Prestige, power, practice, and professional development: exploring transnational teachers’ experiences of a UK-based lecturer development course

ABSTRACT

This study explores the experiences of international staff in Egypt and Trinidad who undertook a UK-based teaching development course provided by the London University who were validating and franchising the offshore courses they taught. Such transnational education (TNE) is a significant but under-researched area of Higher Education and continuing professional development opportunities for TNE teachers have been limited. Participants shared insights into transmissive and transformational aspects of the course, revealing the complex interplay between individual and cultural assumptions critiqued here through a neo-colonial lens. We draw implications from our data for academic developers in general and, in particular, for those working in international and intercultural partnerships.

KEYWORDS:

• CPD
• staff development
• transnational education
• TNE
• transformation
• intercultural understanding

Introduction

After over 20 years of growth within shifting landscapes, Transnational Education (TNE) remains a high-priority, under-researched area of higher education (HE) (Leung & Waters, 2017). A defining principle of TNE is local study for awards validated by overseas institutions (Healey & Bordogna, 2014) within formal collaborative partnerships, typically between developed and developing countries. Variant TNE modes include franchising existing courses and validating new joint or entirely ‘offshore’ courses and campuses (Healey, 2020; Knight, 2016; Smith, 2020). This study’s context is offshore delivery in Egypt and Trinidad of degrees validated by a multi-disciplinary London University.

With TNE growth, demand emerged among international partners for continuing professional development (CPD) by validating universities (O’Mahoney, 2014). While TNE institutions may have rigorous quality assurance (QA) regimes, development of quality enhancement (QE) has been slower (Lamers & Admiraal, 2018). This article is a case study of such CPD, examining the experiences of international colleagues undertaking the online-blended Post-Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCert-HE) led by the authors in London.

PGCerts-HE and similar master’s level courses run in most UK universities and typically blend theoretical and practical considerations of HE pedagogy through individual and collaborative work. They draw on teaching and learning scholarship, applied to participants’ practice, and are often aligned with and accredited by the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) recognition scheme. This reflects sectoral responses designed to facilitate the professionalisation of HE teaching (Shaw, 2018) and enhance quality.

With the full impacts of Covid-19 yet to manifest in HE globally, the affordances of the digital already catalysing TNE growth provide increased student opportunities for study without travel on courses validated elsewhere (Magpili, 2020). Opening the PGCert-HE to TNE partners can be seen as moving beyond ‘short-term front-end […] workshops […] to a focus on improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment practices in transnational teaching teams over an extended period of time’ (Keevers et al., 2014, p. 233). Contrasting with professional experience of local teaching of UK-validated courses, PGCert-HE international participants studied online alongside UK participants, with UK team visits for on-campus, face-to-face interactions. The course builds on active and collaborative learning, individual reflection, and integration of learning with participants’ own practice. Scaffolded support to help grow communities of practice (CoPs), consistent with the professional learning model defined by Lave and Wenger (1991), was embedded in PGCert-HE design.

Striving for relevance across different cultural milieux and rooted in our contextual and applied ethos and its attested relevance within varying UK contexts, cohorts of 10–20 teachers each year were recruited from each of two partner institutions. Our research aims in investigating their experiences were threefold:

• deepening our understanding of this CPD and its ‘fit’ for TNE partners;

• addressing ‘nagging questions’ about power relationships in the CPD; and

• reflecting on academic development roles within international contexts.

Our study contributes qualitatively to understanding the potential impacts of extended CPD courses and, specifically, offers revealing insights from colleagues in two international contexts through the lens of an established CPD framework (Kennedy, 2005).

We recognise the likelihood of neo-colonial aspects to our provision and that ‘the legacy of colonial and trade ties might remain visible in universities’ international activities’ (Woodfield et al., 2009, p. 13). Informed by critiques of neo-colonialism in TNE, of an ‘educational agenda that privileges, if not directly imposes, particular policies for evaluation […] assessment, standards, teacher training, curriculum’ (Morrow & Torres, 2000, p. 15), it was paramount to foreground voices of TNE participants, where assumptions about superiority, inferiority and ‘difference’ emerge. Acknowledging the potential for over-simplification of TNE discourse, Phan (2017) argues for ‘lenses of complexity’ (p. 4), examining ‘how the various stakeholders respond, appropriate, abuse, exploit, transform and develop ways to grow’ (p. 55). This study contributes to the examination of lived experiences, providing a lens for understanding power and difference in offshore ‘delivery’ of TNE provision. Our research demonstrates the potential value and impact of CPD in this context, revealing the complexities and rewards of intercultural working that academic developers may encounter. We hope anyone working in TNE contexts will find value in this study, especially those involved in CPD provision. In an increasingly global context, our study also offers insights for anyone involved in academic development work per se. Below we consider key literature, methods, and a guiding theoretical framework before the thematic presentation of key findings, followed by a discussion.

Review of literature

Kennedy’s (2005) work from the wider field of teacher development on the purpose and effectiveness of CPD types offered an influential framework across all stages of our research (see below). Other (limited) literature on CPD specifically in HE provides relevant additional context. Hughes et al. (2016) acknowledge significant gaps in research on the impacts of CPD in HE, and the purpose and effectiveness of PGCerts-HE and equivalents as CPD are disputed and under researched (Kushnir & Spowart, 2021). Nevertheless, in a major study in 22 universities across eight countries, Gibbs and Coffey (2004) found significant positive changes in the teaching of trained teachers in contrast to, on occasion, negative changes amongst untrained teachers.

Despite expectations of training and support for all staff wherever located, and despite perceived need and demand from key international staff (Woodfield et al., 2009), CPD for TNE staff is limited at best, offering few lenses of study (Smith, 2017). Explicit connection between PGCerts-HE and TNE is rarer still. Smith (2020) indicates recent growth of and interest in this field. In a study of transnational teaching and learning, Bovill et al. (2015) share insights into CPD, illustrating issues and challenges of cultural difference. They report that staff in TNE contexts are unlikely to have training on specific issues arising from international, intercultural working and suggest guiding principles. Fremstad et al. (2020) and McGrath (2020) advocate for academic development work not solely with individuals, but in partnership with groups and institutions, within and across cultural contexts and ‘micro-cultures’. Lamers and Admiraal (2018) provide teaching- and learning-focussed analyses of three-year teaching observation-based CPD processes for international staff teaching collaborative courses in Oman. They conclude that more time was needed to elicit critical self-reflection which, alongside engagement with scholarship, is fundamental to our PGCert-HE. Where connections between CPD and TNE are made, the transformational impact of completing a PGCert-HE emerges, as seen in research on development opportunities and cross-cultural working in TNE collaboration in Ghana (Owusu-Agyeman & Amoakohene, 2020).

Globalisation takes place from above and below (Burbules & Torres, 2000) and necessitates more study of local responses – a call repeated in Phan’s (2017) study focussed on Asia. Her analysis of post-colonial TNE practice and ‘de-westernisation’, ‘de-imperialisation’ scholarship emphasises ‘local’ agency and experience, seeking to understand ‘flesh and blood complexities’ (pp. 3–4). Her analysis of ‘mediocrity’ and TNE ‘deficit’ discourse is highly pertinent for our study. So too are Parkin’s (2016) identification of the tension of ‘getting the balance right between maintaining the spirit of partnership whilst attending closely to issues of monitoring and control around standards’ (p. 163) and Healey and Bordogna’s (2014) interest in the evolution of TNE and shifts of power balance in collaborative partnerships.

Research methods

After a pilot in 2014, the PGCert-HE was offered to teachers in two international partner institutions. The TNE model of each can be framed between Ling et al.’s (2014) ‘Distributed Curriculum’ and ‘Transnational Campus’ control (p. 50), with local course outcomes identical to UK equivalents, some contextual adaptation to teaching, and limited skewing towards local QA protocols. In five years, over 100 colleagues in Egypt and Trinidad participated, with most completing successfully and amongst the first in their countries to achieve the qualification and UKPSF Fellowship.

The university gave ethical approval for research entitled, ‘Investigating the international experience of HE teacher training through the PGCert-HE’. We adhered to all approval requirements, including collecting detailed participant information, gaining consent, and making clear the right to withdraw.

The following approved research questions are pertinent to this paper:

1. What are participants’ perceptions of the purpose, use, and value of the course?

2. What impacts do they identify as a consequence of participation on a. their professional and personal practice and, where relevant, b. their institutions

These questions explicitly address our first research aim – ‘understanding of the course and its “fit” for TNE partners’ – and they seek to facilitate surfacing and exploration of ‘power relationships’, our second research aim. Our third research aim – ‘reflection on academic development roles’ – is addressed in the interpretation and use of data, and conclusions.

The research constituted a mix of in-situ and online data collection processes:

• Four Trinidadian focus groups (FG): 17 participants (FG 2-5 ‘T’)

• Three Egyptian focus groups: 23 participants (FG 1, 6, 7 ‘E’)

• Six 1-1 interviews (Trinidad)

• Five 1-1 interviews (Egypt)

All participants are native to their respective countries and hold various student-facing roles, including part-time and full-time lecturers, senior academics, and professional services staff. Interviews and focus groups conducted by the authors or co-researcher were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using themes proposed in the data collection instruments. For verbatim interview quotations, we use pseudonyms, and for verbatim forum contributions, we indicate the group’s country. A summary version of Kennedy’s (2005) framework (Table 1 online) was shared with focus group participants, providing a common lens across both international contexts.

Theoretical framework

Kennedy’s (2005) CPD typology provided a coherent, structured mechanism for both data collection and analysis within the broad context of teacher CPD. She identified a theoretical gap, offering a popular framework and providing an invaluable ‘common ground’ lens to focus our study. Kennedy proposes nine ‘models’ of CPD within three broader categories and places these along a spectrum of CPD purposes and effectiveness ranging from transmission through transitional CPD towards transformation. Kennedy posits increasing autonomy, agency, effectiveness, and professionalism as likely at each stage. The ninth model, transformation is framed less than the others as a model and more as an ideal or goal. With our aim of transforming practice and pedagogic thinking and employing a range of techniques, we saw the PGCert-HE as a ‘spectrum-wide’ opportunity.

The PGCert-HE is an award-bearing, UKPSF standards-aligned course which explicitly embeds mentoring and overtly aligns with several of these models which hence provided valuable prompts for participant focus groups, eliciting discussion of perceptions of the course and its impact individually and institutionally. Whilst not focussed on our specific area of HE, TNE, or on inter-cultural issues, both Kennedy’s three broader categories and nine models proved apposite to our data collection and useful for our analysis, particularly in relation to the ‘standards-partnership’ balance and notions of deficit. Our broad goal was, unsurprisingly, ‘transformation’, but our data evidence clear value also in ‘transmissive’ and ‘transitional’ components through the sustained CPD process, in contrast to short, ‘stand-alone’ packages.

Findings

Kennedy’s (2005) three categories provide structural sub-headings for the presentation of findings where participants’ responses bring together elements of all nine models of CPD in illuminating ways. Our presentation and analysis concentrate on the strongest and most repeated themes in each category, as related to dominant issues in the literature.

Transmissive modes and understandings

Training, award-bearing, and deficit

Participants’ discussion of Kennedy’s first three ‘transmissive’ models surfaced and brought together issues about power and colonialism (Djerasimovic, 2014; Phan, 2017), echoing Bovill et al.’s (2015) work, and are therefore presented together.

The PGCert-HE is an award-bearing and professionally accredited, credentialism unquestionably a powerful motivator for participants and their institutions and is sometimes linked to promotion and tenure. Assumptions about the confidence in, as well as the credibility and quality of, ‘international’ and ‘UK’ qualifications, were voiced frequently. These assumptions, along with familiarity with the UK, were influential and brought past colonial relationships into focus. Kennedy (2005) argues that awards may exert undue influence over content, stifling autonomy, yet dual certification was unquestionably a draw to TNE participants. Another driver was an absence of local provision, with a sense of relative perspicacity: ‘We don’t have the sort of infrastructure you would have’ (Cherelle – Trinidad). This ‘gap’ reflects TNE agreements with requirements for staff development that international partners might not feel equipped to provide, lacking experience and/or resources (FG2 T, FG4 T): ‘You have more experience than us’ (Nihal – Egypt); ‘We need to be connected to centres where things are arranged in a better and more professional way’ (Rashida – Egypt). With local HE accreditation and QA developing rapidly, the course was valued as meeting institutional development needs.

Kennedy’s (2005) ‘deficit’ and ‘training’ models are furthest from our academic development ethos. Power differentials exist in any educational context, but perceptions of Western (or British) educational superiority were tangible, especially in responses talking about institutional, educational, and national contexts: ‘I don’t want to do stereotypes […] but I think we’re so far behind […] I think we teach differently’ (Anna – Trinidad). Some participants articulated a ‘modes of teaching’ zeitgeist, personally convinced of the need for ‘universal’, student-focused modes but inhibited by local expectations: ‘We have professors here […] they’re very reluctant to change. They just lecture’ (Yasmeen – Egypt). This ‘resistance to non-didactic approaches’ (Nihal – Egypt), ‘swimming against the cultural tide’ (FG3 T), was seen as a local tension, assuming their own institution’s teaching was more rigid and their students less engaged than elsewhere:

I don’t know if you have the type of students we have […] not keen for the study, maybe not responsible enough.

(Nihal – Egypt)

Most of our students are not really seeking education, they are seeking certification.

(Justin – Trinidad)

Notions of individual ‘deficit’ seemed not to be negative for participants, contrasting with UK usage of terminology: ‘We signed up because we wanted to enhance practice […] we recognised deficiencies we had’ (FG5 T). Values attached to in-course training and the validation of effective practice from ‘experts’ are prominent in participants’ narratives. These narratives assume and report strengths built from perceived existing deficits, especially in observations of teaching and were unencumbered by the tacit assumptions in Kennedy’s (2005) model of implicit flaws.

Cascading

Kennedy (2005) includes a ‘cascade model’ as ‘transmissive’ CPD, identifying watered-down messages and miscommunication as limitations and supporting ‘a technicist view of teaching where skills and knowledge are given priority over attitudes and values’ (p. 240). This surfaced in some reports that mentors were too directive. Rather than a flawed template, however, cascading was identified with affective elements of participants’ roles. They articulated sophisticated views of cascading opportunities from within nascent CoPs (‘transitional’ for Kennedy), sharing of experience and skills in group work, and peer observation of teaching and course development (FG4 T, FG1 E). Participants emphasised their responsibility to the next cohort: ‘[They] should start from where we ended, not from the same start’ (Rashida – Egypt). Participants’ tangible ‘inheritance’ from previous cohorts was especially apparent in methods that shifted away from didactic teaching and predominantly summative assessments, as discussed further in the next section.

Transitional modes and understandings

This category of CPD (Kennedy, 2005) includes standards, coaching/mentoring, and CoPs which are potentially transformative but prone to more transmissive aspects, hence ‘transitional’. Focus group discussion spent considerable time considering impact in terms of community building in situ, illustrating McGrath’s (2020) and Fremstad et al.’s (2020) conclusions about the potential of collaborative agency.

Standards

UKPSF Fellowship accreditation is the most prescriptive course element and clearly a ‘standards’ model. Participants identified this as generally positive, ‘objective’ (FG7 E), ‘something to work towards locally’ (FG5 T), a ‘framework for practice’, and ‘maintaining quality in practice’ in a ‘global context’ (FG4 T). Some wanted to ‘standardise […] be like our partners in [London]’ (Rashida - Egypt). One or two participants raised questions about the leverage of HE Fellowship in local or international contexts or the specific relevance of the UKPSF to local contexts, with one participant talking about the ‘double burden’ of working with two sets of standards (Safiya – Egypt). Most participants, however, accepted processes of evidence collection, reflection, and mapping against professional standards as these were deemed useful for local accreditation applications (FG7 E) and seen as potentially aiding international transferability of standards. These processes were seen as aiding shifts in the balance of the partnership.

Coaching, mentoring, and CoPs

Collaborative local meaning making was one of the strongest features of our data. Mentoring of students by course graduates quickly became embedded in and an important part of mentors’ own continuing development: ‘You become to an extent an expert; not a big expert, but the first step of being someone who belongs to the [teaching and learning] field’ (Rashida – Egypt). While some mentors took a fairly transmissive approach, there was a wider emphasis on the fundamental importance of mentoring and coaching for sharing experience and ‘cascading’ (FG7 E), beyond the PGCert-HE (FG4 T). Evidence of specific and affective benefits of mentoring surfaced both individually and institutionally, for example: helping with formative assignments or assessment styles (FG6 E, FG7 E) and providing a ‘framework and confidence’ (FG2 T), both of which can ‘lead to transformation in both mindset and practice’ (FG6 E). Much informal coaching and co-mentoring emerged from group work collaborations. Social learning, comfort-consulting with peers, cooperative learning, and opportunities for interdisciplinary conversations all featured positively as a chance to ‘see how they work, what they do in the classroom [… which] really gave you a different perspective’ (Elizabeth – Trinidad).

Transformations

Kennedy’s (2005) ‘transformation’ represents a more aspirational than specific model; our data evidences roots of transformation across most of Kennedy’s spectrum, including the ‘transmissive’ or ‘transitional’, and at both the individual and institutional levels. Such evidence of transformation might be identified as ‘second-order’ change, as summarised by McGrath (2020, pp. 95–96) in relation to both agency and collective/group-focussed development.

Individual transformations

Individual transformation grew from formal structures, reflection on practice, and research required and enabled by the programme (mirroring Kennedy’s eighth model). Transformations occurred in practice (particularly away from transmissive teaching), attitude, confidence, uses of technology, lesson planning, and understanding of QA and course (particularly assessment) design, and was especially enabled by collaboration.

Transformation in engagement with scholarship, research and its dissemination, and in individual mindsets was also reported. Perceived transformations could be profound: ‘First of all, I was teacher-centred style and I successfully changed my style to student-centred’ (Tarek – Egypt). Perceived transformations were closely related to personal reflection: ‘Education is personalised through reflection. Then, it forms part of you […] reflection is what helps learning become part of your DNA’ (Cherelle – Trinidad). They were also presented as a matter of choice: ‘re-thinking what we are doing […] and then we find our own way, what we want to do and what works. It is our decision’ (FG6 E). Occasionally articulated was ‘[t]he need to remain culturally sensitive and understand the cultural context’: ‘there are cultural nuances that in some environments can make the difference between let’s say a really successful [teaching observation] versus one that is not regarded as successful, because it’s measured by a different cultural context’ (Thandi – Trinidad). Participants also valued learning an ‘international context’ which required them to ‘think outside our own box’ (Justin – Trinidad). Pedagogical issues and approaches were identified as universal and relevant: ‘We had enough leeway to really bring in our own perspectives […] I didn’t hit any boundaries’ (Kendon – Trinidad).

Institutional/collective transformation

As we became aware of CoPs developing, we helped both institutions establish teaching and learning conferences, but it was only through this research that we recognised the degree to which institutions collectively built on the course, pursuing their QE goals.

Both groups reported development in three areas. Firstly, explicit cascading strategies involved course graduates providing staff development within and across faculties and institutional teaching and learning conferences (FG4 T, FG6 & 7 E). Secondly, the transferability of learning from the course to local practice saw graduates invited to act as institutional course design consultants. This was particularly significant for collaborative partnerships where international partners may have implicitly ‘junior’ status and fewer opportunities for critical engagement with course design processes. Finally, both institutions adopted peer observation, identified as an institutional ‘door for change’ (FG2 T) and ‘very valuable for building community’ (FG4 T). The course gives ‘agency to do it […] and to discuss/promote benefits of it in otherwise resistant climate’ (Nihal – Egypt). Despite it being ‘not a typical thing in the Trinidad and Tobago context’ (Thandi – Trinidad), ‘[w]e took your format and made some changes; contextualised’ (Kendon – Trinidad).

One focus group characterised the ‘sense of transformation’ as ‘enduring and evolving, not sudden’ (FG2 T), and as impacting their sense of autonomy and involvement:

I am more involved in everything that’s happening now […] involved in developing courses […] in the framework for assessing courses’ (Elizabeth – Trinidad).

‘It makes us a more equal partner […] not just simply from the perspective of delivery, but maybe ideas for going forward.

(Kendon – Trinidad)

Discussion

Returning to our three research aims, our data clearly establish that research participants experienced the course as relevant and useful. It might then be concluded that the course was a good ‘fit’ for TNE partners in a number of respects, as discussed in the first section below (Aim 1). However, unexpected and common assumptions also emerged about difference, value, and power. Our second section pulls together and discusses these voices in the context of current literature, reflecting on educational development approaches, including the utility of the theoretical framework (Aims 2 and 3).

Course value, ‘fit’, and impact

Our data may of course be skewed because research participants were self-selecting. Nevertheless, the data show extensively positive experiences of this extended CPD as catalysing change and transformation, providing ‘leverage’ or validation as well as pedagogical development. The course was identified as ‘fitting’ with their goals and filling ‘gaps’ in local provision.

Two key features of the reported transformations emerged. First, transformation was both personal and institutional. The personal value of reflection and its transformative role was repeated throughout our data, related to whether and how personal change happened and exemplifying the ‘reflexive learning and innovation’ identified by O’Mahoney (2014, pp. 31–32) amongst TNE staff. The findings also present interesting and unexpected examples of institutional embedding, building from individual development.

Participants strongly identified such changes as rooted in collaboration, the second key feature of transformation. Wenger’s (1998) characteristics of CoPs (mutual engagement towards shared goals in a common milieu) came through repeatedly, with Kennedy’s (2005) cascade model, much maligned in UK contexts, connected with emerging CoPs. This was one of many examples of a sophisticated understanding of the potential of CPD, with impact dependent on interconnections through Kennedy’s (2005) whole range, not only her ‘higher’ models. Participants saw interaction and collaboration as increasing openness and as fundamental for building trust, community, and understanding institutionally, which is particularly important in Trinidad where most academic staff are part time. Without expectations of sharing and cascading (less visible amongst UK participants), CoPs and unpredicted institutional capacity building would have been unlikely. Our findings thus demonstrate how contextualised and collective agency can work, which Fremstad et al. (2020) identified as requisite for sustainable and transformative change. Our findings also strongly endorse McGrath’s (2020, pp. 95–96) suggestion regarding the potential inherent in academic development with a context-based and collective/group focus. This exemplifies the potentially huge value that Keay et al. (2014) see in deliberately fostering CoPs, specifically across TNE partnerships.

Difference, power, and academic development roles

The sense that infrastructure and experience correlate to reputation and professionalism were close to the surface and might be read within the context of Phan’s (2017) identification of superiority/inferiority language in TNE discussions. Frequently repeated suggestions of local inferiority of expertise, infrastructure, and professionalism were surprising, unlike the weight put on credentials. Characterisation of the course as a remedy for teaching deficits and of our role as experts offering a ‘fix’ (more prominent in the Egyptian context but also a facet of Trinidadian data) reflected differing expectations, as reported by Bovill et al. (2015).

Phan (2017) discusses the persistence of neo-colonial dichotomies where ‘TNE is not about local education but rather about ‘Western’ education’ (p. 6). ‘‘Western’ products have to be better than many local ones to justify the associated costs’ (Phan, 2017, p. 28) with little or no sense that ‘we’ (in the West) could also learn from ‘them’. Nowhere in the course did we talk about fault finding and fixing, yet this notion was common and repeated, surfacing assumptions about our power as expert trainers which may echo assumed authority, even hegemony, of the UK institution. This sat uneasily with us and our assumptions about collegiality rather than authority, constituting the most profound discord between our data and our stated ethos. As Djerasimovic (2014) notes, this suggests complicity of both sides in sustaining such perceptions and without assumptions of deficit and the contextually powerful stimuli to join the course, transformative potential elsewhere might not emerge. Assumptions of ‘better’ UK students and our greater success in developing active, engaged learning were also explicit, echoing negative views reported in Bovill et al.’s (2015) study. Leung and Waters (2017) report similar perceptions of inferiority, observing little evidence of power shifts in their studies of UK-partnered Hong Kong TNE. Our experience of similarly negative views from UK teachers about UK institutions and students suggests this ‘imagined West’ is ‘misinformed’ (Phan, 2017, p. 9). However, we had little embedded in the course to address such ‘misinformation’. Our assumptions that ‘deficit’ could not be a strong or positive motivator may itself reflect neo-colonial attitudes, and we see an opportunity to use ‘deficit’ in academic development work as a vehicle for open discussion about expectations, CPD, and teaching across various cultural contexts.

Value attached to the team as ‘experts’ was, however, repeatedly balanced by a strong sense of personal and local/contextual agency, combined with an openness and desire to move away from transmissive modes. These findings echo those of Bovill et al. (2015) and provide evidence of autonomy as posited by Kennedy (2005), and increased as CPD moved towards transformation. Phan (2017) talks about ‘educational importers’ (p. 31), such as TNE partners, as playing a role in sustaining the desire for ‘Western education’ whilst pursuing their own interests, with ‘local’ agency ‘unchained from the usual colonial and postcolonial imprisonment mindset’ (Phan, 2017, p. 30). Our research surfaced the capital of ‘British HE’ in the minds of participants whilst also evidencing dynamic processes already underway. Partners pursued their agendas informed not only by ‘our’ CPD provision but by their own priorities and local, national, and regional contexts. Such agency, often related to reflection and whether and how individual change happened, also emerged in reports of institutional development where TNE partners built on the experience of the course selectively and contextually to meet their own goals.

Emerging through these layers of development was a shifting understanding of the international collaboration, significant in the context of wider discussions about colonialism in TNE. This corroborates O’Mahoney’s (2014, p. 32) evidence of a desire for more collaborative and ‘transformative’ partnerships. It also corroborates Healey and Bordogna’s (2014), p. 51) predictions of local agency and drivers shifting the balance of power in international collaborative relationships towards multi- (rather than ‘trans’-) nationalism, and towards more dynamic, innovative, and nuanced ways of collaborating. Unexpectedly, our study identifies evidence of the ways academic development work can facilitate just such shifts.

Our use of Kennedy’s (2005) framework revealed that the course reached beyond its design and empowered colleagues (often serendipitously). We used this framework beyond its intent and design in terms of the extended nature of the CPD course and the teaching context. This enabled us to identify essential interrelationships between component elements of Kennedy’s models rather than atomising them. We see this analytical lens as useful to academic developers, demonstrating how approaches perceived negatively (by us) might contribute to transformative outcomes where there is openness and dialogue. A goal for us as academic developers, therefore, is to be alert to the possibility of transformation beyond the expected or anticipated and to do more to scaffold its support.

The need for an explicit focus on intercultural sensitivity in academic development, particularly, if not only, in TNE contexts, emerges from our study, as it did in Owusu-Agyeman and Amoakohene’s (2020) study in Ghana. To be cognizant of the potential for supposedly empowering values to subvert intercultural understanding, we must routinely challenge our practices, cultural norms, and expectations. We also recognise a need for earlier surfacing of assumptions and open, honest discussions of purpose, difference, and value, echoing Bovill et al. (2015). Cultural elements unsurprisingly had an impact, particularly in Egypt where, for example, dispositions against ‘criticism’ of others led to a tailored model of cross-disciplinary (rather than departmental) mentoring and teaching observations. This cultural adaptation fits Pyvis’s (2011) call for an understanding of teaching quality that respects diversity and is context specific. Adaptations built on growing relationships through ‘flying faculty’ visits and connecting online illustrate the importance of participating in other cultures to navigate cultural complexities (Bovill et al., 2015). We agree that purely distance CPD may not enable this. Our participants were emphatic about how crucial our on-campus time was to relationship-building and change processes.

Building such exchange across the whole course cohort was more challenging; we recognise that some of our logistical and pragmatic ‘time-zoned’ practices effectively ‘siloed’ our various national cohorts, impeding cross-cultural learning and intercultural understanding. Respondents expressed interest in ‘international’ differences, including a suggestion that internationally mixed study groups would have expanded this opportunity to ‘understand best practice internationally’ (Elizabeth – Trinidad). Our data evidenced how ‘[c]ulture is often used to explain difference, and yet these differences of thinking and practice are often more familiar than we admit […] [with] common points of contestation within and across cultures’ (Bovill et al., 2015, p. 21); such mixed study groups could have aided understanding of this in an exciting way.

An essential foundation for all the outcomes discussed above was time. Whilst the year-long nature of the course was an essential minimum for individual transformations, it was the wider frame of year-on-year commitment through mentoring and CoP practices that developed institutional capacity building and allowed us as academic developers to support development. We strongly support the argument that long-term CPD is necessary to enhance teaching quality within transnational partnerships (Bovill et al., 2015; Lamers & Admiraal, 2018).

Conclusion

Our international partners identified ‘missing’ opportunities and infrastructure, which drove their initial PGCert-HE participation. Institutional capacity building and the reported unexpected sense of shifting power balance in the partnership indicate ongoing and changing roles for collaborative academic development in TNE contexts. Whether these indicators signal a beginning of the end for TNE (Smith, 2020), in the context of diminishing colonising influences and power of the West predicted by Phan (2017), remains to be seen. During our data collection, we witnessed increased assertiveness, standardisation, and monitoring from national quality authorities, reflected in the recognised and growing phenomenon (Parkin, 2016; Woodfield et al., 2009) of balancing different, sometimes competing standards. This occurred alongside a desire to continue academic collaboration, albeit perhaps in a changed form. A likely next step would be franchising such CPD courses, with delivery initially scaffolded by academic developers or supported design and validation of equivalent local provision. Whatever future such TNE CPD might take, our study highlights the cultural nuances already at play. It also highlights the importance and value of devoting the requisite time and resources to address these cultural nuances head on through two-way intercultural exchanges and relationship building between academic developers and international teachers and institutions, and between HE teachers across borders.

Disclosure statement

No financial benefit or interest has arisen from this research. University of Greenwich Ethics committee reference UREC/15.3.5.1

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2022.2119240.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Martin Compton

Martin Compton works in the central academic development unit (The Arena Centre for research-based education) at UCL. He works closely with the Faculty of Life Science but his work, which focuses on digital education, is cross-institutional. He previously worked at the University of Greenwich in the Educational Development Unit where he oversaw taught lecturer development courses, digital education initiatives, and the university CPD offer, including TNE support.

Sally Alsford

Sally Alsford worked, until recently, within the Educational Development Unit at the University of Greenwich. She worked cross-institutionally on staff CPD provision, a range of student-based projects, and development of policy. She was course leader for the Postgraduate Certificate in HE (PGCert-HE), leading on its international development.