As universities expand their global footprint, understanding where — and why — they establish campuses abroad has become increasingly important for higher education leaders and policy-makers. Kevin Kinser is a professor of education policy studies in the Penn State College of Education who teaches online through Penn State World Campus.
Kinser is currently teaching HIED 842: Administrative Leadership in Higher Education, which is a graduate-level course providing an in-depth, high-level overview of how U.S. colleges and universities are structured and function. It covers organizational charts, leadership, decision-making, and managing internal and external stakeholders.
He also co-founded the Cross-Border Education Research Team (CBERT) to track international branch campuses worldwide. Through a publicly accessible database, CBERT documents how cross-border higher education is evolving — and what those shifts mean for institutions, governments, and students. Kinser discusses the origins of the project, emerging trends, and the policy implications of a rapidly changing global landscape.
Q: What first drew you to studying international branch campuses?
I became interested in this around 2008, when I was studying private higher education globally. In many countries, higher education is primarily public. But when public universities establish campuses abroad, they’re often treated as private institutions in the host country. That blurring of public and private really intrigued me.
I also wanted to understand why some universities choose to establish a significant physical presence overseas as part of their international strategy. That led to the creation of CBERT, which we founded around 2009–10 to systematically track these branch campuses around the world.
Q: What is CBERT, and why does it matter?
CBERT is a public database that tracks international branch campuses — where they are located, which institutions operate them, and how those patterns change over time. It’s available at cbert.org.
It matters because policy-makers, journalists, and university leaders need reliable data to understand global higher education trends. Institutions are making long-term strategic decisions about international partnerships and expansion. Having accurate information helps ground those decisions in evidence rather than speculation.
Q: What are the most significant trends in the latest CBERT update?
When we first began tracking branch campuses, many were concentrated in the Middle East — places like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Now we’re seeing expansion in different regions. Uzbekistan, for example, has seen significant growth. China has increased its interest in exporting campuses. And India, after decades of discussion, is now formally welcoming foreign institutions.
Those shifts are important. They suggest that the geography of international higher education is changing, and universities need to look beyond traditional destinations when thinking about global engagement.
Q: What do those shifts mean for higher education leaders and policy-makers?
One implication is diversification. Geopolitical realities can make partnerships with certain countries more complicated. Universities that rely heavily on one or two international markets may find themselves exposed to risk.
Another implication is strategy. India is a good example. For years, it has been one of the largest exporters of students studying abroad. Now, by welcoming foreign branch campuses, it’s creating a different pathway for engagement. Leaders need to think carefully about how these developments fit within their broader mission and reputation.
Understanding how universities are influential overseas — sometimes even more than in their home communities — is critical for maintaining global standing.
Q: What challenges do universities face when operating abroad?
Maintaining academic quality at a distance is one of the biggest challenges. It’s much easier to oversee programs across a single campus than across continents and time zones. When you operate internationally, you rely on local partners, and you have to ensure your standards remain intact.
There’s also regulatory complexity. Universities often must satisfy both home-country accreditation requirements and host-country quality frameworks. Those systems can overlap, conflict, or create additional layers of oversight. Institutions need internal structures capable of managing that complexity.
Technology helps — we can communicate instantly and share data more easily than ever — but there’s still no substitute for being physically present and building relationships in person.
Q: Looking ahead, how do you see global higher education evolving?
We’re entering a period where artificial intelligence will increasingly influence how institutions analyze data and assess quality. AI can be very effective at summarizing complex information, but human expertise remains essential in interpreting that information and making policy judgments.
More broadly, quality assurance is in constant reform. Institutions can’t assume that once they’ve established standards, the work is done. As higher education becomes more global and more digital, oversight mechanisms must evolve as well.
The central takeaway from CBERT is that quality matters — but it isn’t automatic. Universities need strong systems in place to sustain it, especially as they expand across borders.