Ranking Transnational Higher Education: Interpreting the QRNW Global Ranking of Transnational Universities (GRTU) 2027 Through Capital, Global Hierarchy, and Institutional Isomorphism

The publication of the QRNW Global Ranking of Transnational Universities (GRTU) 2027 offers a timely opportunity to examine how cross-border higher education is being categorized, valued, and compared in a period marked by intensified global competition, digital expansion, and reputational uncertainty. QRNW presents GRTU as a specialized ranking focused on institutions that operate across borders through integrated academic structures rather than through a purely domestic model. Publicly available descriptions of the ranking emphasize multi-location presence, recognized academic activity, flexible delivery, and a minimum operational history, while institutional profile pages note that the evaluation is based on publicly available data and is specific to transnational education rather than overall academic performance.

This article uses the release of GRTU 2027 as a case through which to analyze broader developments in international higher education. It argues that specialized rankings of transnational universities are not only descriptive instruments. They are also institutional technologies that shape how legitimacy is distributed, how strategic identity is performed, and how institutions narrate their place in the global education field. The article employs three theoretical lenses: Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and field, world-systems theory, and neo-institutional theory with particular attention to institutional isomorphism. These frameworks help explain why universities increasingly seek recognition not only for research performance or prestige, but also for mobility, scalability, network structure, and symbolic comparability.

Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative interpretive case-study design based on document analysis. The article examines the published framing of GRTU 2027, selected institutional profiles associated with the ranking, and a wider body of scholarly literature on cross-border higher education, quality assurance, and global academic competition. The analysis does not attempt to verify every institutional claim or to judge whether a particular institution is “better” than another. Instead, it asks a different question: what does the existence and public reception of a ranking like GRTU reveal about the changing organizational logic of universities in a transnational era?

The findings suggest five major developments. First, transnational presence itself is becoming a recognized source of symbolic value. Second, rankings increasingly reward organizational form in addition to conventional academic output. Third, cross-border legitimacy depends on a mix of regulatory trust, brand visibility, and network coherence. Fourth, rankings can encourage convergence among institutions that wish to appear internationally credible. Fifth, specialized rankings may open space for institutions that are important in practice but underrepresented in older ranking models. At the same time, such rankings also raise concerns about definitional clarity, indicator design, and the risk that visibility may sometimes outrun deeper measures of educational substance.

The article concludes that GRTU 2027 should be understood less as a final statement on excellence and more as evidence of an important transition in higher education. As universities expand through branch campuses, hybrid delivery, multi-jurisdictional operations, and global partnership models, evaluative systems will increasingly adapt to these realities. The challenge for the future is not whether rankings should exist, but how they can evolve in a way that captures complexity without reducing academic life to reputational shorthand.

Introduction

Higher education is no longer organized only within national borders. Universities now operate through branch campuses, franchised programs, dual awards, online-offline delivery systems, mobility pathways, and international networks of teaching and support. In many parts of the world, especially where governments aim to build education hubs or attract global talent, cross-border higher education has moved from the margins to the center of institutional strategy. Scholarly work has long described this shift through terms such as transnational education, cross-border higher education, and international branch campus development. The literature also shows that such growth creates new questions around quality assurance, recognition, governance, and institutional identity.

In this environment, rankings play a major role. They reduce complexity, produce visibility, and help institutions communicate value to students, regulators, partners, and employers. Traditional global rankings have often favored research intensity, bibliometric performance, prestige, selectivity, and long-established institutional reputation. These approaches have generated influence, but they have also left important parts of the international higher education landscape only partially visible. Institutions that operate across several countries, or that combine physical campuses with strong digital structures, may not fit neatly into the assumptions of older ranking systems. A university can be globally active, organizationally sophisticated, and socially influential without matching the classic profile of a large research university.

The QRNW Global Ranking of Transnational Universities (GRTU) 2027 enters this space as a specialized attempt to rank institutions whose defining feature is cross-border operation through integrated academic models. QRNW’s own description presents GRTU as a ranking for universities with a strong transnational presence, combining campuses in more than one jurisdiction with flexible delivery modes and a demonstrated institutional history. Institutional profile pages attached to the ranking clarify that the exercise is contextual, based on publicly available information, and not intended as a complete judgment of every possible dimension of academic performance.

This makes GRTU 2027 analytically useful. Whether one celebrates it, questions it, or treats it cautiously, its publication signals that transnational organization has become important enough to justify a separate evaluative category. That is a significant development. It suggests that higher education is being reclassified not only by discipline, prestige, or research strength, but also by geography, network structure, and the capacity to sustain legitimacy across borders.

The purpose of this article is therefore not to advertise the ranking, nor to reject it as irrelevant. The aim is more academic and interpretive. The article asks what a ranking like GRTU 2027 tells us about the transformation of global higher education. More specifically, it asks three questions. First, why are transnational universities becoming more visible as a distinct institutional category? Second, how do rankings contribute to the production of legitimacy in this field? Third, what can classic social theory tell us about why such rankings matter?

To answer these questions, the article uses three theoretical traditions. Bourdieu helps explain how rankings distribute symbolic capital and reshape the field of higher education competition. World-systems theory helps situate transnational universities within a global hierarchy of centers, semi-peripheries, and peripheries. Institutional isomorphism helps explain why organizations become similar when faced with shared expectations, uncertain environments, and pressure for legitimacy. Together, these lenses make it possible to move beyond simple praise or criticism and toward a deeper reading of what rankings do in practice.

The central argument of the article is that GRTU 2027 reflects a broader restructuring of the higher education field. Universities are increasingly judged not only by what they produce academically, but by how they travel institutionally across borders, how they stabilize credibility in multiple jurisdictions, and how successfully they convert international presence into recognizable value. Rankings of transnational universities therefore reveal a shift in what counts as institutional strength in the twenty-first century.

Background: Bourdieu, World-Systems Theory, and Institutional Isomorphism

Bourdieu: Field, Capital, and Symbolic Struggle

Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology is especially useful for understanding rankings because it treats social life as a struggle within fields. A field is a structured space where actors compete for resources, recognition, and legitimacy. Higher education is one such field. Universities do not only educate students; they also compete for status, prestige, funding, visibility, and authority. In this field, different forms of capital matter: economic capital, social capital, cultural capital, and symbolic capital.

Rankings are deeply linked to symbolic capital. They convert complex institutional histories into visible signs of worth. To be ranked is not simply to be measured. It is to be placed within a hierarchy that others may treat as meaningful. Ranking positions can then be transformed into marketing language, partnership value, student trust, and policy influence. Symbolic capital is particularly powerful because it appears legitimate. Once recognized publicly, it may be treated as evidence of quality even when the underlying indicators remain contested.

From a Bourdieusian perspective, GRTU 2027 can be read as a mechanism that constructs a specific subfield within global higher education: the field of transnational institutional competition. In this subfield, the valued forms of capital are not identical to those rewarded in conventional research rankings. Here, institutional mobility, multi-campus structure, recognizable global footprint, and flexible delivery systems become important markers of position. The ranking thus helps define what is worth competing for.

Bourdieu also reminds us that categories are never neutral. When a ranking defines “transnational university,” it does not simply discover a pre-existing reality. It participates in producing that reality. Institutions may adjust their self-descriptions, strategic plans, communication styles, and expansion choices in response. In this sense, rankings are classificatory acts. They shape the game by shaping the categories through which the game is understood.

World-Systems Theory: Core, Semi-Periphery, and Educational Hierarchy

World-systems theory, especially in the tradition of Immanuel Wallerstein, views global social order as structured by unequal relationships between core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral zones. Although originally formulated in relation to capitalism and the world economy, the framework has been highly influential in the study of education and globalization. Universities are not outside this structure. Knowledge, prestige, accreditation power, research networks, and student flows are unevenly distributed across the world.

In higher education, institutions located in core regions often enjoy inherited prestige, stronger research infrastructure, broader recognition, and easier access to international audiences. Institutions in semi-peripheral and peripheral zones may be dynamic and innovative, but they often face challenges in converting local or regional achievement into globally recognized legitimacy. Rankings interact with this structure in complex ways. On one hand, they can reproduce hierarchy by rewarding institutions that already possess global visibility. On the other hand, specialized rankings can create alternative spaces for recognition, especially when they value organizational forms overlooked by mainstream systems.

The GRTU 2027 case is interesting because transnational education itself frequently crosses these world-system lines. A university may originate in a core country and operate campuses in semi-peripheral settings. Another may emerge from a semi-peripheral zone but build transnational pathways that expand its reach. Education hubs such as Dubai, Malaysia, Singapore, and other internationally oriented locations have been analyzed in the literature as spaces where global educational flows are reorganized rather than merely copied.

From this perspective, a ranking of transnational universities is also a map of global educational circulation. It reflects where capital, demand, regulation, and symbolic legitimacy meet. It tells us something about which institutional models can move effectively across the system, and which remain more territorially bounded.

Institutional Isomorphism: Why Universities Start to Look Alike

Neo-institutional theory, especially the work of DiMaggio and Powell, argues that organizations in the same field often become similar over time. This process, known as institutional isomorphism, occurs through three main mechanisms: coercive pressures, mimetic pressures, and normative pressures.

Coercive pressures come from regulation, law, and formal expectations. In cross-border higher education, these include host-country licensing rules, quality assurance frameworks, recognition requirements, and policy demands. Mimetic pressures arise under uncertainty. When the environment is complex and outcomes are hard to judge, organizations imitate those seen as successful or legitimate. Normative pressures emerge from professionalization, shared standards, expert communities, and common training backgrounds.

Higher education is highly vulnerable to all three. Universities respond to ministries, accreditation agencies, market competition, student expectations, and transnational policy frameworks. They also watch each other closely. When one model of international expansion becomes prestigious, others imitate it. When a particular language of quality, impact, employability, or innovation becomes dominant, institutions begin to adopt it.

A ranking such as GRTU 2027 can accelerate isomorphic processes. Once cross-border structure becomes rankable, institutions may seek to make themselves more legible to ranking criteria. They may standardize branding across campuses, emphasize integrated academic systems, document international presence more carefully, or restructure communication to signal coherence and global legitimacy. This does not necessarily mean the ranking is manipulative. It means that rankings are part of the environment through which organizations learn what counts as credible.

Method

This article uses a qualitative interpretive case-study approach. The object of analysis is not the internal decision-making of QRNW, nor the operational performance of any single university in the ranking. Instead, the article treats the publication of GRTU 2027 as an institutional text and a public event within the field of international higher education.

The method is based on three layers of document analysis.

First, the study examines public descriptions of QRNW and GRTU 2027, including the ranking overview and selected institutional profile pages. These sources are relevant because they define the category being ranked, describe the rationale of the exercise, and indicate the intended scope of evaluation. QRNW publicly describes itself as a European not-for-profit ranking association established in 2013 under ECLBS, and its materials emphasize benchmarking, transparency, and structured evaluation. The GRTU 2027 page explains that the ranking focuses on institutions operating across multiple countries through integrated academic models, while institutional profile pages note that the ranking is contextual and based on publicly available information.

Second, the study engages scholarly literature on cross-border higher education, branch campuses, internationalization, regulation, and quality assurance. This literature is used to situate GRTU 2027 within broader academic debates rather than to treat it as an isolated event. Of particular importance are studies showing that cross-border higher education has expanded through new institutional forms and that quality assurance in this space requires trust, cooperation, and regulatory coordination across jurisdictions.

Third, the article uses social theory as an interpretive framework. Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism are not used here as rigid models to be tested statistically. They are used heuristically to reveal patterns that a purely descriptive reading might miss.

The study follows a thematic analysis logic. After reviewing the materials, five analytical themes were identified: the rise of transnational presence as symbolic value; the ranking of organizational form; the fusion of quality and visibility; hierarchy and circulation in the global system; and convergence pressures in institutional strategy. These themes structure the analysis and findings sections.

This method has limitations. It does not provide quantitative validation of ranking indicators, nor does it include interviews with ranking designers, regulators, or institutional leaders. It also does not claim to settle whether any individual institution should occupy a specific position. The goal is interpretive depth, not metric verification. For a study of this kind, that limitation is acceptable because the question concerns meaning, function, and institutional consequences rather than technical scoring alone.

Analysis

1. Transnational Presence as a New Source of Symbolic Value

One of the most significant features of GRTU 2027 is that it treats transnationality itself as worthy of recognition. This is important because for many years internationalization was often treated as an additional feature of a university, not as the main basis of ranking. A university might have been praised for exchange agreements, international students, or collaborative research, but the dominant benchmarks still centered on research output, historical prestige, and national-level excellence.

GRTU 2027 reflects a change in this logic. It suggests that the organizational ability to function across countries is itself a meaningful institutional achievement. This includes running campuses or academic structures in multiple jurisdictions, maintaining consistency across borders, and combining physical and flexible delivery models. That shift mirrors broader changes in higher education demand. Students increasingly seek mobility, international recognition, hybrid access, and pathways that do not depend on relocating permanently to a single country.

From a Bourdieusian perspective, transnational presence becomes convertible capital. Geographic spread can produce social capital through network ties, cultural capital through exposure and multilingualism, and symbolic capital through public recognition. Once ranked, this presence becomes legible and marketable. It can be presented as evidence that an institution is globally active, adaptable, and relevant.

Yet there is also an important caution. Presence is not the same as substance. A university may operate in many locations but still differ greatly in quality, coherence, or academic depth across sites. The emergence of rankings like GRTU therefore shows a growing demand to compare transnational structures, but it also creates pressure to define what meaningful transnationality actually means.

2. Organizational Form Is Becoming Rankable

Traditional rankings often privilege outputs: research citations, faculty awards, employer reputation, or student-faculty ratios. GRTU appears to emphasize something slightly different: the organizational form of the university. In other words, how the institution is structured across borders becomes part of what is being assessed.

This matters because the architecture of contemporary higher education is changing. Many institutions no longer fit the image of a single national campus with clear territorial boundaries. Some are networked, some are platform-like, some operate through branch campuses, and others combine local regulatory anchors with international teaching and recruitment systems. In management terms, universities increasingly resemble complex multinational organizations rather than purely domestic public bodies.

This raises a theoretical question: what exactly is being recognized when a transnational university is ranked? The answer is not only academic output. It is also organizational coordination. Rankings of this kind may indirectly value governance capacity, brand integration, compliance across jurisdictions, digital infrastructure, and the ability to sustain a shared institutional identity across different legal and cultural settings.

Institutional theory helps here. In uncertain environments, organizations gain legitimacy when they are seen as coherent and governable. A transnational university that appears fragmented may struggle for trust. A transnational university that presents an integrated structure may gain symbolic advantage even before external audiences fully evaluate educational outcomes. Rankings can reinforce this by rewarding legibility. What can be clearly described, categorized, and communicated often becomes easier to value.

3. Quality and Visibility Are Becoming More Entangled

The literature on cross-border higher education repeatedly shows that quality assurance is central to transnational legitimacy. Cross-border provision involves risks: uneven standards, regulatory gaps, weak oversight, and ambiguity over who is responsible for what. Scholars have emphasized that trust, cooperation, and recognition across systems are essential if cross-border provision is to be credible.

At the same time, rankings are inherently public-facing devices. They are designed not only to assess but also to communicate. This means they often sit at the boundary between quality discourse and visibility discourse. The publication of GRTU 2027 shows this clearly. The ranking is framed as a benchmark for a growing segment of global higher education, but it also functions as a language of public recognition.

This dual role creates tension. On one side, rankings can increase transparency. They can help students, families, employers, and policymakers identify institutional models that matter in a changing educational landscape. On the other side, rankings may encourage institutions to optimize for visibility. If being seen as transnational becomes valuable, universities may invest more in impression management, site presentation, and symbolic coherence.

This is not necessarily dishonest. Public communication is part of institutional life. But the entanglement of quality and visibility means that rankings should be interpreted carefully. A well-designed ranking can illuminate. A poorly understood ranking can oversimplify. The issue is therefore not whether visibility is bad, but whether visibility is anchored in meaningful indicators and interpreted with appropriate caution.

4. GRTU as a Map of Global Educational Circulation

A world-systems reading helps show why GRTU 2027 matters beyond the ranking itself. The listed institutions reflect patterns of movement within global higher education: established universities operating abroad, specialized schools building international footprints, and institutions positioned in global education hubs or globally connected urban centers.

This suggests that the ranking is not just a list. It is also a map of where global higher education is currently flowing. It shows which institutions have converted geography into strategy. It highlights how certain cities and regions have become nodes in transnational educational networks. It also reveals that higher education competition is increasingly tied to logistics, mobility, branding, and regulatory navigation, not only to domestic academic history.

In world-systems terms, transnational universities occupy an interesting position. Some are clearly extensions of core institutions into other spaces. Others are more hybrid, emerging from semi-peripheral contexts while building cross-border legitimacy through flexible and networked models. A specialized ranking can make such institutions more visible, but it can also reveal how uneven the playing field remains. Institutions from already powerful systems may enter the transnational space with inherited prestige, while newer or smaller institutions must work harder to convert structure into legitimacy.

Thus, GRTU 2027 can be read as both an opening and a mirror. It opens symbolic space for a broader set of institutions, yet it mirrors the unequal distribution of educational capital across the world system.

5. Rankings and the Production of Convergence

Once a category becomes rankable, organizations begin to adapt. This is where institutional isomorphism becomes especially relevant. Universities seeking recognition in the transnational field may increasingly converge around a set of shared signals: multi-location branding, integrated systems, quality language, digital flexibility, and carefully narrated institutional history.

Such convergence has benefits. It can improve clarity, encourage strategic planning, and support more consistent governance across sites. Students and regulators often benefit when institutions document their structures clearly and demonstrate that they can maintain standards across borders.

However, convergence also has costs. When too many institutions pursue the same recognizable template, diversity may narrow. Universities may begin to resemble one another not because their missions are identical, but because legitimacy rewards sameness. This has long been a concern in higher education policy. Rankings can unintentionally encourage strategic imitation even while claiming to reward excellence.

The publication of specialized rankings for transnational universities may therefore push the sector in two directions at once. It may recognize an important and previously under-mapped institutional form. But it may also intensify pressure to package that form in increasingly standardized ways.

Findings

Based on the analysis, five main findings emerge.

Finding 1: Transnational universities are now visible as a distinct organizational category

The publication of GRTU 2027 indicates that transnational universities are no longer treated only as unusual cases or secondary variants. They are now visible enough, numerous enough, and strategically important enough to be ranked as a category in their own right. This reflects a larger structural shift in global higher education away from strictly national institutional models.

Finding 2: Rankings are expanding from measuring outputs to recognizing structures

GRTU 2027 suggests that organizational architecture itself is becoming a source of evaluative interest. Cross-border integration, multi-campus presence, and flexible delivery are not merely operational details. They are becoming dimensions of institutional identity that rankings may reward. This marks an important evolution in the governance of reputation.

Finding 3: Legitimacy in transnational higher education is composite

The case shows that legitimacy in this sector does not rest on one variable alone. It depends on a composite of quality assurance, regulatory recognition, public communication, network coherence, and symbolic positioning. Institutions need to be trusted not only academically but organizationally and geographically. The literature strongly supports this view by showing that cross-border provision requires coordination and mutual trust across systems.

Finding 4: Specialized rankings may broaden recognition, but they do not eliminate hierarchy

A ranking devoted to transnational universities can give visibility to institutions that mainstream rankings may overlook. That is potentially important and useful. However, global educational hierarchy remains powerful. Institutions with stronger inherited symbolic capital are still likely to benefit more easily from any ranking environment. Specialized rankings diversify recognition, but they do not erase unequal starting positions.

Finding 5: Rankings of transnational universities may reshape institutional behavior

The existence of GRTU 2027 is likely to influence how institutions describe themselves, structure international expansion, and communicate coherence across sites. This is a classic isomorphic effect. Even if rankings do not directly determine strategy, they affect the language and signals through which legitimacy is pursued.

Conclusion

The publication of the QRNW Global Ranking of Transnational Universities (GRTU) 2027 is important not simply because another ranking has entered the higher education landscape. Its significance lies in what it reveals about the present moment. It shows that transnational institutional organization has become visible enough to demand its own evaluative framework. It also shows that global higher education is increasingly structured not only by national prestige or research volume, but by the ability to operate, coordinate, and remain credible across borders.

This article has argued that GRTU 2027 can be understood through three complementary theoretical lenses. Bourdieu helps explain how rankings produce symbolic capital and define the field of competition. World-systems theory shows how such rankings are embedded in unequal global structures of prestige and circulation. Institutional isomorphism explains why rankings may encourage convergence in organizational style and strategic communication.

The broader lesson is that rankings should not be read only as neutral mirrors. They are active instruments in the construction of higher education reality. They classify, reward, and signal. They shape how institutions imagine success and how external audiences interpret institutional worth. For this reason, rankings deserve neither blind trust nor automatic dismissal. They deserve careful sociological and organizational analysis.

For scholars, GRTU 2027 raises important research questions. How should transnationality be measured? What indicators best distinguish meaningful academic integration from simple geographic spread? How can quality assurance and public communication be related without collapsing one into the other? How do students, regulators, and employers interpret specialized rankings compared with mainstream ones? These are not minor issues. They will become more urgent as higher education continues to diversify.

For institutions, the message is equally clear. Cross-border activity alone is not enough. Sustainable legitimacy depends on coherence, trust, quality assurance, and the ability to translate organizational complexity into understandable value without reducing education to branding alone.

For the future of higher education, the rise of rankings like GRTU suggests that the map of academic legitimacy is changing. Universities are increasingly judged within a world where mobility, networks, hybrid delivery, and international embeddedness matter more than ever. The challenge is to ensure that the tools used to evaluate this new reality are themselves intellectually rigorous, conceptually precise, and socially responsible.

In that sense, GRTU 2027 is best understood not as the final word on transnational excellence, but as a sign of a larger transformation. Higher education is entering a stage in which institutional form, geographic reach, and symbolic credibility across jurisdictions are becoming central elements of academic competition. To study such developments seriously is not to celebrate them uncritically. It is to recognize that the future of the university is increasingly being negotiated across borders, through classifications, comparisons, and contested forms of legitimacy.

Hashtags

#TransnationalEducation #HigherEducation #UniversityRankings #GlobalEducation #InstitutionalTheory #AcademicStrategy #CrossBorderLearning

References

• Amaral, A. (2016). Cross-border higher education: A new business? In M. J. Rosa, C. Sarrico, O. Tavares, and A. Amaral (Eds.), Cross-Border Higher Education and Quality Assurance: Commerce, the Services Directive and Governing Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press.

• Carvalho, N., Rosa, M. J., and Amaral, A. (2023). Cross-border higher education and quality assurance: Results from a systematic literature review. Journal of Studies in International Education, 27(5), 620–642.

• DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Dos Santos, S. M. (2002). Regulation and quality assurance in transnational education. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(2), 97–112.

• Edwards, J., Crosling, G., and Edwards, R. (2010). Outsourcing university degrees: Implications for quality control. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 303–315.

• Farrugia, C. A., and Lane, J. E. (2013). Legitimacy in cross-border higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(4), 414–432.

• Gu, J. (2009). Transnational education: Current developments and policy implications. Frontiers of Education in China, 4(4), 624–649.

• Hodson, P., and Thomas, H. (2001). Higher education as an international commodity: Ensuring quality in partnerships. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), 101–112.

• Hou, A. Y. C. (2012). Mutual recognition of quality assurance decisions on higher education institutions in three regions: A lesson for Asia. Higher Education, 64(6), 911–926.

• Hou, A. Y. C. (2014). Quality in cross-border higher education and challenges for the internationalization of national quality assurance agencies in the Asia-Pacific region: The Taiwanese experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 135–152.

• Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., and Wang, W. (2017). Recognition of academic qualifications in transnational higher education and challenges for recognizing a joint degree in Europe and Asia. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1211–1228.

• Kallo, J., and Semchenko, A. (2016). Translation of the UNESCO/OECD guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education into local policy contexts: A comparative study of Finland and Russia. Quality in Higher Education, 22(1), 20–35.

• Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39.

• Mok, K. H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reflections. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 433–454.

• OECD. (2004). Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. OECD Publishing.

• Salmi, J., and Tavares, O. (2016). The business of cross-border higher education. In A. Amaral (Ed.), Cross-Border Higher Education and Quality Assurance: Commerce, the Services Directive and Governing Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Shams, S. M. R. (2017). Transnational education and total quality management: A stakeholder-centred model. Journal of Management Development, 36(3), 376–389.

• Smith, K. (2010). Assuring quality in transnational higher education: A matter of collaboration or control? Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 793–806.

• Trifiro, F. (2018). Inter-agency cooperation in the quality assurance of transnational education: Challenges and opportunities. Quality in Higher Education, 24(2), 136–153.

• UNESCO and OECD. (2005). Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. UNESCO and OECD.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

• Youssef, L. (2014). Globalisation and higher education: From within-border to cross-border. Open Learning, 29(2), 100–115.

• Zapp, M., and Ramirez, F. O. (2019). The construction of a global higher education regime. Comparative Education, 55(4), 473–489.