699627

research-article2017
EER0010.1177/1474904117699627European Educational Research JournalCheng

Special issue article

European Educational Research Journal

The Southeast Asian higher

2018, Vol. 17(6) 793­–808
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
education space: Transnational, sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474904117699627
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117699627
international or national in journals.sagepub.com/home/eer

new ways?

Mien W Cheng
Monash University, Australia

Abstract
In the last 20 years, reforms of higher education have produced a Southeast Asian higher
education space. It resembles the European educational space in being a supra-national
development and some scholars suggest it is inspired by Europeanization. These reforms include
credit transfer, twinning, distance learning, and academic mobility programmes. But, researchers
are divided about the character of these reforms. Some scholars describe these developments
as ‘transnational higher education’ but others suggest that dual degree programmes, such
as those between Britain and Malaysia, are ‘international’ initiatives. Is the ‘dual degree’ an
international or transnational space of higher education? Using the concept of ‘curriculum
making’ to understand the cultural character of dual degree programmes, this paper reports
on an interview-based study of curriculum writing in Malaysia to understand the character
of Malaysian–British dual degrees. The experiences of two Malaysian curriculum writers are
drawn upon to explain the process of curriculum making, how discussions about content and
organization of curriculum are resolved, and the complexities of these curriculum decisions. I
argue that the dual degrees are neither strictly transnational nor international in character but
a novel intersectional education space where ‘Europeanization’ and ‘transnational’ influences
inflect historic understandings of Malaysian higher education.

Keywords
Higher education space, transnational, international, curriculum making, Southeast Asia,
Malaysia, European

Corresponding author:
Mien W Cheng, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Building 6, Clayton campus, Clayton, 3800, Australia.
Email: mwche12@student.monash.edu
794 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

Overview
Historical settings
Southeast Asia (SEA) is a region comprising eleven sovereign nation-states1. However, prior to
becoming independent territories or states in the 20th century, most of the mainland and maritime
areas of this region were colonies to European countries. European influence in this region can be
traced back to the 16th century when the Portuguese colonized parts of Malaysia and the Philippines.
Between the 17th and 18th centuries, parts of Malaysia and Indonesia were Dutch and British colo-
nies whilst parts of Indochina were French colonies. By the 19th century, the entire SEA region,
with the exception of Thailand, had been colonized by Europeans. Around the mid-20th century,
nationalistic sentiments in the region made Vietnam and Indonesia independent of French and
Dutch rule respectively in 1945, Cambodia from the French in 1953, followed by the Federation of
Malaya (now Malaysia) from the British in 1957. To foster regional collaboration, these newly
independent countries came together in 1967 to form the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) with the aim of promoting inter-governmental cooperation and socio-economic devel-
opment. Today, ASEAN’s membership comprises all SEA countries except East Timor.

Higher education – international and transnational positions

Higher education in SEA in the 1960s and 1970s mainly took the form of technical and vocational
certification by British professional bodies2 via distance learning or through local (in-country)
tuition providers. By the 1980s and 1990s, cross-border credit transfer and twinning arrangements
were introduced, with countries like Malaysia and Singapore serving as host countries for the
local delivery of foreign higher education curricula (Knight and Morshidi, 2011; Mok, 2010;
Ziguras, 2003). This period of higher education reforms saw the region growing in terms of popu-
lation and demand for higher education (Jayasuriya, 2000). According to Welch (2012, 2013), the
increasing demand for higher education coupled with limited public resources caused some gov-
ernments, like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, to privatize and/or liberalize their higher
education sectors.
This move allowed growth in the number and types of cross-border, off-shore, or transnational
higher education (TNHE) programmes offered between local and foreign higher education institu-
tions (HEIs). According to McBurnie and Ziguras (2001: 85), the SEA higher education space in
the 1990s was “something of a laboratory in the development and regulation of transnational edu-
cation with high demand for higher education and keen competition among providers”. The litera-
ture on cross-border programmes commonly uses the term ‘transnational education’ (TNE) to
denote higher education programmes where learners are located in a country different from the one
that locates the awarding institution (UNESCO, 2000). Another way of appreciating TNE or TNHE
is in terms of the mobility of programmes, providers, and people between countries (Knight, 2016:
39–40). Whatever the definition, cross-border or transnational3 collaborations in higher education
continued to grow apace in SEA through the 2000s and 2010s (Welch, 2007, 2013; Ziguras, 2003;
Ziguras and McBurnie, 2008).
The liberalization and privatization of higher education in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia,
and Singapore make SEA a significant case of internationalization and regionalism in higher edu-
cation (Jayasuriya, 2003, 2010; Morshidi, 2009; Robertson, 2008, 2010; Welch, 2012). Some
scholars describe ASEAN regionalism as motivated by European regionalism (Morshidi, 2012),
and labelling it ‘less mature’ compared to Europe’s (Robertson, 2010: 25, 35). Morshidi (2012)
explains ASEAN’s aspiration for a common higher education space in SEA to be inspired by
Europe’s regionalism in higher education and development of its European Higher Education Area
Cheng 795

(EHEA). Similarly, the idea of ‘Europe’ as conceived by Novoa and Lawn (2002) is about a
European educational space formed by transnational governance, networks, cultural and educa-
tional projects. Does this notion of ‘Europe’ influence SEA’s construction of its formal and infor-
mal rules, procedures, policies, and norms in forming its common space of higher education? Is
there ‘Europeanization’4, understood as Europe’s way of doing things, at work in SEA’s higher
education?
Discourses of higher education in SEA acknowledge aspects of TNHE (McBurnie and Ziguras,
2001; Ziguras, 2003) and internationalization of higher education (Huang, 2007; Knight, 2008a;
Tham and Kam, 2008). The ‘transnational-ness’ of cross-border collaborative programmes is
inferred through the flow of people, knowledge, ideas, policies, and projects across national and/or
regional jurisdictional borders. Gough’s (2004) work on transnational curriculum inquiry suggests
there is a shift from the national to the transnational, and for this reason he stresses the need to
understand TNHE curricula beyond its contents, objectives, and outcomes. Some researchers argue
that the flows and exchanges in TNHE allow mixing of ‘inter-national’ and ‘inter-cultural’ dimen-
sions into curriculum and teaching–learning processes which make them ‘internationalized forms’
of higher education (Knight, 2008a, 2012; Tham and Kam, 2008). Beginning in the mid-2010s,
new forms of TNHE like joint and dual/double degree5 programmes between local and foreign
HEIs have emerged in SEA. Knight (2008b:. 3) argues these joint degrees have been instrumental
in developing the EHEA and improving the competitiveness of European higher education around
the world. She suggests it is important to acknowledge Europe’s leadership in developing and pro-
moting such collaborative programmes.
However, questions persist around the meanings of these terms with continuing controversies
about the legitimacy of dual/double awards conferred through such programmes of study. Some
scholars regard TNHE programmes, like twinning, joint, and dual/double degrees, as part of the
internationalization process of higher education (Huang, 2007; Knight, 2008b, 2016; Tham and
Kam, 2008). But Knight (2008b: 22; 2016: 40, 41) highlights how the ‘joint curriculum model’ in
collaborative programmes brings together teaching–learning processes that produce novel forms of
knowledge production between people in different countries.
So, which terminology best captures SEA higher education based on collaborative programmes
between local and foreign HEIs? Is the SEA higher education space national, international, or
transnational? To answer these questions, this paper reports research that investigated the cultural
character of dual/double degree programmes in Malaysia. Tracing how curriculum is made between
Malaysian and British HEIs reveals the trajectories that are remaking higher education in SEA.

Curriculum making – cultural and historical perspectives

This paper uses the concept of ‘curriculum making’ as a framework for understanding the cultural
character of the Malaysian–British dual degree programmes in Malaysia. The term ‘curriculum
making’ indicates a perspective that looks past ostensibly rational curriculum decision-making
about aims, objectives and subject-matter selection and, instead, focuses on the processes that real-
ize curriculum as an effect of curriculum-oriented practices that unfold through specific contexts.
For example, around the late-2000s, undergraduate dual degree programmes between Malaysian
and British HEIs were introduced in Malaysia. These programmes now exist as formalized curricu-
lum designs, with dual or double certification that is organized through what have come to be known
as Malaysian–British ‘dual degrees’. While there has been some research on certification through
these programmes, not much has been written about the making of these dual degrees or the mean-
ing and effects of degree programmes that are ‘Malaysian–British’. Using ‘curriculum making’ as a
conceptual lens looks past technical–rational narratives about curriculum development and surfaces
796 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

other questions, for example: How is its curriculum made? Who makes it? And, is it national, inter-
national or something else?
This perspective sees curriculum as a social construct that embodies its society’s prevailing
beliefs, attitudes, and standards (Franklin, 1999; Pinar et al., 1995; Seddon, 1989). A curriculum is
not just a thing in the here and now but is inflected by cultural, social, political, and historical
dimensions of education and societies, which are now globalizing (Green, 2003; Pinar, 2004). This
notion of curriculum has been associated with the idea of an ‘autobiographical text’ (Pinar and
Grumet, 1976), that involves the ongoing process of meaning making, with constant recovery and
reformulation of one’s embodied history (Davis and Sumara, 2010). Grumet’s (1981: 115) charac-
terization of curriculum as ‘collective stories’ by one generation to another also dematerializes the
notion of ‘curriculum-as-object’ and rematerializes it to reveal ‘curriculum-as-text’. Other scholars
present ‘curriculum-as-text’ as representations of social realities that rest on complex interconnec-
tions and interactions between people and social practices (Da Silva, 1999: 18; Kemmis, 1993: 35).
With this understanding of curriculum making, I ask two questions about the ‘curriculum-as-
text’ that materializes dual degrees and the SEA higher education space. First, ‘what is the dual
degree curriculum that is made by Malaysian and British institutions and delivered in Malaysia?’
This question focuses attention on the way cultural and historical experiences of different societies
and peoples become embodied through the process of curriculum making. The second question
asks ‘how does the Malaysian–British dual degree curriculum materialize an international, national,
or transnational space of higher education?’ It considers how practices of governing unfold through
the lived contexts of curriculum writers and with what effects these have on the indigenous/
Malaysian and Anglophone/British knowledge practices.

Approaching a higher education space

Methodologically, this analysis draws on Clifford’s (1997: 54) anthropological comprehension of
‘space’ that embraces both notions of ‘objective structure’ and ‘social experience’. In this sense,
probing the making, governing, and experiencing of a Malaysian–British dual degree curriculum
produces a physically delineated place of higher education which becomes a ‘higher education
space’ as peoples’ practices, rules, norms, and ideas in education are established in it. Education
spaces continually change and shift according to the socio-spatial relations created by cultural,
social, political, and economic interactions including peoples’ imaginings, desires, and relations
(Singh et al., 2007: 197). Lawn (2002: 20) imagined a ‘European’ space of education that is ‘bor-
derless’, not bounded by nation-states but extending beyond it, and that is continually being shaped
and re-shaped by nation-state collaborations, new guidelines and products, academic networks,
social movements, business links, and virtual connections.
The higher education spaces of SEA and Europe are also changing in response to regionalism
(Jayasuriya, 2003, 2010; Morshidi, 2009; Robertson, 2007, 2008, 2010). Robertson (2007) explains
that regionalism promotes formal inter-governmental collaborations between two or more states
and creates awareness and opportunities for collaboration in higher education between regions.
Projects between ASEAN and the European Union (EU), for example, have included policy dia-
logues, qualifications frameworks, and credit transfer systems in support of supra-national integra-
tion6. Are these EU projects that support higher education reform in SEA processes of
‘Europeanization’ in the sense that they convey, construct, diffuse, and institutionalize Europe’s
formal and informal rules, procedures, paradigms, beliefs, and norms into SEA’s higher education
space (Featherstone and Radaelli, 2003: 30)?
For Novoa and Lawn (2002: 5), the education space of ‘Europe’ is not just borderless but also
‘de-nationalized’, with new meanings in education being constructed continually within its
emerging de-nationalized space. But how countries and peoples respond to regionalizing and
Cheng 797

de-nationalizing processes depends on their local histories and cultural dispositions (Kress, 1996;
Rizvi, 2007). Nationalizing and internationalizing pressures that work in opposition also disturb
national and international boundaries and habits of mind. These processes blur historical, political,
and social dimensions of states and societies, driving processes that de- and re-nationalize territo-
ries (Sassen, 2003, 2005), and rescale education spaces (Robertson et al., 2002). These socio-spatial
reconfigurations happen through the interplay between processes of political and sociological
boundary work and actors that are differently positioned in this space (Seddon, 2014).
The nature and effects of these regionalized higher education spaces emerge alongside growing
economic, social, and political linkages. Travelling ideas and policies, and flows of peoples, images
and goods, shift the boundaries and possibilities of cross-border connections and dialogue between
people, places, and institutions across and between nation-states, reconstituting regions in ways
that materialize an ‘emergent transnationalism’ (Vertovec, 2009: 3). ‘Transnationalism’, as con-
cept, refers to the multiple relationships and interactions linking people and/or institutions across
the borders of nation-states, and the conditions (i.e. social spaces) that emerge, despite ‘great dis-
tances’ and the presence of ‘barriers’ (like forms of laws and regulations), as these interactions
develop, intensify, and spread across geographic, cultural, and political borders (Vertovec, 2009:
25, 27; Yeoh et al., 2003: 208). Rizvi (2011) explains that transnationalism requires new ways of
examining issues of culture and diversity because of the way they are now experienced through
‘de-territorialized’ spaces which are shaped by novel contradictions, dilemmas, and risks imposed
by multiple networked affiliations.
These anthropological understandings of social space suggest a new paradigm for understand-
ing curriculum making and its effects that remake higher education spaces. Instead of seeing cur-
riculum making framed with reference to the binary opposites of ‘local/national’ or ‘global/
international’, it is possible to analyse the curriculum of dual degree programmes through a ‘trans-
national’ bifocal optic that views the nation-state and transnational practices as ‘mutually constitu-
tive’ (Smith, 2001: 3–4). These notions of social space and the overlaps or ‘borderlands’ between
the supra-national/international, national/local, and sub-national/institutional levels, together with
ideas of regionalism and transnationalism, highlight the importance of ‘intersectionalities’ in the
making of Malaysian–British dual degrees.
The research design probed these intersectionalities in dual degree curriculum making through
interviews with curriculum writers in Malaysian private HEIs. The interviews targeted intersection-
alities (see Figure 1) to understand how Malaysia’s higher education space is defined not only by its
geopolitical coordinates but is also shaped by the interplay of rules and practices at the national (e.g.
government agencies), sub-national (e.g. educational institutions), and supra-national (e.g. transna-
tional agencies) scale. For example, the Malaysian government has established national agencies
like the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) to accredit local qualifications and benchmark
them with foreign quality frameworks like UK’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in preparation
for regionalization and internationalization of its higher education space (Sarjit et al., 2008).

Researching Malaysian–British dual degrees

Interview and narrative analysis
This paper reports on interviews with curriculum writers involved in making Malaysian–British
dual degree programmes between Malaysian private HEIs and their British partner institutions.
Interview questions investigated the relationships and perspectives that tied these curriculum writ-
ers to national, territorial, and institutional settings, and how curriculum writers’ biographies and
experiences of the Malaysian–British knowledge building processes affected their practices that
made dual degree curricula. This analysis draws on two curriculum writers in particular, and reports
798 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

Figure 1.  Dual degree curriculum space as an ‘intersectionality’ of multiple spaces of education.

on the dual degree curriculum making process, how discussions and conflicts about content and
organization of curriculum are made and resolved, and the significance of these curriculum deci-
sions for their institution and Malaysia’s higher education system. These two curriculum writers
were selected because of their different personal, educational, and professional backgrounds. The
in-depth interviews allowed them to explain their experiences in the dual degree curriculum mak-
ing process. Their narratives were analysed to surface how they comprehended these curriculum
making situations and struggles (Bryman, 2012: 213, 471; Cohen et al., 2007: 352–353). The find-
ings revealed what curriculum making in a dual degree programme means to them in terms of
relationships, institutional priorities, and territorial settings.

Curriculum writers’ profiles

Molly Chong (pseudonym) is Malaysian–Chinese. She was schooled in the 1950s in English-type
schools that were established by the British in Malaya. She witnessed the educational reforms of
post-colonial Malaysia as she completed her schooling and entered a Malaysian public university
where she obtained her undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications. Molly completed her PhD
studies at a British university and returned to Malaysia where she worked in various academic roles
in both public and private universities. She has also worked in projects for organizations like the
World Bank, Commonwealth Secretariat, and UNESCO. Between 2006 and 2013, Molly was the
curriculum writer for four undergraduate courses in a Malaysian private HEI’s dual degree in
Business and Management with a British university.
Fred Tan (pseudonym) is also Malaysian–Chinese. Born after Malaysia’s independence from
British rule, he studied in national-type schools where Malay is the main language of instruction
and English the second language. Instead of going to university, Fred pursued UK professional
accounting qualifications and worked in Malaysia as an accountant in the commercial sector for
about 20 years before pursuing postgraduate studies. He obtained his master degree through an
Cheng 799

Australian twinning programme in Malaysia and became a lecturer at a private college. After com-
pleting his doctoral qualification with an Australian university, he joined a newly established
Malaysian private university that delivered dual degrees in Business with a British partner univer-
sity. Fred was involved in writing the Accounting and Marketing courses for the dual degree in
Marketing between his institution and its British partner.
Although both Molly and Fred are Malaysians, they carry Western or Anglophone resources;
Molly from her school education through to her doctoral work, and Fred through his professional
accounting studies and postgraduate education. Both encounter the borders between Malaysian and
Western habits as they cope with what ‘local/national’ and ‘foreign/international’ mean to them.
‘Western’ is not an empirical given but a form of representation at work – for Molly and Fred, it
can be the creation of a particular form of Eastern or Malaysian–Chinese way of knowing7. Aspects
of Molly’s and Fred’s biographies are important in this paper on a Malaysian–British dual degree
curriculum because curriculum making is a kind of autobiographical text and draws on the educa-
tional experiences of individuals (Pinar and Grumet, 1976). Molly and Fred have both had to
negotiate, experience, and understand the knowledge building processes they encounter through
working with their British counterparts. These encounters affect the making of Malaysian–British
dual degree programmes.

West is best in ‘home-grown’ degrees

Both curriculum writers felt that the dual degrees emerged from the curriculum approaches in
Western countries. Molly explained that their genesis lay in the late-1990s8 liberalizing reforms in
Malaysian higher education that allowed the curricula of foreign universities to be delivered in the
country. These reforms also paved the way for local private colleges to be upgraded to university
colleges (UCs) and universities. These newly formed private UCs and universities were required
to offer their own ‘home-grown’ curricula and not that of foreign partner universities. According to
Molly, this condition was problematic because most newly upgraded private UCs and universities
had no experience in building their own curricula. Until then, they had been offering their foreign
partner universities’ curricula via credit transfer and twinning arrangements. Although the institu-
tional upgrade was welcomed by local private HEIs, it also presented new challenges to them.
Molly went on to say:

“Following this proviso, the UCs feared that if they introduced their own degrees would there be any
takers? There was this concern about the faith in local degrees with regards recognition by foreign
universities and potential employers.”

According to Molly, this lack of confidence in demand for local ‘home-grown’ degrees prompted
her institution to explore the possibility of offering joint or dual degree programmes with Western
universities. She recalled her institution’s Board making clear its ambition of working with Western
universities that are ‘top-ranked’ in international ratings and a preference for British and American
universities because all the Board members had received their tertiary qualifications from
Anglophone universities. Fred also described how the senior management of his newly formed
private university wanted a Western university to validate its home-grown degrees. He agreed there
was a local bias towards ‘things-of-the-West’. As he said, “the Malaysian mind-set is that you
always want something Western to back you up, and I guess that’s what the Malaysian market
wants as well.” Fred also confessed his own bias: “I think my first language is English, and in a
sense my thinking is English.” To both curriculum writers, there is a pro-Western, or more specifi-
cally a pro-British, sentiment prevailing in Malaysia. Molly offered an analogy:
800 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

“There is this fear that local Malaysian education, just like Malaysian products, will not sell. And, Philips
light bulbs made in England are better than those made in Malaysia! Somehow in this part of the world,
the premium is still on British universities for undergraduate studies.”

Preference for British

For Molly and Fred, the higher education preference in Malaysia is inclined not only towards
Western approaches but, more specifically, towards British qualifications. Both acknowledged
their ‘familiarity’ with the British education system having been educated in, or worked with,
aspects of it. As Molly explained:

“Most of our lecturers would be using text from the West as they have been educated in America, Britain
or Europe, and Australia. There is the tendency for us to use British material because whatever we have
learnt we tend to use in our teaching. And also because the textbooks available at the present time are
mainly from the West or British … There is little research done by local academics, so there is no alternative
but to adopt the Western texts and approaches.”

Molly believed that Malaysia’s colonial past played an important part in the ‘closeness’ between
her Malaysian institution and the British partner. Her institution’s search for a Western university
partner to build dual degrees included reaching out to American, British, and Australian universi-
ties. However, she understood that her institution’s decision to work with the British university was
because “we were able to connect and there was good fit in what we wanted to do.” To Molly, both
HEIs shared compatible goals in that her Malaysian institution preferred a British university to
validate its home-grown curriculum whilst the British partner wanted its international outreach to
extend to SEA.
The dual degree in Fred’s institution is also based on curriculum validation by a British univer-
sity. According to Fred:

“The dual degree model we are referring to for my university and ‘British University’9 is one where a
student undergoes one course of study and at the end of the day will get two parchments or certificates …
Although ‘British University’ has a degree by the same name, the curriculum is not identical (to ours).
There are differences in academic calendars as we have three semesters versus their two terms a year, and
so on. It is basically our programme and it’s validated by our British partner.”

Fred’s institution has had a long-standing relationship with its British partner. For more than two
decades, Fred’s Malaysian institution had been offering the British partner’s undergraduate curricu-
lum via a twinning arrangement. The British institution’s curriculum is delivered locally by Fred’s
Malaysian institution and students who complete the twinning programme receive the British insti-
tution’s award. When the Malaysian institution was upgraded to private university status, it was
‘natural’ for the two institutions to continue running collaborative programmes together. However,
the British institution’s role now is to validate the home-grown curriculum developed by its
Malaysian partner. The liberalization and privatization of Malaysia’s higher education space have
caused the roles played by Malaysian private HEIs and their foreign partner institutions to change.
Molly described this new form of collaboration between local and British HEIs as internationaliza-
tion of higher education in Malaysia, although that was not the case with her institution:

“There really wasn’t any idea of internationalization at that time … When you look at it, you would think
that that is internationalization but there was no idea of internationalization. It was just growing out of
necessity.”
Cheng 801

Curriculum making across borders

Bridging gaps and conflicts
The making of the dual degrees between the Malaysian and British HEIs was not without conflicts.
When asked about the curriculum making process, who makes decisions about the content and
final form of the dual degree programme, both Molly and Fred explained that these decisions were
made by curriculum writers or academics at the Malaysian HEIs. Fred offered the following
account on the curriculum making process at his institution:

“The ultimate decision will come from us because we are the ones mounting the degree and we are the ones
who understand the market here in terms of demand for the degree. We are also the ones who need to get
the approval from the MQA10, and so, we ultimately have the final say … The dual degree curriculum is
basically designed by us. It is initiated and designed by the local faculty. It could be in consultation with
the professional bodies if it’s a professionally recognized degree, and in some cases in consultation with
the local industry.”

Both curriculum writers also view MQA rules as a means of putting ‘national-ness’ into private
HEIs’ home-grown curricula and ‘harmonizing’ private HEIs’ curricula with that of public HEIs.
Molly’s ‘matter-of-fact’ view was that:

“National priorities would come in the way of aligning with the quality agency in the Ministry of Education
(MOE). In other words, whatever we do in terms of curriculum development, the major factor to consider
is the MOE and in particular the MQA because without their approval no collaborative programme can
be on the market. So, we put in 120 credits and General Studies so that our curriculum harmonizes with
public universities.”

The Malaysian–British dual degree programmes award students with certificates from both
Malaysian and British HEIs. This means the dual degree curricula must fulfil the requirements of
both Malaysia’s MQA and UK’s QAA. Molly shared how she and her colleagues had to look at the
UK curriculum standards and verify every step of the way as they developed the curriculum with
their British counterparts:

“We would video conference about the contents of the curriculum, where topics can be improved and
where they were happy or not with resources. We even needed to change the naming of the qualification …
‘British University’ also made some changes to the topics and the reading lists because there was
insufficient academic theory. And so, we modified them to include more theory to suit ‘British University’s’
requirements.”

Although Molly and Fred acknowledged the dual degree curriculum had to meet UK QAA’s
requirements, they were “stressed-out” by the “difficult tasks” of bridging differences between
MQA’s and QAA’s quality assurance processes and requirements. Both cited gaps and different
practices in terms of academic credits, weighting of different assessment methods, and variations
in external moderation processes. To Molly, the area of biggest concern for Malaysian–British dual
degrees was the difference in academic load or credits:

“The MQA says all undergraduate programmes must have 120 credits, but for UK institutions an
undergraduate degree has 90 to 100 credits. One British credit is equivalent to 10 hours of interaction and
learning time but one Malaysian credit equals 40 hours of interaction and learning time. (As) you know,
in the Malaysian or Asian context, there is a tendency to say ‘more is better’ and ‘the more subjects the
better’. So, we introduce additional subjects to make up another 20 credits or so in order to meet MQA
802 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

requirements. Now, what happens when students pass the subjects validated by the collaborative partner
but fail the additional MQA ones? Do we give the students their degrees or not? It is a real dilemma … It’s
like you have ‘one country, two systems’!”

Fred echoed similar frustrations and added that the challenges he faced were not just the differ-
ences between MQA’s and QAA’s quality assurance frameworks but also differences in how
Malaysian and British HEIs operate:

“The dual degree has to follow our academic regulations and academic structure (but) another difference
is in the way we deliver the programme which is by semester whereas ‘British University’ delivers it over
terms. We have three semesters and they have two terms in a year. It’s quite complex.”

Fred suggested the differences and gaps between his Malaysian institution and British partner
could be reduced if his British counterparts understood situations in Malaysia better. Somewhat
frustrated, he complained, “They have to understand the local market. And the challenge in under-
standing is either because they don’t want to understand or because they are not exposed to our
situations.” Molly also saw the gaps between her Malaysian and British HEIs in terms of what the
former can do in curriculum making and what is expected by the latter. However, she was prag-
matic about these gaps:

“We know the gaps between ‘British University’ and our institution. We are realistic and pragmatic about
it. It is fortunate for curriculum development that we have a partner like ‘British University’ which requires
certain standards and we all have to meet those standards.”

Differences in cultures and expectations

Molly and Fred have each worked for about five years in building dual degree programmes with
their counterparts from the British HEIs. Their narratives reveal differences in cultures and expec-
tations between Malaysian curriculum writers and their British counterparts. Fred described work-
ing with his British counterparts to be ‘just as difficult’ as working out the differences between
MQA’s and QAA’s requirements. Fred described the people at the British HEI as ‘difficult’ and
‘uncooperative’. He admitted that there was expectation on his and his local colleagues’ part that
the ‘more established’ British institution should offer more help to its ‘less established’ Malaysian
partner. Instead, he experienced the opposite, encountering difficulty in making communication
and soliciting responses from his counterparts at the British HEI. Fred used the metaphor of ‘David
and Goliath’ to describe how he perceived his work relationship with his British counterparts to be:

“Some of the work, especially at the early stages, was very tumultuous and very turbulent. It was like
David dealing with Goliath. Over here, we’re all the ‘David’, you know. The Goliath is with the management
school at ‘British University’. Probably, not many people there have ever heard of this ‘little David’ in
Southeast Asia. So, sometimes there are different levels of understanding and sometimes because they
don’t want to know … It was really very condescending initially. There are bad days when I get very nasty
emails. It was very much a master-servant type of relationship. But over the years, things sort of get better,
or at least people are trying to make it better. It’s like a marriage, you know, and there are ups and downs
but overall you stick to it. That’s my experience.”

Molly also recalled situations where the academics at her Malaysian and British HEIs did not see
‘eye-to-eye’. In Molly’s experience, Malaysian academics tend to ‘over-teach’ and ‘spoon-feed’
students which is contrary to the British partner’s preference for students to be more independent,
Cheng 803

inquisitive, and resourceful. There were instances when her local academic colleagues were criti-
cized for too much ‘chalk-and-talk’ and ‘rolling out facts’ to students and for not doing enough in
questioning and interacting with students. Molly referenced these disagreements to differences
between the Eastern and Western cultures of learning and upbringing as she stressed that the maxim
“East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” is changing with technology and
internationalization of education:

“It’s the way (our) young ones are brought up and that’s why the kids from the West are more inquisitive
than ours in the Asian context. In the Asian context, it is always about studying, don’t ask questions, and
your elders know best. But in the West, they go to the other end of questioning everything. So, it’s really
about changing how we think.”

The curriculum making work between curriculum writers at both Malaysian and British HEIs is
tensioned by such differences in cultures and expectations and this can have impact on what
becomes their dual degree.

Malaysian–British curriculum makings and meanings

Whilst there are similarities between Molly’s and Fred’s accounts of how they understand the dual
degree curriculum making process and their sense of working in the Malaysian and British higher
education spaces, there are also differences which can be attributed to their dissimilar personal and
professional backgrounds. Molly’s responses showed her to be better at handling differences
between her Malaysian and British HEIs probably because of her prior dealings with supra-national
agencies like the World Bank and UNESCO. Importantly, both curriculum writers’ narratives tell
us that the Malaysian–British dual curriculum making space is a dilemmatic and unequal one, and
that the gaps in it are real. Although the newly formed Malaysian private universities do not want
to wean-off their ties with British institutions, due to the positive perceptions and branding associ-
ated with British higher education, they are mandated by Malaysian laws to build their own home-
grown programmes and cease offering their foreign partners’ curricula. In performing the latter,
they have to grapple with the ‘what’s’ and ‘how’s’ of curriculum making as they work on ‘bridging
the gaps’ in making their Malaysian–British dual degrees.
But the local curriculum writers struggle with the differences between the Malaysian and British
education systems. They confront contradictions and gaps in Malaysian and British curriculum
expectations and what the MQA and QAA want in quality assurance (i.e. ‘governing’), and how the
HEI partners and curriculum writers understand these differences. These contradictions and gaps
have implications that inform the knowing and doing of curriculum making and how different
ways of ‘experiencing’ higher education spaces get translated into cross-border knowledge build-
ing work that makes the dual degree programmes. Similarly, there are ‘gaps’ in work cultures and
expectations between the Malaysian curriculum writers and their British counterparts, which in
turn produce conflict and tension in the process of curriculum making. As such, the cross-border
partnerships between people in Malaysian and British HEIs, together with their respective national
governance requirements related to offshore programmes, fabricate a ‘new space’ of higher educa-
tion through the ‘intersectional’ space of Malaysian–British dual degree curriculum making.
Molly calls this space ‘one country, two systems’. It is arguably a ‘de-nationalized’ space formed
by local/national and global/international forces working in opposition (Sassen, 2003, 2005), and
it is a space with ‘gaps’, ‘disconnects’, and ‘discontinuities’ (Sassen, 2003: 169). The curriculum
writers’ responses reveal how these gaps emerge in-between ways of ‘governing’ education (e.g.
policies, regulations, and standards) and ways of ‘experiencing’ education (e.g. work cultures,
804 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

expectations, and traditions), and how they produce particular conflicts and struggles that require
new ways of examining and understanding them.
These gaps and conflicts in the ‘de-nationalized’ dual degree curriculum space in that they are
not solely Western (i.e. European) or Eastern (i.e. Asian) are ‘new’. Instead, the curriculum writers
recognize and work through the blurring boundaries between what is ‘Malaysian/national’ and
what is ‘British/international’ in this so called ‘local’, in-country, space of higher education. The
fact that conflicts and dilemmas can occur in this Malaysian–British curriculum space where dif-
ferent cultures, traditions, and expectations are at play is not new. Rizvi (2011), in his discourse on
‘emergent transnationalism’, had similarly described the intersectionality between different cul-
tures as a ‘de-territorialized’ and ‘transnational’ space and explained the contradictions and dilem-
mas experienced in it as due to the cultural diversity and networked affiliations of that space.

A national, international or transnational higher education space?

This research suggests the cultural character of the Malaysian–British dual degree curriculum is a
complex mix of national, international, and transnational practices. The ‘national-ness’ of the dual
degree curriculum rests on compliance to local or MQA requirements. But both curriculum writers
appreciated how that compliance was affected by the cross-border and cross-cultural elements in their
work relationships that produced an ‘international-ness’ in their dual degree programmes. As Molly
noted, this internationalization of curriculum making process was “not from what is promised on
paper but from people working together collaboratively and side by side.” Likewise, Fred empha-
sized that internationalization of his dual degree programme was about him and his British counter-
parts coming to “better understand each other and their environments.” These findings indicate that
people understand and respond to curriculum making in ways that depend on their personal biogra-
phies and cultural dispositions (Green, 2003; Pinar, 2004). But as they pursue and sustain linkages
and exchanges between institutions across and beyond borders, they also contribute to the ‘transna-
tionalism’ of the Malaysian–British curriculum and higher education space (Vertovec, 2009).
Britain’s colonial influence affects the making of Malaysian–British dual degrees but is not a
sufficient explanation of these curriculum making processes. Molly’s and Fred’s accounts of their
curriculum making work with British counterparts involved feelings of being ‘unequal partners’
and the sense of being in ‘master and servant’ and ‘David and Goliath’ relationships. But they also
highlighted how their curriculum making looked beyond colonialism, playing out as something
different in the conflicted and dilemmatic Malaysian–British education space. For example, their
dual degree curricula are not mere ‘transplants’ from their British partner institutions but are
‘home-grown’ by locals (in-country) who work with validation and regulatory pressures at national
and supra-national scales.
These findings indicate that dual degree curriculum making does not just rest on two nation-
states’ ways of governing, but also on culturally diverse ways of experiencing and embodying
education. The emerging space of SEA higher education may have involved some form of policy
borrowing, but it is unfolding through the practices, rules, and ideas about education carried by
people with different Asian and European backgrounds and dissimilar life histories. As such, I
argue that curriculum making processes that produce Malaysian–British dual degree programmes
also produce a space of higher education that is neither strictly national nor international in char-
acter but, rather, a novel intersectional educational space where ‘Europeanization’ and ‘transna-
tionalism’ shape ways of knowing and doing higher education in Malaysia.

Acknowledgements
The data used in this paper were collected as part of the author’s PhD research project. The author wishes to
thank the participants for their responses and supervisors for their inputs.
Cheng 805

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding
The study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.

Notes
  1. The eleven countries making up Southeast Asia are Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
  2. Professional studies included accounting and secretarial certification by British bodies like the City
and Guilds, London Chamber of Commerce and Industries, and Association of Chartered and Certified
Accountants, and technical qualifications by the Engineering Council of UK.
  3. Although there are differences in the meanings of the terms cross-border, transnational, and offshore, in
practice, they are used interchangeably; transnational education has gained meaning and popular use as
the terminology for movement of academic programmes and providers between countries (Huang, 2007:
424; Knight, 2016: 36).
  4. Europeanization is understood as a process of construction, diffusion, and institutionalization of formal
and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, shared beliefs, and norms, or simply ‘ways of
doing things’ (Featherstone and Radaelli, 2003: 30).
  5. The joint degree programme awards only one certificate or qualification with the names of the local and
foreign institutions on the same certificate whilst the dual/double degree programme awards two sepa-
rate certificates/qualifications, that is, one from each partner institution (Knight, 2016: 44).
  6. European Union support to higher education in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations region (see
http://www.share-asean.eu/).
  7. Following Edward Said’s book Orientalism (1978) as one of the first to demonstrate some of the poten-
tial differences that the notion of representation came to have in cultural analyses.
  8. These higher education reforms were the result of government’s implementation of the Private Higher
Education and Institutions Act 1996 which is often cited as the watershed policy that brought about the
liberalization of higher education in Malaysia (Lee, 1999; Tan, 2002).
  9. For anonymity, the British universities partnering with Malaysian Higher Education Institutions in the
dual degree programmes are not named in this paper; ‘British University’ is used when referring to the
actual names of the universities in the narratives.
10. MQA is an acronym for Malaysian Qualifications Agency, which is Malaysia’s national accreditation
board for academic and professional qualifications from certificate to postgraduate degree levels; the
MQA comes under the auspices of the Malaysian Ministry of Education.

References
Bryman A (2012) Social Research Methods. 4th edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Clifford J (1997) Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2007) Research Methods in Education. 6th edition. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Da Silva TT (1999) The poetics and politics of curriculum as representation. Pedagogy, Culture and Society
7(1): 7–33.
Davis B and Sumara D (2010) Curriculum and constructivism. In: Peterson P, Baker E and McGaw B (eds)
International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd, pp.488–493.
Featherstone K and Radaelli CM (eds) (2003) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Franklin B (1999) Review essay: The state of curriculum history. History of Education 28(4): 459–476.
Gough N (2004) A vision for transnational curriculum inquiry. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 1(1): 1–11.
806 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

Green B (2003) Curriculum inquiry in Australia: Toward a genealogy of the curriculum field. In: Pinar WF
(ed.) International Handbook of Curriculum Research. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
pp.123–141.
Grumet MR (1981) Restitution and reconstruction of educational experience: An autobiographical method for
curriculum theory. In: Lawn M and Barton L (eds) Rethinking Curriculum Studies: A Radical Approach.
London, UK: Croom Helm, pp.115–130.
Huang F (2007) Internationalisation of higher education in the developing and emerging countries: A focus on
transnational higher education in Asia. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4): 421–432.
Jayasuriya K (2000) Authoritarian liberalism, governance and the emergence of the regulatory state in post-
crisis East Asia. In: Beeson M, Jayasuriya K, Kim HR, et al. (eds) Politics and Markets in the Wake of
the Asian Crisis. London, UK: Routledge, pp.315–330.
Jayasuriya K (2003) Introduction: Governing the Asia Pacific – beyond the ‘New Regionalism’. Third World
Quarterly 24(2): 199–215.
Jayasuriya K (2010) Learning by the market: Regulatory regionalism, Bologna, and accountability communi-
ties. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8(1): 7–22.
Kemmis S (1993) Curriculum as text. In: Green B (ed.) Curriculum, Technology and Textual Practice.
Geelong, Australia: Deakin University, pp.35–52.
Knight J (2008a) Internationalisation of higher education in the 21st century: Concepts, rationales, strate-
gies and issues. In: Sarjit K, Morshidi S and Norzaini A (eds) Globalisation and Internationalisation
of Higher Education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia and National
Higher Education Research Institute, pp.22–50.
Knight J (2008b) Joint and double degree programmes: Vexing questions and issues. London: The Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education, pp.2–24. Available at: http://ecahe.eu/w/images/c/cc/Joint_and_double
_degree_programmes_-_vexing_questions_and_issues_-_september_2008.pdf (accessed 15 August
2016).
Knight J (2012) Internationalization: Three Generations of Crossborder Higher Education. Occasional
Publication 38. India International Centre, New Delhi, India. Available at: http://www.iicdelhi.
nic.in/ContentAttachments/Publications/DiaryFiles/53511July92012_IIC%20Occasional%20
Publication%2038.pdf (accessed 10 October 2016).
Knight J (2016) Transnational education remodeled: Toward a common TNE framework and definitions.
Journal of Studies in International Education 20(2): 34–47.
Knight J and Morshidi S (2011) The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs: Focus on
Malaysia. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Education Planning
62(5): 593–606.
Kress G (1996) Internationalisation and globalisation: Rethinking a curriculum of communication.
Comparative Education 32(2): 185–196.
Lawn M (2002) Borderless education: Imagining a European education space in a time of brands and net-
works. In: Novoa A and Lawn M (eds) Fabricating Europe: The Formation of an Educational Space.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.19–31.
Lee MNN (1999) Corporatization, privatization, and internationalization of higher education in Malaysia.
In: Philip G. Altbach (ed.) Private Prometheus: Private Higher Education and Development in the 21st
Century. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, pp.137–159.
McBurnie G and Ziguras C (2001) The regulation of transnational higher education in southeast Asia: Case
studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education 42(1): 85–105.
Mok KH (2010) When state centralism meets neo-liberalism: Managing university governance change in
Singapore and Malaysia. Higher Education 60(4): 419–440.
Morshidi S (2009) Trends in international higher education and regionalism: Issues and challenges for
Malaysia. In: Kuroda K (ed.) Education and Asian Regional Integration Research Group, GIARI.
Penang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia, pp.2–20.
Morshidi S (2012) Harmonising Higher Education Systems in Southeast Asia: Malaysia’s Perspective. Paper
presented at the International Higher Education Conference on "Transnational education – Opportunities
Cheng 807

and challenges in the 21st century: Malaysian and European perspectives", Kuala Lumpur Convention
Centre. Available at: http://www.nottingham.edu.my/Myeulink/documents/conference-invitationup-
dated.pdf (accessed ).
Morshidi S, Norzaini A and Abu Bakar A (2014) Towards harmonization of higher education in Southeast
Asia: Malaysia’s perspective. Available at: https://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/towards-
harmonization-of-higher-education-in-southeast-asia-malaysias-perspective/ (last accessed 16 August
2016).
Novoa A and Lawn M (2002) Fabricating Europe: The formation of an education space. In: Novoa A and
Lawn M (eds) Fabricating Europe: The Formation of an Education Space. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer, pp.1–13.
Pinar WF (2004) What is Curriculum Theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pinar WF and Grumet MR (1976) Toward a Poor Curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Pinar WF, Reynolds WM, Slattery P, et al. (1995) Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study
of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Rizvi F (2007) Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies 7(3):
256–263.
Rizvi F (2011) Experiences of cultural diversity in the context of an emergent transnationalism. European
Educational Research Journal 10(2): 180–188.
Robertson S (2007) Regionalism, ‘Europe/Asia’ and Higher Education. The Centre for Globalisation,
Education and Societies, Bristol University. Available at: https://susanleerobertson.files.wordpress.
com/2009/10/2007-asem-pfie.pdf (accessed 28 April 2016).
Robertson S (2008) ‘Europe/Asia’ regionalism, higher education and the production of world order. Policy
Futures in Education 6(6): 718–729.
Robertson S (2010) The EU, ’regulatory state regionalism’ and new modes of higher education governance.
Globalisation, Societies and Education 8(1): 23–37.
Robertson S, Bonal X and Dale R (2002) GATS and the education service industry: The politics of scale and
global reterritorialization. Comparative Education Review46(4): 472–495.
Said E (1978) Orientalism. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Sarjit K, Morshidi S and Norzaini A (eds) (2008) Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education
in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia and National Higher Education
Research Institute.
Sassen S (2003) Globalization or denationalization? Review of International Political Economy 10(1):
1–22.
Sassen S (2005) When national territory is home to the global: Old borders to novel borderings. New Political
Economy 10(4): 523–541.
Seddon T (1989) Curriculum history: A map of key issues. Curriculum Perspectives 9(4): 1–16.
Seddon T (2014) Making educational spaces through boundary work: Territorialisation and ‘boundarying’.
Globalisation, Societies and Education 12(1): 1–22.
Singh M, Rizvi F and Shrestha M (2007) Student mobility and the spatial production of cosmopolitan identi-
ties. In: Gulson K and Symes C (eds) Spatial Theories of Education: Policy and Geography Matters.
New York, NY: Routledge, pp.195–214.
Smith MP (2001) Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Tan AM (2002) Malaysian Private Higher Education: Globalisation, Privatisation, Transformation and
Marketplaces. London, UK: Asean Academic Press.
Tham SY and Kam AJ Y (2008) Internationalising higher education: Comparing the challenges of different
higher education institutions in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 28(4): 353–367.
UNESCO (2000) Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education. Bucharest, Romania:
UNESCO.
Vertovec S (2009) Transnationalism (Key Ideas). New York, NY: Routledge.
Welch A (2007) Blurred vision?: Public and private higher education in Indonesia. Higher Education 54(5):
665–687.
808 European Educational Research Journal 17(6)

Welch A (2012) The limits of regionalism in Indonesia higher education. Asian Education and Development
Studies 1(1): 24–42.
Welch A (2013) Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Blurring Borders, Changing Balance. London, UK:
Routledge.
Yeoh BSA, Willis KD and Abdul-Khader FSM (2003) Transnationalism and its edges. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 26(2): 207–217.
Ziguras C (2003) The impact of the GATS on transnational tertiary education: Comparing experiences of
New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. Australian Educational Researcher 30(3): 89–109.
Ziguras C and McBurnie G (2008) The impact of trade liberalization on transnational education. In: Dunn L
and Wallace M (eds) Teaching in Transnational Higher Education: Enhancing Learning for Offshore
International Students. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.3–13.

Author biography
Mien Cheng is pursuing PhD studies at the Faculty of Education in Monash University, Australia. Her research
interests are in transnational education reforms, education in Southeast Asia, and curriculum inquiry.