Essi Ryymin & Sanna Ryökkynen
Transnational education reform programs, whether launched by the training providers, government agencies, or public foundations, must prioritise social responsibility. This means actively engaging stakeholders and ensuring equal participation in development.
The goal of this article is to discuss the active involvement of stakeholders in transnational education reform projects. We will start by defining the key concepts and reviewing previous research and policy recommendations.
Then, we propose a novel perspective on stakeholder engagement, drawing on the recognition theories of Honneth (1995) and Taylor (1994). This approach may offer us a more holistic, humanised and philosophical understanding of stakeholder cooperation.
In addition to theoretical considerations, the text is influenced by our own practical experiences of managing transnational education reform projects (see e.g., Corado & Ryymin, 2019; Ryymin et al., 2020), developing approaches for global cooperation (Ryymin, 2018; Ryymin et al., 2018) and working with vulnerable groups in education reforms (Ryökkynen et al., 2020; Ryökkynen, 2023).
What do we mean by transnational education reform in this article?
Transnational education is described as all types of higher education study programs or educational services in which the learners are in a country different from the one where the country offering its qualifications, awarding or leading the initiative, is based. It can include a wide range of modalities, in a continuum from face-to-face to hybrid and distance learning. (UNESCO & OECD, 2005; UNESCO & Council of Europe, 2009; Knight, 2016; IHCE, 2023; British Council, 2023.)
Knight (2016) reminds us that there is still confusion surrounding the use of this term. Countries use terms that are appropriate to their domestic higher education, and therefore, there is a need for continued discussion of the term in the global context.
In this article, we apply the term transnational education reform to refer to partnership projects between education institutions and governments, or international organisations, such as development finance institutions. Partnerships are based on shared goals for education reform, and capacity building. The reform project may take several years, but the ultimate goal is for local actors to continue and sustain the reformed education, and for the partners and funding institutions to draw from it.
Perspectives on the development of transnational teaching and learning
Transnational education reform projects are powerful facilitators of intercultural dialogue (ICD) and stakeholder engagement. Intercultural dialogue is defined as an open and respectful exchange of views between individuals or groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds and heritage, based on mutual understanding and respect. Furthermore, it is crucial that all participants are allowed to develop their skills and knowledge through projects that facilitate interaction without compromising their personal or collective identity. (Council of Europe, 2008; UNESCO, 2009; 2020.)
Wang (2016) has reflected on the concept of ICD within the context of transnational teaching and learning and created a practice-based framework for fostering a context-sensitive approach to educational development. The framework guides reforms towards implementing pedagogy sensitive to cultural differences, contextualising the curriculum, designing assessments specific to the context, and creating a supportive learning environment. Also, project stakeholders have an important role in promoting equity and inclusion in development, and in ensuring that all educational practices are conducted with integrity and transparency.
Who are the stakeholders in transnational education reform projects?
In this article, we define stakeholders of transnational education reforms by following the examples of previous research and interventions (see e.g., Bolton & Nie, 2010; Janmaat et al., 2016; Nthontho, 2017; Yaro et al. 2017; Healey, 2023). Teachers and educators are crucial to the co-creation and implementation of new curricula, while school administrators and local education authorities ensure adaptation to local needs and regulations. National government ministries provide strategic direction, resources, and monitoring. International financial institutions contribute funding and advice.
The primary beneficiaries are the students, who benefit from the implementation of renewed education at the local level. Communities support students and advocate for new opportunities, whereas research partners may collaborate on action and impact research for measuring the outcomes and tracking the pedagogical change. This article does not address other actors and networks due to the limited scope of the topic.
The dark side of stakeholder engagement
Kujala and colleagues (2022) have conducted a literature review of 90 articles in leading academic journals on stakeholder engagement in the societal, business and environmental development sectors. The researchers offer an inclusive definition of stakeholder engagement as follows: “Stakeholder engagement refers to the aims, activities, and impacts of stakeholder relations in a moral, strategic, and pragmatic manner” (Kujala & al., 2022; 1139).
Although previous research has highlighted the positive impact of stakeholder engagement on the attainment of outcomes, the process of engaging with affected parties has been shown to present a significant challenge, characterised by complexity and difficulty. Initiating change requires more than simply disseminating information.
There can also be serious problems in stakeholder engagement that remain easily silent. They can be due to a lack of contextual awareness, mistakes, misalignment, or misconduct, which have adverse effects on development. The researchers call this “the dark side of stakeholder engagement” (Kujala & al., 2022 pp.1163-1168). To address these issues, the researchers suggest discussing the humanised philosophy of stakeholder engagement (see also Winkler et al., 2019). This involves moving away from an exclusive focus on short-term economic outcomes towards sustainable societal value and encompassing a more holistic approach to stakeholders in the process.
Recognition in stakeholder engagement in transnational education reform
Honneth’s (1995) and Taylor’s (1994) theories of recognition explore social relationships through the lens of identity, well-being and engagement. The theories posit that recognition and acceptance from others shape a person’s identity and self-worth. At the societal level, recognition involves having equal rights to be a member of society. In community settings, self-esteem is reinforced when individuals are acknowledged for their skills and contributions in their professional environments.
According to Taylor, recognition is essentially connected to the concept of social imaginaries. This refers to the collective imagination and understanding of societal norms and futures, encompassing practices, spaces, and other means that facilitate collective negotiations about society. In our previous publications, we have opened the role of recognition in the process of reimagining vocational education and training (VET) and its future developments. (See e.g., Ryymin & Ryökkynen, 2024.) It seems that this philosophical approach helps to identify areas of educational cooperation that may otherwise be overshadowed. To facilitate genuine change, it is essential to understand people’s motivation, capacity, and access to drive change.
Working to build positive relationships means working
In exploring the implications of recognition in the context of transnational education reform, we recommend the following suggestions for further consideration. Stakeholders at the helm of education reform play a pivotal role in shaping the future of education. It is, therefore, crucial that they receive a high level of appreciation for their efforts and that their voices are heard. We need to build positive relationships with care and cultural sensitivity, avoiding the assumption that things will fall into place without effort.
We must create open spaces and practices that facilitate collective reflection and negotiation with and among stakeholders. Accordingly, when cooperating with vulnerable groups, we must be mindful of how the provided spaces, modes of interaction, technologies, and social categories (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, economic status, etc.) may hinder, enable, or impact discourse. Ensuring that stakeholders have equal opportunities to participate is crucial, and this involves addressing systemic barriers like discrimination and socio-economic inequalities.
Hands-on practices for shaping the future
Stakeholder engagement should include practical methods for collaborative exercises to design and demonstrate desirable visions of the future of education. This may entail the use of hands-on tools such as scenario planning, strategic foresight sessions, and participatory design workshops, which encourage stakeholders to share and co-create their perspectives and ideas. It is essential to value stakeholders’ contributions and acknowledge their knowledge of their context and culture. Facilitating the exchange of insights and innovations on open platforms can enhance this.
Stakeholders can also participate in piloting and evaluation, for example, by contributing to teaching, learning or management projects that are responsive to local educational needs and aspirations. This involvement will help stakeholders observe the direct impact of the reform process and foster a sense of recognition, ownership, and commitment. In terms of the objectives of the reform, all this strengthens the responsibility, the sustainability and the relevance to a real demand for action, as well as the individual and social well-being of the participants.
Author information:
Essi Ryymin, Principal Research Scientist, Ph.D., Häme University of Applied Sciences, HAMK Edu Research Unit, essi.ryymin(a)hamk.fi
Sanna Ryökkynen, Principal Research Scientist, Ph.D., Häme University of Applied Sciences, School of Professional Teacher Education, sanna.ryokkynen(a)hamk.fi
References
British Council. 2023. The shape of things to come: The evolution of transnational education: Data, definitions, opportunities and impacts analysis. Retrieved 17, July 2024, from http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/the_shape_of_things_to_come_2.pdf.
Bolton, D. & Nie, R. U. I. 2010. Creating value in transnational higher education: The role of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 701–714.
Corado, C. & Ryymin, E. 2019. Building Quality Education and Sustainable Future in Finnish-Brazilian Teacher Education. Finnish Journal of Professional and Vocational Education, Digital Special Edition 20(5), 98-104. Retrieved https://journal.fi/akakk/article/view/84834.
Council of Europe. 2008. White paper on intercultural dialogue. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved 17, July 2024 from https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/whitepaper_interculturaldialogue_2_EN.asp.
Healey, N. M. 2023. Transnational education: The importance of aligning stakeholders’ motivations with the form of cross‐border educational service delivery. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(1), 83-101.
Honneth, A. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Polity Press.
IHEC (International Higher Education Commission). 2023. Transnational education report (IHEC_TNE-report_13_12_2023). The UK Government, supported by Oxford International Education Group. Retrieved 17, July 2024 from https://ihecommission.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IHEC_TNE-report_13_12_2023.pdf.
Janmaat, G., McCowan, T. & Rao, N. 2016. Different stakeholders in education. Compare: a journal of comparative and international education, 46(2), 169-171.
Knight, J. 2016. Transnational education remodeled: Toward a common TNE framework and definitions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 34–47.
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A. & Laude, D. 2022. Stakeholder engagement: past, present and future. Business & Society, 61 (5), doi: 1136-1196. 10.1177/00076503211066595
Nthontho, M. 2017. Children as stakeholders in education: Does their voice matter? South African Journal of Childhood Education, 7(1), 1–7.
Ryymin, E. 2018. Dialogue, Data, Design – How Global Education Research and Development Drives Educational Innovations. HAMK Unlimited Journal 19.11.2018. Retrieved July 17, 2024, from https://unlimited.hamk.fi/ammatillinen-osaaminen-ja-opetus/dialogue-data-design.
Ryymin, E., Corado, C., Friman, M., Majuri, M. & Viskari, M. 2018. Leading research and development for educational innovations. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação, Araraquara, 13, Especial 1, Maio (2018), 324-336. doi: https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.nesp1.v13.2018.
Ryymin, E., Lilja, T., Tuominen, P., Niskanen, N., Corporan, M. & Paredes Crousset, J. R. 2020. Co-Design of Transnational Education between the Dominican Republic and Finland. HAMK Unlimited Journal 29.10. 2020. Retrieved 17, July 2024, from https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2020102387573.
Ryymin, E. & Ryökkynen, S. 2024. New Perspectives on the Social Wellbeing of Vocational Students from Social Imaginaries and Recognition. EfVET Magazine, 2, 16-17.
Ryökkynen, S. 2023. “They did not give up on me.” Vocational students’ perceptions of the special support in their studying. Helsinki Studies in Education 151. University of Helsinki. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved 29, July 2024, from https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/350680.
Ryökkynen, S., Pirttimaa, R. & Kontu, E. 2020. Interaction between students and class teachers in Vocational Education and Training: ‘Safety distance is needed.’ Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 9(2), 156-174. doi: https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.1992156.
Taylor, C. 1994. The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton University Press.
UNESCO & OECD. 2005. Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education. Retrieved 31, July 2024, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000143349.
UNESCO. (2009). UNESCO World Report Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. Paris: United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. Retrieved 24, July 2024, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001847/184755e.pdf.
UNESCO & Council of Europe. 200). Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training. Retrieved 24, July 2024, from https://uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/keydocuments/LifelongLearning/en/european-union-2009-abstract-lll-strategy.pdf.
UNESCO. (2020). Measuring Intercultural Dialogue. A conceptual and technical framework. Institute for Economics & Peace. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373442.
Wang, T. 2016. Intercultural dialogue framework for transnational teaching and learning. In Bista, K. & Foster, C. (Eds.). Campus support services, programs, and policies for international students (pp. 223-242). Information Science Reference. doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9752-2.ch012.
Wilkins, S. & Juusola, K. (2018). Transnational Education. In: Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_249-1.
Winkler, A. L. P., Brown, J. A. & Finegold, D. L. 2019. Employees as Conduits for Effective Stakeholder Engagement: An Example from B Corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 913–936.
Yaro, I., Arshad, R. & Salleh, D. 2017. Relevance of stakeholders in policy implementation. Journal of Public Management Research, 3(1), 25–2.
Vastaa