Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
After eighteen years of collaboration and joint work, a new batch of students in the field of health professions education graduated from a curriculum partnership between Suez Canal University, Egypt, and Maastricht University, the Netherlands. A cheerful milestone not only for those students, but also for the institutions involved, as their partnership reached legal adulthood. Reaching this phase is by no means a sinecure. Many educational partnerships have never reached this stage and instead ended up prematurely at the continuously expanding graveyard of partnerships (Kinser & Lane, 2016; Knight, 2008). Such dissolved partnerships are problematic because of wasted efforts, broken dreams, missed benefits, and distorted relationships. Moreover, it is often the students who have to bear the cost of a discontinued partnership, in terms of suboptimal or discontinued education, or even losing the chance for a degree.
Education partnerships can have many forms and shapes, e.g., exchange of students, staff or curriculum materials (Knight, 2006). In general, there has been a growing amount of attention to international educational partnerships. This research largely concentrates on the motives, benefits and outcomes of such partnerships (Healey, 2008; Wilkins, 2015; Wilkins et al., 2012). Additionally, there is growing awareness of cultural issues involved in such partnerships and the need for culturally attentive behavior to make a partnership succeed (Eva, 2009; Hodges et al., 2009; Whitehead, 2016). This not only includes intercultural relationships and communication issues, but also the educational content that is exchanged within the partnership (Eichbaum et al., 2021). Whitehead (2016, p.3), for example, points to the risk of “transporting and transposing educational products that were developed and refined for use in specific Western contexts” in such partnerships, which is argued to reflect neocolonial practices. Additionally, Wondimagegn et al. (2018) describe challenges involved in educational partnerships between high- and low-resource settings and argue that - to address legacies of colonial thinking - issues of ownership, resources, expertise and funding have to be carefully considered to develop sustainable and contextually relevant partnerships. Taking this back to dissolved partnerships, anecdotal evidence indeed seems to suggest that partnerships with a large geographical distance and cultural diversity seem to have a higher risk of breaking up in an early stage.
In addition to literature that describes challenges from postcolonial and decolonial perspectives (Eichbaum et al., 2021; Whitehead, 2016; Wondimagegn et al., 2018), various studies have addressed the multifold challenges involved in educational partnerships. These studies stipulated that relationship management and communication on various partnership levels is crucial, especially with geographically distanced partnerships (Antony & Nicola, 2020; Chetro-Szivos, 2010; Healey, 2021). A literature review by Waterval et al. (2014) on educational challenges of curriculum partnerships resulted in a framework of thirteen factors clustered in four main domains: students, teachers, curriculum, soft and hard project management. Within each domain, specific challenging factors and possible remedial strategies were identified from the literature (see Figure 1). The first three domains – students, teachers, and curriculum – address factors related to contextual differences between the home and host institution, such as differences in students’ learning behaviors, and teachers’ feelings of ownership. The fourth domain – soft and hard project management – addresses general management factors. The framework's focus on both educational and managerial challenges of curriculum partnerships enables its use as an analytical lens to study curriculum partnership implementations holistically.
Framework of factors influencing the success and failure of crossborder curriculum partnerships: source: (Waterval et al., 2014).
This article aims to relate the theoretical framework by Waterval et al. (2014) to a successful educational curriculum partnership between two geographically and culturally distanced partners. By using this framework as a lens to identify and analyze key strategic elements, the study seeks to answer the question of how this partnership overcame the educational challenges identified in the literature and which deliberate strategic choices, if any, were used. While the framework does not take an explicit decolonial perspective or approach, the factors in the framework relate to some of the challenges described in this literature as well. For instance, the domain of project management includes addressing hidden power relations in the communication and joint decision making process, and the domains of teacher and curriculum include dealing with issues of ‘ownership’ of curriculum materials and access to these materials. This study is inspired by the need for more research on strategies to overcome challenges that arise during the initial phases of partnerships (Chetro-Szivos, 2010; Goode, 2018) and examples of implementations of sustainable partnerships between institutions in settings that differ culturally, geographically, politically and historically. The study seeks to reveal successful strategies for creating a sustainable educational partnership in higher education by sharing the experiences and insights gained from the matured partnership between Suez Canal University and Maastricht University.
The Partnership: History and Context
The Joint Master of Health Professions Education (JMHPE) was founded in 2003 by the Department of Medical Education of Suez Canal University (SCU) in Egypt and the School of Health Professions Education of Maastricht University (MU) in the Netherlands. The former institute was a pioneer in community-oriented and community-based education (Magzoub & Schmidt, 2000; Talaat & Ladhani, 2014) and the latter in problem-based learning (Servant-Miklos, 2019). These mutually reinforcing educational concepts, together with existing personal connections between the institutions, formed the starting point of the partnership.
Before the partnership was erected, Maastricht University already offered a Master of Health Professions Education (MU-MHPE) solely governed and delivered by MU, which attracted national and international students from different contexts and backgrounds, though mainly from Western settings. It was the vision of both partners to mimic this MU-MHPE program, however, to adapt the program to the contextual needs of learners, faculty and health systems in the Middle Eastern region. The partners erected a parallel master named Joint MHPE (JMHPE). The JMHPE program targets, though non-exclusively, students from the Middle Eastern region. The pre-existing MU-MHPE program served as a basis to develop and establish this joint program.
During the initial phase, the partnership between JMHPE and MU-MHPE exhibited characteristics of a crossborder curriculum partnership (Knight, 2005). Such partnerships typically involve a shared curriculum across two different locations, with a curriculum encompassing pedagogy, content, and assessment. One or both partners may award degrees, and students from both locations are involved, including their often different educational backgrounds, prior knowledge and learning styles. Additionally, teachers at both locations work within the same curriculum context but in different organizational settings.
Research and practice in crossborder curriculum partnerships indicate that achieving equivalence and adaptation to a new location is possible, despite the diverse cultural, organizational, and learning needs involved (Waterval et al., 2016). This is exactly what happened in the JMHPE program. Already in the initial phase, the partners agreed not to replicate the MU-MHPE curriculum, but to move towards an adapted curriculum that was sensitive to context. These developments and mindset, which will be addressed in more detail in the results, have likely contributed to the sustainability of the partnership, making the JMHPE program an instrumental case to study successful strategies for sustainable educational partnerships.
Since its inception, the partnership has been governed by two administrative offices; one at each institute. The teaching staff consists of faculty members of both institutions, with backgrounds in the Eastern Mediterranean region and the Netherlands. They work under the guidance of the two JMHPE Program Directors, one based at each institute. Decisions are made in the management team (i.e., the two Co-Directors) where there is equal power to each partner.
The curriculum is a full-distance program consisting of nine units that together comprise a total workload of 60 credits as measured according to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS; 1 credit equals 28 h of workload). The average study duration is two academic years because most students combine study with work. The program has four intake moments per year/batch. Each unit lasts approximately six weeks and consists of a variety of learning activities, such as written assignments, recorded presentations by students, and practical tasks, in addition to participating in online webinars. Upon the start, each student is linked to a mentor (faculty member), who will guide the student through their learning process. Five units are supervised by SCU faculty, three by MU faculty, and one by faculty from both institutions.
This study considers the JMHPE partnership as a successful educational partnership due to a combination of features: sustainability; achievement of educational goals; mutual benefit to the involved institutions; recognition by external stakeholders; positive impact on students’ career development; and financial sustainability. The program has graduated 374 students across 19 cycles, with a significant number of them progressing from faculty members to academic and educational leaders. The partnership's adaptability and commitment to continuous improvement and relevance are reflected in its regular updates of educational objectives, informed by constructive feedback from students, graduates, and alumni on a yearly and unit level. External recognition has further validated its success. In 2010, for example, the program was honored with the International Management Science for Health (MSH) award as reported by FAIMER in Philadelphia, USA. Additionally, the partnership has maintained financial sustainability throughout its existence.
Methods
Methodology
This study employs an instrumental case study approach (Baxter & Jack, 2008) to investigate the JMHPE partnership (the case), which can provide valuable insights into strategies that contribute to the sustainability of educational partnerships. While the study does not aim to provide exhaustive information or generate detailed data on the specific case, as required by other types of case study approaches, the instrumental approach is used to gain insights that will facilitate understanding of a broader issue, i.e., sustainable educational partnerships (Cleland et al., 2021).
Research Team
The first and second authors are the current Program Directors of the partnership. The second author serves in this role at SCU side since the start of the partnership, equipping him with detailed knowledge about the history and strategic decisive moments over the past eighteen years. The first author is the fourth Program Director at MU side and a researcher in the field of international educational partnerships. The third author is the former Program Director at MU side and a researcher in the field of internationalization and cultural diversity in health professions education. She is currently not involved with the partnership. It is through the lens of the authors’ experiences that this case study unfolded.
Data Collection and Analysis
In the first phase of the data collection and analysis process, all relevant documentation related to the partnership (e.g., minutes of meetings, year reports, site visit reports) was collected by the first author. Consequently, the first author read these documents chronologically. In this process, the documents’ content was analyzed guided by the research objective (i.e., how did this partnership deal with the educational challenges identified in literature over a period of 18 years?). The framework by Waterval et al. (2014), with four domains of challenges, served as the analytical lens for this document analysis. The educational challenges (and successes) and strategies identified in the documents were clustered in the four domains.
In the second phase, this output of the first phase was presented and discussed with the second author. Subsequently, the output was discussed with the third author as well. These discussions stimulated the collective memory of the case and led to additions and modifications. This iterative analytical process was structured according to the aforementioned theoretical framework of challenges in curriculum partnerships divided into four domains. During the analytical process, the research team was aware of potential bias due to their involvement in the case. To mitigate these biases, the team made a concerted effort to be transparent and forthright in discussing and reporting strategic decisions and challenges, including those that may be sensitive to share publicly.
The work reported in this paper did not involve primary data collection e.g., surveys, interviews, or experiments and for this reason no ethical approval was sought.
Results
The results are structured according to the four domains and thirteen factors of the framework. Per domain, each factor is discussed, and where applicable reference is made to international literature, integrating results and discussion.
Domain 1: Student Population
Factor 1: Challenges Regarding Learning Behaviors
One of the student-related challenges is the difference in learning behavior between students when offering a comparable program. This challenge also played out in the early stage of the JMHPE partnership. The JMHPE students came from different geographical settings as compared with the MU-MHPE students and as such had different backgrounds regarding learning behavior. The Program Directors noted that this was challenging in particular for MU staff members, who were serving both groups of students. In general, JMHPE students were educated in more teacher-driven learning environments, in which there is a focus on syllabus learning and frequent contained assessment moments. The MU-MHPE program, on the other hand, was based on a student-centered learning methodology in which students were expected to work more independently and they predominantly received narrative feedback on various assignments.
The potential tension between learning behavior and curriculum didactics was recognized by both teaching staff and management on both sides of the partnership, and has had an impact on decision-making at multiple levels. For instance, the management chose not to adopt an even more student-driven learning and assessment methodology in the JMHPE program, due to concerns about these differences. Additionally, the Program Directors noted increased awareness among MU teaching staff of potential differences in communication patterns, motivation, and attitudes toward work, as also noted by Pimpa (2009), which has led to better alignment of teaching and learning styles.
One concrete example of this alignment and contextual design of curriculum elements occurred in 2017 when the longitudinal mentorship program was enhanced with mentor-led Listserv discussions. JMHPE students from diverse backgrounds (in terms of culture, profession, and age) worked in small groups to choose a topic that complemented the curriculum, and planned for their discussion through multiple synchronous online sessions. This process was guided by a staff member, yet conducted by students, which enabled students to develop planning, communication, and leadership skills, and reinforced the importance of collaboration, cultural sensitivity and teamwork.
Factor 2: Challenges Regarding Entry Level
The new JMHPE program adopted the entry criteria from the existing MU-MHPE, which included the criterion of having at least a bachelor's degree in a health science domain. However, in the Middle Eastern region, the heterogeneity in the secondary and tertiary education levels is high as students come from distinct geographical regions and have experienced different higher education systems and didactical approaches. Gregory and Wohlmuth (2002) discussed potential strategies to address this challenge of heterogeneity in entry level degrees. One approach suggested by the authors is the implementation of bridging programs or pre-entry courses within cross-border curriculum partnerships. These programs offer additional support to students who may not meet the initial entry criteria, enabling them to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge required for successful participation in the curriculum.
However, JMHPE management opted not to pursue this solution due to the associated costs it would entail for the adult learners of who most work full-time. They also decided not to modify or adapt the formal entry requirements. Instead, the management decided to tackle these differences by adapting the end-of-curriculum and end-of-unit objectives. For instance, in the research unit, the “end of unit” objectives were strategically modified. While the original objectives focused on attaining a
Factor 3: Challenges Regarding Language
A third factor in the students’ domain that required attention relates to language. For most JMHPE students, English is a second or third language, while for a substantial part of MU-MHPE students English is their mother tongue. This difference over command of the English language influences online discussions, writing of assignments, and presentations. Some partnerships have addressed this challenge by adding a preparatory semester/module/year as suggested by Briguglio (2000) and Lane et al. (2004). The management never seriously considered this strategy due to its impact on the internal cost structure and student fees.
Instead, teachers are asked to focus on the intended meaning of written or verbal words instead of paying a lot of attention to grammar and style. They are explicitly asked to “read between the lines”. This did not mean that students were not provided with feedback and suggestions on how to improve their verbal and written language skills if these skills were not up to par with the academic level. It did mean that teachers were encouraged to have a more diversified and equitable perspective on what quality assignments could look like.
Domain 2: Teacher
Factor 4: Joint Understanding of Curriculum and Didactical Approach
The challenge of a joint program is to bring both teacher groups up to par in terms of their understanding of the curriculum as well as the didactical approach (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). The JMHPE partnership has addressed this challenge by erecting a peer-to-peer support structure to train and make teachers more familiar with the required approach, as also suggested by Dobos (2011). Furthermore, explicit attempts were made to have a stable group of teachers affiliated with both institutes. Previous research similarly suggests that investment in teaching staff and retaining of key faculty is crucial (Waterval et al., 2017) as this contributes to growing professional development. Co-directors on both sides identified themselves as experienced medical educationalists who deeply understood the teaching philosophy through their involvement in the educational approaches in their institutions. As such they were able to coach their colleagues.
On the other hand, it was a strategic decision to allow for diversity of management and teaching styles between units, as these were coordinated by a diversity of staff members. The similarity in learning experience among the units was not an absolute criterion. After all, future professionals in medical education also have to adapt to differences in context.
Factor 5: Feelings of Ownership
Several studies have indicated the importance of ‘feelings of ownership’ within educational partnerships (Dobos, 2011; Keevers et al., 2014; Smith, 2009). Addressing ownership is crucial in partnerships where the initial curriculum is not a joint construct but mainly stems from one of the partners. Such situations have an ingrained risk that teachers, administrators and/or management do not relate to the philosophy of the program.
In the JMHPE partnership, this risk was counterbalanced by making teachers and administrators from each partner responsible for managing and delivering 50% of the curriculum. This includes planning, updating, teaching, and assessment. This also implied that during the early phases of the partnership, unit coordinators were explicitly made responsible to review and adapt the initial curriculum materials. In addition, the governance structure was deliberately constructed to consist of two Co-Directors from both institutes who are equal in decisive power. Furthermore, the administrative efforts were divided in an equal way between both partners. The Program Directors noted that these strategic decisions contributed to equal feelings of ownership among joint staff members, which is a key factor in educational partnerships (Dobos, 2011).
Domain 3: Curriculum
Factor 6: Adaptations to Local Contexts
Adapting the curriculum at various levels to suit both partners has been recognized as essential by many authors (Bolton & Nie, 2010). These adaptations include addressing cultural issues in learning materials, reflecting on learning objectives at the program level, and adapting assignments or units.
Before initiating the JMHPE program and curriculum in 2003, an extensive needs analysis was conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean and North African region to identify the real needs in health professions education. These needs were incorporated into the curriculum, and the joint program was tailored accordingly with a broader vision to include global needs as well.
Over the years, adaptations in assignments and learning objectives have been based on the aforementioned needs analysis, with the principle that students must be able to work on the objectives using their work context as a learning environment. By doing so, the risk that the adapted assignments contain a Western footprint that may not fit the learners’ contexts is reduced.
However, it is worth noting that students are asked to reflect on their daily educational practices with relevant literature and educational research, which is dominated by Western authors and their viewpoints. To bridge the gap between cultures and local contexts, the use of medical education articles and textbooks from the Middle Eastern region for teaching and learning has been helpful (Talaat & Dalen van, 2014; Talaat & El-Wazir, 2012; Talaat & Ladhani, 2014). These efforts have aided in promoting cultural sensitivity and creating a more inclusive learning environment.
Factor 7: Differences in Attitudes and Approaches Towards Assessment
Several researchers have highlighted the challenge of reconciling differences in assessment views and cultures in the context of curriculum partnerships (Eldridge & Cranston, 2009; Miliszewska & Sztendur, 2011). The experiences within the JMHPE partnership echo the findings of these researchers. Specifically, there was an observed difference between partners, with one (MU) emphasizing a holistic view on assessment with qualitative feedback, while the other (SCU) prioritizes grades and strict criteria within shorter periods. Differences in legal frameworks and national quality assurance requirements further complicate efforts to align assessment cultures between the institutes.
From the outset of the partnership, it was evident that unifying these divergent views and practices would be a challenge. The management strategy has been to avoid imposing an identical stance, and instead find a compromise that allows each unit to apply its assessment strategy, yet ultimately expressed in a final grade per unit. It is important to note that the assessment system can significantly impact student learning behaviors and outcomes, which is why this issue is continuously addressed. In this process, differences in legal frameworks, educational philosophy, and culture are taken into account, leveraging these differences as strengths of the program rather than attempting to enforce a single view. Along the lines of the Egyptian saying “If two things are identical, one of them is unnecessary”, the management team respected the distinction and realized that the approaches can never be identical and do not have to be identical.
Factor 8: Access to Learning Resources and Support Systems
Another curriculum-related challenge for partnerships that emerged from literature relates to the unequal access and availability of supporting learning resources, e.g., library, IT network and tools. In this online program, all students have an account granting access to the MU library and learning resources. However, most of the JMHPE students are spread over the Middle Eastern region; their access to online learning resources fluctuates depending on the economic conditions of their place of residence. Consequently, in theory, JMHPE students have access to the same online learning resources as MU-MHPE students, but in practice, there is a need for frequent tailor-made solutions, especially concerning problems with internet connectivity. This implies more leniency towards deadlines for submission and attendance requirements.
Both programs erected a mentor system to support students during their Masters. The aims of this support system differed between both programs based on learning needs. The mentoring system through guided content discussions offered the JMHPE students more structure and opportunity to work and collaborate in a multi-cultural setting. Because this mentor support system diverged over the years, they are at present an inspiration for both partners. Here too, the deliberate policy was not to copy or have comparable support systems, but to tweak the support system according to the learners’ needs and differences in the student population.
Factor 9: (Collaborating Through) Differences in Time Zones and Working Week
Despite the substantial geographical differences between Egypt and the Netherlands, the one-hour or two-hour time difference is relatively easy to overcome. However, this can potentially lead to conflicts. To mitigate this, the management team considered non-overlapping weekends and national holidays when scheduling sessions. For example, while Friday might be a convenient day for online activities for MU staff, this may not be the case for SCU staff. While it may sometimes be unavoidable to organize sessions during partners’ weekends, the partners strive for flexibility and mutually beneficial solutions through open communication. Drafting the academic calendar requires a mindful and iterative process that allows sufficient evaluation time for faculty. The use of communication technologies, such as WhatsApp and Messenger, has proven invaluable in facilitating effective decision-making processes in this area.
Domain 4: Hard and Soft Project Management
Factor 10: Relationship and Communication Between Partners
Communication and relationship management has been identified by many researchers as a key component in the context of educational partnerships (Olcott Jr, 2009; Sidhu, 2009; Stella, 2006). Cultural sensitivity, as highlighted by Heffernan and Poole (2004), enables meaningful connections and fosters understanding across diverse backgrounds. Additionally, Dobos (2011) emphasized the significance of small gestures and acts of kindness in building and maintaining strong relationships.
Since the start of the partnership, the budget has been deliberately allocated for two yearly onsite visits between Co-Directors. These visits were not only dedicated to administrative and managerial decision-making, but also to social activities in both countries. These activities strengthened the personal relationships and facilitated the ongoing decision making process. Furthermore, the budget also allowed for one additional visitor who could be a teacher or other stakeholder. This strategy of stakeholder management is also supported by Healey (2021) and contributed to strong relationships at multiple levels.
Additionally, the aforementioned relationships on different levels were noted to facilitate communication through the use of social media, which made it easier to coordinate and have many informal interaction moments. Whenever one partner assigned a new Co-Director, special attention was given not only to the required competencies, but also to the personal relationship building with the other partner. This strategy follows the advice provided by Heffernan and Poole (2004) and Dunworth (2008), and the JMHPE experiences underline its importance.
Factor 11: Internal Commitment of the Home Institution
Educational partnerships are often managed by a dedicated project team/office outside the regular organizational structure for other programs of each institution (Castle & Kelly, 2004). This offers the required freedom and flexibility especially in the early phases, but also has disadvantages related to the visibility and internal commitment at both partners. This factor grows in importance over time, and as such requires addressing, as stipulated by some studies (Lane, 2011; Shanahan & McParlane, 2005; Sidhu, 2009). A deliberate decision in the JMHPE partnership was to embed the administrative offices in the regular organizational structure of both institutes, which contributed to its continuity and visibility.
At times over the past eighteen years, especially following moments of leadership changes at one of the institutes, questions were raised about the appropriateness of the partnership by the overall University management. On such occasions, several features ultimately contributed to an increase in the internal commitment. One such feature was that this partnership conciliated with the overall vision of both partnering institutions “to share and spread educational knowledge about problem-based learning and community-oriented medical education, and contribute to a global network of health professions educators”. Another feature was the prestige of the program, expressed through the organization of an annual graduation day held at SCU in Egypt, which is attended by university officials from both institutes, representatives of international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), a representative from the Dutch Embassy in Egypt (usually the Ambassador), and all graduates.
Factor 12: Contract and Business Approach
The JMHPE partnership is guided by clear agreements that govern responsibilities and financial consequences. In accordance with suggestions from research (Davies, 2001), these agreements are regularly updated and reviewed to account for new developments. Although informal interaction moments exist, the partnership's activities are clearly defined in the contract, including evaluation, recruitment, and management activities.
One notable feature of the initial contract was the explicit acknowledgment of the distinct characteristics of online education compared to classroom education, which set the tone for quality online learning. Another feature was the fact that the majority of student payments (80%) are spent on maintaining and improving the program, including the development of course materials by experts from the academic medical departments of both universities, training students in e-learning techniques, and evaluating student performance by experts from around the world. The remaining 20% of student payments go toward overhead costs of the universities for administration and registration.
In some moments in the history of this JMHPE partnership, voices were raised that requested some adjustments in budget shares for the interest of the own institution. Co-directors from both sides countered these voices and deliberately prioritized the interests of the joint program above one party's interests. Among other reasons, that was a major contributor to the sustainability of the program.
The agreement that was signed eighteen years ago needs to be updated periodically to reflect changes in circumstances, threats, and opportunities. These agreements serve as the starting point for key decision-making moments. Any alterations to responsibilities and remuneration are openly discussed until a mutually respected decision is reached. To find common ground, it is necessary for co-directors to be open and transparent about challenges and to hold discussions in a relaxed, friendly, and permissive environment.
Factor 13: Quality Assurance Procedures
The understanding that quality stands at the cornerstone of the JMHPE program has been deeply ingrained in the vision of both institutions and Co-Directors from the program's inception. They recognized that educational reputation is a vital asset and that quality assurance has to transcend mere words and manifest in tangible actions. This aligns with the recommendation put forth by Goode (2018), advocating for the establishment and cultivation of a culture of quality control.
The JMHPE program has consistently adhered to a quality assurance strategy, preferring it over the quality control strategy. To ensure the success of the program, the focus has been on careful analysis of the education process, prediction and prevention of potential problems, continuous improvement of teaching and learning activities, and the incorporation of continuous feedback from students. The program units are updated annually, and feedback analysis informs the revision of the rules and regulations. Overall, the JMHPE program is committed to the principles of quality assurance, which promotes excellence in education and the delivery of a high-quality product.
Conclusions
The partnership between Suez Canal University and Maastricht University has made several key strategic decisions throughout its planning, implementation, and development phases. As described above, not all of these decisions resonated with recommendations from research in this field.
There are a few experiences that we would like to highlight. First and foremost, in relation to the domain of soft project management, we cannot stress enough the importance of going the extra mile and focusing on the little things, as emphasized by Dobos (2011). Building good relations between partners is crucial but requires deliberate effort. This starts with the strategic recruitment of staff involved in the program and is supplemented by creating a supportive environment. The second point is to recognize and allow for differences in legislation and the legal framework in which the institutions operate, as well as differences regarding students’ and teachers’ backgrounds and needs. Partners need to invest time in understanding the stakeholders and the forces that drive their partnering institute. Having a broader understanding of the context helps facilitate the decision-making process to achieve mutually beneficial solutions. Decisions that benefit one partner in the short run may become counterproductive in the long run. Lastly, it is essential to embrace diversity instead of striving for uniformity. Program partnerships can be vulnerable to one partner dominating the other's vision in the long run. Building good relationships and equality between partners requires a deliberate and purposeful structure. This includes creating an inclusive contract, organizational structure, recruitment of management and teachers, and communication style. Overall, these experiences demonstrate the importance of deliberate effort in building and maintaining successful program partnerships.
Retrospectively, the applied framework was considered a useful lens to analyze this curriculum partnership. The framework steered the data analysis process and allowed for a structured reflection on key strategic decisions. However, not all of the thirteen factors of the framework were equally applicable to this partnership in the way originally intended by the framework. Most applicable and relevant were the factors related to soft project management, because this illustrated and deepened the importance of communication and good relationships among the various stakeholders. In our experience, these factors are also crucial from a decolonial perspective, which aligns with Wondimagegn et al.'s (2018) advocacy for relational partnership models in higher education to address colonial legacies.
The attention for relationships and each other's context in the JMHPE partnership allowed for decisions within the other domains of the framework that may not be in the direction originally intended by the framework. The framework originated as a framework investigating curriculum partnerships that share an identical curriculum in two geographical locations, but the JMHPE partnership did not entail the delivery of an identical program simultaneously across locations. In fact, the deliberate decision was made from the start to tailor the curriculum to contextual needs. The adaptations that were made to assignments and literature (factor 6), and the decisions to keep distinct assessment systems (factor 7) and support systems (factor 8) in place, are examples of deliberate efforts to move away from identical programs towards embracing contextual diversity and respecting local needs and ways. We believe these were key efforts for the sustainability of the program. Future iterations of the framework could perhaps more explicitly explore possibilities for curriculum partnerships to move in divergent directions, as well as take a more explicit decolonial perspective to enable deeper analysis of power dynamics and hierarchies at play in such partnerships. Our analysis for example discussed feelings of ownership (factor 5), which relate to this issue, but we did not have an explicit decolonial lens during the analysis.
Additionally, we noticed that the fact that the JMHPE program was an online program alleviated challenges with respect to curriculum delivery. In this respect, the framework could be supplemented with challenging areas related to distance learning, such as limited opportunities to engage with students, and the management of a shared online learning platform. Although the framework by Waterval et al. (2014) is not the only framework available to analyze the success of educational partnerships, its holistic nature contributed to it being its ‘fit-for-purpose’ in this study, albeit with limitations as described above.
Reflexivity, Limitations, and Further Research
One notable limitation of this study is the potential bias introduced by the fact that all authors are (former) Co-Directors of the partnership. This may result in an overly optimistic portrayal of the partnership and its challenges, as well as a tendency to omit or downplay sensitive strategic information. To mitigate these biases, we have made a concerted effort to be transparent and forthright in discussing strategic decisions, including those related to language barriers and differing assessment philosophies. Ultimately, we feel that this limitation is simultaneously a strength of this study, considering the insider knowledge and collective memory of the case that the authors could bring to the data collection and analysis.
Moving forward, in addition to the suggestions to further develop the framework by Waterval et al. (2014) using critical lenses, we recommend future research be conducted to explore the experiences of international partnership graduates, as ultimate stakeholders of these programs. Specifically, it would be valuable to investigate how they perceive the aforementioned challenges and to what extent, if any, these experiences have affected their career trajectories. We furthermore invite other researchers or managers of educational partnerships who recognize that their strategies may not always align with recommendations from existing research, to publish their experiences to jointly build a more diversified and realistic archive of how such partnerships can be run successfully and sustainably.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
