	246	193	238	677
Response rate	30.6%	14.0%	33.1%	23.4%
Gender
Male	114	106	94	314
Female	132	87	144	363
Age, years
18-29	186	159	197	542
30-39	47	26	29	102
40-49	12	7	9	28
50+	1	1	3	5
Nationality
Singaporean	109	59	108	276
Chinese	56	36	60	150
Malaysian	22	17	27	66
Indonesian	12	4	16	32
Hong Kongese	10	4	7	21
Korean	9	3	1	13
Indian	9	2	0	11
Vietnamese	7	5	6	18
Burmese	5	3	5	13
Sri Lanka	1	57	0	58
Other	6	3	8	19
Study level
Undergraduate	192	164	190	546
Graduate	54	29	48	131
Study mode
Full-time	98	53	134	285
Part-time	148	140	104	392
Study location
Hong Kong	9	6	7	22
Singapore	237	129	231	596
Sri Lanka	0	58	0	59
Study location = student’s home country
Yes	145	144	132	421
No	101	49	106	256

The Survey

The first section of the survey gathered student profile and demographic data relating to gender, age, nationality, level of study (undergraduate or graduate), mode of study (full-time or part-time), and location of study (Hong Kong, Singapore, or Sri Lanka). The second section explored whether the student’s study location was the same as their home country and the reasons they chose to study in either their home country or in a location other than their home country. The third section gathered data on the factors considered when choosing a university, and the fourth section gathered data on the factors considered when choosing the program of study. The final section explored students’ perspectives on the best and worst aspects of studying with the university and how satisfied they were with their choice of university, location, and program (results from this final section are not reported in this article). Respondents were also provided with an opportunity in each section of the survey to add comments, and a selection of these is included in the “Results and Discussion” section.

Results and Discussion

This section presents the findings from the four elements of the survey referred to above and discusses them in the context of the literature referred to earlier.

Choice of Study Location

Sixty-two percent of respondents are studying in their home country, with the balance, 38%, studying in a country other than their home country. Table 2 relates to the students who chose to study in their home country and highlights their top five deciding factors—improved employment opportunities after graduation, studying in an English-speaking country, a safe environment, cost of living, and having friends enrolled on the same program. A number of these “pull” factors were identified by Böhm et al. (2004). Interestingly, more males (71%) than females (64%) indicated that improved opportunities for employment after graduation was a factor, whereas more females (53%) than males (44%) cited the safe environment as an influencing factor. Compared with the other three age cohorts, 18- to 29-year-olds appear to place much more importance on four of the above-mentioned factors (improved employment opportunities after graduation is of greater importance to the older cohorts). Having friends enrolled in the program is much more important for undergraduates (35%) compared with graduate students (12%). Those studying on a part-time basis appear to place more importance on improved employment opportunities after graduation compared with full-time students (73% and 51%, respectively). When we examine the top five nationalities represented (Singaporean, Sri Lankan, Chinese, Hong Kongese, and Malaysian), improved employment opportunities was the most frequently cited factor for all nationalities, except Sri Lankan students for whom cost of living was the most frequently cited factor. The respondents in the study also commented on a number of “other” factors, and these predominantly relate to a desire to remain in the home country (“it’s my home”), the general convenience of doing so, and being able to combine study with work and family commitments (“I am married, working and have children and studying overseas will not be an option”).

Table 2.

Why Choose to Study in Your Home Country? (Select ALL That Apply) (N =).

	Improved employment opportunities on graduation	English-speaking country	Safe environment	Cost of living	Have friends enrolled/enrolling in the same program	Education grants/funding available locally	Have relatives there	Parental advice/influence	Other	Total
Gender
Female	116	94	97	78	58	42	27	32	12	182
Total	278	210	196	171	126	71	70	67	37	409
Age, years
18-29	185	159	154	133	102	53	57	62	17	291
30-39	66	43	34	33	17	15	10	5	10	88
40-49	23	6	7	5	6	2	3	0	8	26
50+	4	2	1	0	1	1	0	0	2	4
Total	278	210	196	171	126	71	70	67	37	409
Level of study
Undergraduate	217	171	166	140	116	57	55	59	22	327
Graduate	61	39	30	31	10	14	15	8	15	82
Total	278	210	196	171	126	71	70	67	37	409
Mode of study
Full-time	43	53	55	32	33	20	21	24	4	85
Part-time	235	157	141	139	93	51	49	43	33	324
Total	278	210	196	171	126	71	70	67	37	409
Nationality
Singaporean	187	163	131	102	89	36	44	41	26	268
Sri Lankan	32	11	29	36	18	17	12	18	5	54
Chinese	25	18	18	11	11	5	6	3	0	37
Hong Kong	15	1	2	10	5	4	5	0	3	19
Malaysian	9	6	4	3	1	1	0	0	1	11
Indian	5	7	7	4	0	2	2	2	0	9
Burmese	1	2	2	0	0	3	0	1	0	3
Indonesian	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	2
Irish	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Russian	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1
Vietnamese	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
Other	2	1	2	2	1	0	1	0	1	3
Total	278	210	196	171	126	71	70	67	37	409

Table 3 presents the data on the factors considered important by students who chose to study in a location outside their home country. Their top five deciding factors are studying in an English-speaking country, a safe environment, improved employment opportunities after graduation, better quality of education, and enhanced international/intercultural experience (the first three of these overlap with the views of students studying in their home country). Other factors cited were parental advice/influence, geographic proximity to the home country, and the cultural environment being similar to the one students were familiar with. The “pull” factors identified by respondents closely reflect many of those put forward by Wu (2014), Sidhu et al. (2011), and Fang and Wang (2014). Where the respondents indicated “other,” it was largely because they were already working in the study location (“located in Singapore due to working commitment/this complements my longer term career opportunities”). In contrast to students studying in their home country, improved opportunities for employment after graduation was cited more frequently by females (55%) compared with males (47%). Similar to students studying in their home country, a safe environment was more important for females (56%) compared with males (49%). Of the students taking a TNE program outside their home country, a much greater proportion (93%) are in the 18- to 29-year-old cohort, compared with 71% of students taking a TNE program in their home country. Undergraduate and graduate students place relatively equal importance on having friends enrolled in the program (13% and 14%, respectively). Those studying on a part-time basis appear to place more importance on improved employment opportunities after graduation compared with full-time students (63% and 49%, respectively; this is consistent with students studying in their home country). When we look at the top five nationalities represented (Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesia, Vietnamese, and Korean), studying in an English-speaking country was the most frequently cited factor by all nationalities, except the Malaysian students for whom improved employment opportunities was the most frequently cited factor.

Table 3.

Why Choose to Study in This Location and Not in Your Home Country? (Select ALL That Apply) (N=).

	English-speaking country	Safe environment in the host country	Improved employment opportunities on graduation	Better quality education available in current study location	Enhanced international/intercultural experience	Cultural environment similar to my own	Parental advice/influence	Geographic proximity to home country	Have friends enrolled/enrolling in the same program	Have relatives in current study location	Availability of student visas in current study location	Education grants / funding available in the current study location	Cost of living in current study location	Other	Total
Gender
Male	52	40	38	43	27	16	14	13	8	10	8	7	5	9	81
Female	95	88	86	78	55	42	37	33	23	18	18	18	15	12	156
Total	147	128	124	121	82	58	51	46	31	28	26	25	20	21	237
Age, years
18-29	142	123	116	114	79	56	51	43	29	27	25	25	19	13	221
30-39	4	5	6	5	2	2	0	3	2	1	1	0	1	7	14
40-49	1	0	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
50+	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	147	128	124	121	82	58	51	46	31	28	26	25	20	21	237
Level of study
Undergraduate	120	108	105	104	73	46	42	39	24	24	21	23	18	11	188
Graduate	27	20	19	17	9	12	9	7	7	4	5	2	2	10	49
Total	147	128	124	121	82	58	51	46	31	28	26	25	20	21	237
Mode of study
Full-time	124	107	88	101	68	48	51	40	23	26	23	21	14	8	180
Part-time	23	21	36	20	14	10	0	6	8	2	3	4	6	13	57
Total	147	128	124	121	82	58	51	46	31	28	26	25	20	21	237
Nationality
Chinese	62	44	46	41	34	25	20	14	11	9	10	14	9	4	98
Malaysian	27	30	33	31	12	18	8	11	6	3	1	4	4	11	54
Indonesian	21	19	15	20	13	7	12	10	6	8	3	3	1	0	27
Vietnamese	12	11	8	11	5	3	3	5	1	2	3	1	1	0	17
Korean	10	8	7	5	5	0	0	1	1	1	2	0	1	1	12
Burmese	7	5	6	6	5	2	1	1	3	1	3	0	1	1	10
Indian	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Singaporean	1	1	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	2
Hong Kong	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Russian	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Thai	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
Other	4	7	6	4	6	2	5	1	3	3	2	1	1	3	12
Total	147	128	124	121	82	58	51	46	31	28	26	25	20	21	237

Choice of University

Table 4 provides an overview of the factor that most influenced students’ choice of university. The three most significant factors reported by each of the three student cohorts were the university’s international ranking, the international accreditations of UCD School of Business (the School holds accreditations from EQUIS, AACSB, and AMBA, among others), and its international rankings. This finding compares favorably with the work of both Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) and Wilkins and Huisman (2011b) who note the importance of institutional reputation as a deciding factor. Among the “other” influencing factors noted by respondents included the program content (“the modules were what I was looking for”; the university “provides financial education”), the duration of the degree (“short course completion”), and admissions-related issues (“results not good enough to be accepted into local university”; the university was “open to mature students”). Factors that did not appear to be particularly influential in the choice of university included the reputation of the School locally, the quality of the teaching staff, or better prospects for further study or employment outside of the student’s home country if the student was to study with an international university. Unlike the contention put forward in the literature (Fang & Wang, 2014; Wilkins & Huisman, 2011a) that the difficulty in accessing local/domestic HEIs is often a “push” factor, this did not appear to be a significant factor in the respondents’ choice of university.

Table 4.

What Factor Most Influenced Your Choice of University?.

	UCD’s international ranking	UCD School of Business international accreditations	UCD School of Business international ranking	Recommended by a relative/friend	Range of programs available	Employer recognition of the university	Reputation of UCD School of Business locally	Prospects for employment outside my home country are better if I have studied with an international university	Quality of UCD teaching faculty	Limited places available at a home University	UCD is a European university	Prospects for further study outside my home country are better if I have studied with an international university	Other	Total
Gender
Male	107	45	23	19	13	19	6	6	8	9	11	5	13	284
Male	37.68%	15.85%	8.10%	6.69%	4.58%	6.69%	2.11%	2.11%	2.82%	3.17%	3.87%	1.76%	4.58%	100.00%
Female	100	37	30	30	27	12	15	12	9	7	12	7	1	299
Female	33.44%	12.37%	10.03%	10.03%	9.03%	4.01%	5.02%	4.01%	3.01%	2.34%	4.01%	2.34%	0.33%	100.00%
Total	207	82	53	49	40	31	21	18	17	16	23	12	14	583
Total	35.51%	14.07%	9.09%	8.40%	6.86%	5.32%	3.60%	3.09%	2.92%	2.74%	3.95%	2.06%	2.40%	100.00%
Age, years
18-29	166	58	42	45	25	21	18	17	13	12	21	8	11	457
18-29	36.32%	12.69%	9.19%	9.85%	5.47%	4.60%	3.94%	3.72%	2.84%	2.63%	4.60%	1.75%	2.41%	100.00%
30-39	35	15	9	3	11	5	3	1	4	4	2	4	0	96
30-39	36.46%	15.63%	9.38%	3.13%	11.46%	5.21%	3.13%	1.04%	4.17%	4.17%	2.08%	4.17%	0.00%	100.00%
40-49	6	8	2	0	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	26
40-49	23.08%	30.77%	7.69%	0.00%	15.38%	15.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	7.69%	100.00%
50+	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	4
50+	0.00%	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	25.00%	100.00%
Total	207	82	53	49	40	31	21	18	17	16	23	12	14	583
Total	35.51%	14.07%	9.09%	8.40%	6.86%	5.32%	3.60%	3.09%	2.92%	2.74%	3.95%	2.06%	2.40%	100.00%
Level of study
Undergraduate	163	63	43	44	27	27	18	15	13	14	13	9	9	458
Undergraduate	35.59%	13.76%	9.39%	9.61%	5.90%	5.90%	3.93%	3.28%	2.84%	3.06%	2.84%	1.97%	1.97%	100.00%
Graduate	44	19	10	5	13	4	3	3	4	2	10	3	5	125
Graduate	35.20%	15.20%	8.00%	4.00%	10.40%	3.20%	2.40%	2.40%	3.20%	1.60%	8.00%	2.40%	4.00%	100.00%
Total	207	82	53	49	40	31	21	18	17	16	23	12	14	583
Total	35.51%	14.07%	9.09%	8.40%	6.86%	5.32%	3.60%	3.09%	2.92%	2.74%	3.95%	2.06%	2.40%	100.00%
Mode of study
Full-time	74	32	25	26	12	5	8	9	6	7	18	3	5	230
Full-time	32.17%	13.91%	10.87%	11.30%	5.22%	2.17%	3.48%	3.91%	2.61%	3.04%	7.83%	1.30%	2.17%	100.00%
Part-time	133	50	28	23	28	26	13	9	11	9	5	9	9	353
Part-time	37.68%	14.16%	7.93%	6.52%	7.93%	7.37%	3.68%	2.55%	3.12%	2.55%	1.42%	2.55%	2.55%	100.00%
Total	207	82	53	49	40	31	21	18	17	16	23	12	14	583
Total	35.51%	14.07%	9.09%	8.40%	6.86%	5.32%	3.60%	3.09%	2.92%	2.74%	3.95%	2.06%	2.40%	100.00%
Nationality
Singaporean	87	51	16	23	18	22	7	4	2	11	6	0	4	251
Singaporean	34.66%	20.32%	6.37%	9.16%	7.17%	8.76%	2.79%	1.59%	0.80%	4.38%	2.39%	0.00%	1.59%	100.00%
Chinese	49	14	17	11	6	2	2	1	4	2	6	2	3	119
Chinese	41.18%	11.76%	14.29%	9.24%	5.04%	1.68%	1.68%	0.84%	3.36%	1.68%	5.04%	1.68%	2.52%	100.00%
Malaysian	15	7	9	6	8	2	4	2	1	0	2	1	3	60
Malaysian	25.00%	11.67%	15.00%	10.00%	13.33%	3.33%	6.67%	3.33%	1.67%	0.00%	3.33%	1.67%	5.00%	100.00%
Sri Lankan	16	1	3	4	0	5	3	4	3	0	1	4	2	46
Sri Lankan	34.78%	2.17%	6.52%	8.70%	0.00%	10.87%	6.52%	8.70%	6.52%	0.00%	2.17%	8.70%	4.35%	100.00%
Indonesian	9	5	1	1	1	0	1	2	2	1	0	1	0	24
Indonesian	37.50%	20.83%	4.17%	4.17%	4.17%	0.00%	4.17%	8.33%	8.33%	4.17%	0.00%	4.17%	0.00%	100.00%
Hong Kong	10	2	2	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	18
Hong Kong	55.56%	11.11%	11.11%	0.00%	11.11%	0.00%	0.00%	5.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	5.56%	0.00%	100.00%
Vietnamese	8	0	2	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	4	0	0	17
Vietnamese	47.06%	0.00%	11.76%	5.88%	5.88%	0.00%	5.88%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	23.53%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Burmese	4	1	2	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	12
Burmese	33.33%	8.33%	16.67%	8.33%	8.33%	0.00%	8.33%	8.33%	8.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Indian	2	0	1	1	2	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	10
Indian	20.00%	0.00%	10.00%	10.00%	20.00%	0.00%	0.00%	10.00%	10.00%	10.00%	0.00%	10.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Korean	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	2	2	0	9
Korean	11.11%	11.11%	0.00%	0.00%	11.11%	0.00%	11.11%	0.00%	11.11%	0.00%	22.22%	22.22%	0.00%	100.00%
Russian	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Russian	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Irish	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Irish	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Thai	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Thai	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Other	3	0	0	1	0	0	1	2	2	1	2	0	1	13
Other	23.08%	0.00%	0.00%	7.69%	0.00%	0.00%	7.69%	15.38%	15.38%	7.69%	15.38%	0.00%	7.69%	100.00%
Total	207	82	53	49	40	31	21	18	17	16	23	12	14	583
Total	35.51%	14.07%	9.09%	8.40%	6.86%	5.32%	3.60%	3.09%	2.92%	2.74%	3.95%	2.06%	2.40%	100.00%

Note. UCD = University College Dublin.

No significant gender, age, level of study, mode of study, or nationality differences were evident. Five nationalities represent 86% of respondents to this question (Singaporean, Chinese, Malaysian, Sri Lankan, and Indonesian). All five nationalities indicated that UCD’s international ranking was the most important factor. Chinese and Malaysian students placed the UCD School of Business international ranking as the second most important factor, compared with the UCD School of Business international accreditations for Singaporean and Indonesian students and employer recognition of the university by Sri Lankan students. Irrespective of whether a student is studying in their home country or host country, respondents reported that UCD’s international ranking was by far the most important factor (37% and 33%, respectively). However, some differences are evident in the second and third most important factors, with those studying in their home country reporting UCD School of Business international accreditations as the second most important factor and the recommendation of a relative/friend as the third most important factor compared with UCD School of Business international ranking and UCD School of Business international accreditations as the second and third most important factors for students studying in a host country.

Figure 1 provides an overview of all of the factors that influenced students’ choice of university. Again, the most significant factors relate to rankings and accreditations. Other important factors included the range of programs offered, the fact that the university is a European one, the university had been recommended by a friend or relative, the reputation of the School locally, employer recognition of the university, and the quality of faculty. The main influencing factors under “other” primarily related to the course fees (“affordable fees”), program schedule (“time required to accomplish the program”; “schedule of classes suits my work-lifestyle”; “program schedule and duration”; “method of study—innovative and productive, for example block study”), and program structure (“program structure aligns directly to my Individual Development Plan”). Many of these “other” factors reflect those identified in the literature (Chapman & Pyvis, 2006; Fang & Wang, 2014; Pyvis & Chapman, 2007).

Figure 1.

All factors influencing the choice of university.

Choice of program

In addition to examining students’ choice of location and university, the research also explored the factors that influenced their choice of degree program. Table 5 presents an overview of the factor that proved to be the most influential. No significant differences by gender, age, level of study, or mode of study were evident. Consistently, the most important factor across all of these demographics was the international recognition of the degree program. Similar to the research conducted by Pyvis and Chapman (2007), the results appear to suggest that students are very focused on choosing what they believe to be an international degree. Some differences by nationality are evident, however. Of the top five nationalities represented, 56% of Sri Lankan students suggested that international recognition of the degree was the most important factor. This compared with 45% of Chinese students, 42% of Malaysians, 32% of Singaporeans, and 30% of Indonesians. Slightly fewer home country students compared with host country students reported that the international recognition of the degree was the most important factor (36% and 41%, respectively). Among the “other” most influential factors cited by the respondents included the impact the program would have on their future career, the shorter duration of the program (the undergraduate programs allow for direct entry into Year 2 based on prior learning), and the “honours” nature of the undergraduate program. One of the least significant influencing factors for the three cohorts was the fact that a combination of both university (fly-in) faculty and local faculty was involved in teaching the modules on the program (this finding is particularly interesting as there had been some anecdotal evidence prior to this study that suggested students were attracted to the programs because faculty from the home university were assigned to teach a significant proportion of the modules).

Table 5.

What Factor Most Influenced Your Choice of program?.

	International recognition of the degree	Range of specialist pathways available on the program	Employment opportunities for graduates of the program	Range of modules available on the program	The quality of the degree is the same as other degree programs in my home country	Class timetable	Achievable entry requirements	Competitive program fee	Employer recognition of the program internationally	English as the medium of instruction on the degree	Employer recognition of the program locally	Easy applications process	Mix of university and local professors / faculty	Other	Total
Gender
Male	101	25	23	21	23	18	19	12	10	5	9	3	1	8	278
Male	36.33%	8.99%	8.27%	7.55%	8.27%	6.47%	6.83%	4.32%	3.60%	1.80%	3.24%	1.08%	0.36%	2.88%	100.00%
Female	114	33	34	17	13	15	10	13	10	7	2	8	4	10	290
Female	39.31%	11.38%	11.72%	5.86%	4.48%	5.17%	3.45%	4.48%	3.45%	2.41%	0.69%	2.76%	1.38%	3.45%	100.00%
Total	215	58	57	38	36	33	29	25	20	12	11	11	5	18	568
Total	37.85%	10.21%	10.04%	6.69%	6.34%	5.81%	5.11%	4.40%	3.52%	2.11%	1.94%	1.94%	0.88%	3.17%	100.00%
Age, years
18-29	178	41	47	32	24	22	20	14	14	12	8	10	5	16	443
18-29	40.18%	9.26%	10.61%	7.22%	5.42%	4.97%	4.51%	3.16%	3.16%	2.71%	1.81%	2.26%	1.13%	3.61%	100.00%
30-39	26	13	10	4	10	9	7	9	3	0	1	1	0	2	95
30-39	27.37%	13.68%	10.53%	4.21%	10.53%	9.47%	7.37%	9.47%	3.16%	0.00%	1.05%	1.05%	0.00%	2.11%	100.00%
40-49	10	4	0	2	1	1	2	2	3	0	1	0	0	0	26
40-49	38.46%	15.38%	0.00%	7.69%	3.85%	3.85%	7.69%	7.69%	11.54%	0.00%	3.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
50+	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	4
50+	25.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	25.00%	25.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	25.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Total	215	58	57	38	36	33	29	25	20	12	11	11	5	18	568
Total	37.85%	10.21%	10.04%	6.69%	6.34%	5.81%	5.11%	4.40%	3.52%	2.11%	1.94%	1.94%	0.88%	3.17%	100.00%
Level of study
Undergraduate	169	44	51	34	32	18	20	13	17	11	10	7	4	13	443
Undergraduate	38.15%	9.93%	11.51%	7.67%	7.22%	4.06%	4.51%	2.93%	3.84%	2.48%	2.26%	1.58%	0.90%	2.93%	100.00%
Graduate	46	14	6	4	4	15	9	12	3	1	1	4	1	5	125
Graduate	36.80%	11.20%	4.80%	3.20%	3.20%	12.00%	7.20%	9.60%	2.40%	0.80%	0.80%	3.20%	0.80%	4.00%	100.00%
Total	215	58	57	38	36	33	29	25	20	12	11	11	5	18	568
Total	37.85%	10.21%	10.04%	6.69%	6.34%	5.81%	5.11%	4.40%	3.52%	2.11%	1.94%	1.94%	0.88%	3.17%	100.00%
Mode of study
Full-time	84	21	25	17	11	9	12	2	6	8	1	8	4	12	220
Full-time	38.18%	9.55%	11.36%	7.73%	5.00%	4.09%	5.45%	0.91%	2.73%	3.64%	0.45%	3.64%	1.82%	5.45%	100.00%
Part-time	131	37	32	21	25	24	17	23	14	4	10	3	1	6	348
Part-time	37.64%	10.63%	9.20%	6.03%	7.18%	6.90%	4.89%	6.61%	4.02%	1.15%	2.87%	0.86%	0.29%	1.72%	100.00%
Total	215	58	57	38	36	33	29	25	20	12	11	11	5	18	568
Total	37.85%	10.21%	10.04%	6.69%	6.34%	5.81%	5.11%	4.40%	3.52%	2.11%	1.94%	1.94%	0.88%	3.17%	100.00%
Nationality
Singaporean	78	29	31	17	14	22	13	13	13	3	7	3	2	2	247
Singaporean	31.58%	11.74%	12.55%	6.88%	5.67%	8.91%	5.26%	5.26%	5.26%	1.21%	2.83%	1.21%	0.81%	0.81%	100.00%
Chinese	51	7	12	10	6	6	3	0	4	4	0	5	2	4	114
Chinese	44.74%	6.14%	10.53%	8.77%	5.26%	5.26%	2.63%	0.00%	3.51%	3.51%	0.00%	4.39%	1.75%	3.51%	100.00%
Malaysian	25	9	4	3	2	0	6	3	1	0	1	0	0	5	59
Malaysian	42.37%	15.25%	6.78%	5.08%	3.39%	0.00%	10.17%	5.08%	1.69%	0.00%	1.69%	0.00%	0.00%	8.47%	100.00%
Sri Lankan	25	2	3	0	7	0	1	1	0	2	2	0	1	1	45
Sri Lankan	55.56%	4.44%	6.67%	0.00%	15.56%	0.00%	2.22%	2.22%	0.00%	4.44%	4.44%	0.00%	2.22%	2.22%	100.00%
Indonesian	7	4	4	2	0	0	2	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	23
Indonesian	30.43%	17.39%	17.39%	8.70%	0.00%	0.00%	8.70%	4.35%	0.00%	4.35%	0.00%	4.35%	0.00%	4.35%	100.00%
Hong Kong	5	2	0	2	3	0	0	3	1	0	0	0	0	2	18
Hong Kong	27.78%	11.11%	0.00%	11.11%	16.67%	0.00%	0.00%	16.67%	5.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	11.11%	100.00%
Vietnamese	7	0	0	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	16
Vietnamese	43.75%	0.00%	0.00%	6.25%	12.50%	6.25%	6.25%	12.50%	6.25%	6.25%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Burmese	3	0	2	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	11
Burmese	27.27%	0.00%	18.18%	0.00%	0.00%	18.18%	18.18%	18.18%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Indian	5	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	10
Indian	50.00%	20.00%	0.00%	20.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	10.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Korean	4	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	8
Korean	50.00%	0.00%	0.00%	12.50%	12.50%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	12.50%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	12.50%	100.00%
Russian	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Russian	50.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	50.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Irish	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Irish	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Thai	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Thai	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%
Other	3	3	1	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	13
Other	23.08%	23.08%	7.69%	0.00%	7.69%	15.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	7.69%	0.00%	15.38%	100.00%
Total	215	58	57	38	36	33	29	25	20	12	11	11	5	18	568
Total	37.85%	10.21%	10.04%	6.69%	6.34%	5.81%	5.11%	4.40%	3.52%	2.11%	1.94%	1.94%	0.88%	3.17%	100.00%

Figure 2 provides an overview of all of the factors that influenced students’ choice of program. In addition to the international recognition of the degree, a number of other factors influenced students’ program choice, and some of these factors reflect those identified by Fang and Wang (2014), Chapman and Pyvis (2006), and Pyvis and Chapman (2007). For example, respondents highlighted English as the medium of instruction, achievable entry requirements, range of both specialist majors/pathways and modules, class timetable, and employment opportunities as influencing factors.

Figure 2.

All factors influencing the choice of program.

Conclusion

The offshore programs offered by UCD School of Business fall within the definition of TNE offered by Altbach (2004) and Wilkins and Huisman (2012) in that while the institution and awarding body are located in Ireland, the programs are delivered in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. The research has attempted to address the gap identified by Wilkins et al. (2012) with regard to one of the new education hubs (Singapore in this case, along with two other locations—Hong Kong and Sri Lanka) and our understanding of the reasons students choose to study at an international branch campus. The central purpose of this study was to provide some insight into a TNE provider whose home country is Ireland and to explore the factors considered important by students when selecting the geographic location for their studies, the university to study at, and the degree program itself.

The influencing factors identified in this study have been widely reported in studies of the TNE activity of providers from other countries. For example, where students chose to study in their home country, the study highlighted a number of important “pull” factors, including, for example, improved employment opportunities, a safe environment, and the cost of living. Where students chose to study in a country other than their home country, some distinct “pull” factors were identified, including English as the predominant language, the quality of education, improved employment opportunities, enhanced international/intercultural experience, similar cultural environment to their own, and the study location was in geographic proximity to the home country. In choosing an institution to study with, the university’s international ranking and the international accreditations and rankings of the School in question were of particular importance to students. The international recognition of the degree was also the most influential factor by far in terms of students’ choice of program.

In conclusion, the results of the study have managerial implications for the university and School in question. Students clearly place significant importance on strong positioning in international university rankings, on School rankings, and on international accreditations. The incorporation of these rankings and accreditations into all program promotional material will continue to be important as a means of attracting potential students. The results, however, highlight a potential exposure for the university and School in terms of the scale of its student recruitment and revenue streams should it ever experience a decline in its rankings or international reputation.

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.

ORCID iD

Linda Dowling-Hetherington

Author Biography

Linda Dowling-Hetherington is the director of Assurance of Learning at the College of Business, University College Dublin, Ireland. Prior to this role, she spent 12 years developing and managing the School’s part-time distance learning and offshore undergraduate and graduate programs in Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. Her areas of research interest include change in higher education, its impact on faculty, transnational education, and human resource management practices, with a particular emphasis on graduate recruitment and talent management.

References

Ahmad

S. Z.

Buchanan

F. R.

(2017). Motivation factors in students decision to study at international branch campuses in Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 651-668.

Altbach

(2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top destination for foreign students? Change, 36(2), 18-24.

Becker

R. F.

(2009). International branch campuses: Markets and strategies. London, England: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Böhm

Follari

Hewett

Jones

Kemp

Meares

. . . Van Canter

(2004). Forecasting international student mobility: A UK perspective. London, England: British Council.

Brooks

Waters

(2010). Social networks and educational mobility: The experiences of UK students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8, 143-157.

Chapman

Pyvis

(2006). Quality, identity and practice in offshore university programmes: Issues in the internationalization of Australian higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 233-245.

Chou

C. P.

Roberts

Ching

G. S.

(2012). A study on the international students’ perception and norms in Taiwan. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 1, 71-84.

Central Statistics Office. (2016). Census of population 2016—Preliminary results. Dublin, Ireland: Author.

Fang

Wang

(2014). Chinese students’ choice of transnational higher education in a globalized higher education market: A case study of W university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 475-494.

10.

Healey

N. M.

(2008). Is higher education in really “internationalising?” Higher Education, 55, 333-355.

11.

Healey

N. M.

(2016). The challenges of leading an international branch campus: The “lived experience” of in-country senior managers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20, 61-78.

12.

Hill

Cheong

K. C.

Leong

Y. C.

Fernandez-Chung

(2014). TNE—Trans-national education or tensions between national and external? A case study of Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 952-966.

13.

Hoare

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

14.

Kosmützky

Putty

(2016). Transcending borders and traversing boundaries: A systematic review of the literature on transnational, offshore, cross-border, and borderless higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20, 8-33.

15.

Lynch

(2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5, 1-17.

16.

Mazzarol

(1998). Critical success factors for international education. International Journal of Educational Management, 12, 163-175.

17.

Mazzarol

Soutar

G. N.

(2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82-90.

18.

McMahon

M. E.

(1992). Higher education in a world market: An historical look at the global context of international study. Higher Education, 24, 465-482.

19.

Mok

K. H.

(2008). Singapore’s global education hub ambitions: University governance change and transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 22, 527-546.

20.

Mok

K. H.

Han

(2016). The rise of transnational higher education and changing educational governance in China. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 18, 19-39.

21.

Nachatar Singh

J. K.

Schapper

Jack

. (2014). The importance of place for international students’ choice of university: A case study at a Malaysian university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 463-474.

22.

Naidoo

Jamieson

(2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 267-281.

23.

Naidoo

(2009). Transnational higher education: A stock take of current activity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 310-330.

24.

Padlee

S. F.

Kamaruddin

A. R.

Baharun

(2010). International students’ choice behavior for higher education at Malaysian private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2, 202-211.

25.

Pyvis

Chapman

(2007). Why university students choose an international education: A case study in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 235-246.

26.

Shams

Huisman

(2016). The role of institutional dual embeddedness in the strategic local adaptation of international branch campuses: Evidence from Malaysia and Singapore. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 955-970.

27.

Sidhu

K. C.

Yeoh

(2011). Emerging education hubs: The case of Singapore. Higher Education, 61, 23-40.

28.

Wilkins

(2017). Ethical issues in transnational higher education: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 1385-1400.

29.

Wilkins

Balakrishnan

M. S.

Huisman

(2012). Student choice in higher education: Motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 413-433.

30.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2011a). International student destination choice: The influence of home campus experience on the decision to consider branch campuses. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21, 61-83.

31.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2011b). Student recruitment at international branch campuses: Can they compete in the global market? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 299-316.

32.

Wilkins

Huisman

(2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64, 627-645.

33.

Wilkins

Urbanovič

(2014). English as the lingua franca in transnational higher education: Motives and prospects of institutions that teach in languages other than English. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 405-425.

34.

Wong

P. M.

Mak

C. K.

Chan

J. K.

(2016). Students’ choice of sub-degree programmes in self-financing higher education institutions in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 71, 455-472.

35.

(2014). Motivations and decision-making processes of mainland Chinese students for undertaking master’s programs abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 426-444.

36.

Yang

(2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis. International Review of Education, 49, 269-291.

37.

Yang

(2008). Transnational higher education in China: Contexts, characteristics and concerns. Australian Journal of Education, 52, 272-286.

38.

Ziguras

Pham

A. T. N.

(2014). Assessing participation in cross-border higher education in cities: Foreign education provision in Ho Chi Minh City. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55, 169-181.