Stronger links between TNE and research would boost innovation

An Australian ministerial delegation’s visit to India is the perfect opportunity to highlight the research potential of branch campuses, says Paul Harris

Published on
December 9, 2025
Last updated
December 8, 2025
Indian scientists perform an experiment
Source: Casarsa/Getty Images

This week’s visit to India by Australian ministers and vice-chancellors highlights the importance of the bilateral relationship to each country’s goals for education and research. It also highlights a huge opportunity to better connect transnational education (TNE) with our international research collaboration.

Australian universities are leading the way on new partnerships in India, following the country’s recent opening up to branch campuses. Deakin University and the University of Wollongong were the first overseas universities to set up campuses in Gift City in Gujarat, and now universities including Western Sydney, La Trobe and Victoria are establishing their own centres elsewhere in India.

A key part of this is a commitment to an inclusive model of education, broadening access and choice for students in both countries. But it is not just about undergraduate education. These universities have also been developing joint PhD programmes and are strengthening their existing research links in areas of mutual national priority. Australian universities recognise the critical importance of graduate employability, and as they forge stronger links with industry in India for their students, they are also exploring new opportunities for joint R&D.

Over the past decade, Australia’s research collaboration with India has grown faster than its collaboration with any other major partner country – and education ministers in both countries have noticed. India’s Dharmendra Pradhan has encouraged Australian universities, as they set up campuses in India, to build stronger connections with the Indian government’s new research Centres of Excellence. And this week Australia’s Jason Clare has announced a new framework for bilateral research collaboration, developed by the Australia-India Institute (disclaimer: I served on the steering committee for this project).

ADVERTISEMENT

Australia’s new assistant minister for international education, Julian Hill, has outlined his desire to see a stronger connection between international education and research collaboration as he puts his stamp on the Australian government’s new strategic framework for international education, due to be finalised next year. This is a positive step and reflects the ways that universities are thinking about innovative models for the future.

At the same time, the Australian government has been undertaking a Strategic Examination of R&D throughout 2025 – the biggest review of the research and innovation system in more than 15 years. And its Department of Industry, Science and Resources is currently consulting on the potential benefits of associating to the European Union’s Horizon Europe research funding scheme.

ADVERTISEMENT

Australia has some of the highest rates of international research collaboration in the world and derives great national benefit – in terms of talent, quality and impact – from this worldwide engagement. But we know that the global landscape for R&D is shifting. China has recently overtaken the US as the world’s leading producer of research output but new players are rising fast – focusing only on the US and China now means missing out on half of all global R&D. New patterns of collaboration and new opportunities are emerging.

Australia should be seizing opportunities for closer collaboration with partners in Europe but not if it means turning attention away from critical partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region. We should also recognise that different universities have different international priorities and profiles, and see this diversity as a strength. For example, the Group of Eight institutions tend to partner more with leading European countries and China, whereas India and the ASEAN countries are more of a focus for the universities in the Innovative Research Universities (IRU) network.

Australia’s extensive experience in all forms of TNE (including joint degree programmes and offshore campuses) is also a distinct strength and should be linked more clearly to our R&D strategy. New campuses in India broaden access and opportunity for students, and they also provide a vital hub for new research and innovation collaboration.

Across the IRU network, research collaboration with Indian partners has grown fivefold over the past decade and the quality and impact of this joint research is very high.

ADVERTISEMENT

James Cook University, in Australia’s tropical north, provides an excellent example. It already has an overseas campus in Singapore and is leveraging its internationally recognised strengths in ecology, marine and earth sciences to expand collaboration with the Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, focusing on shared challenges of coastal ecosystems, water quality and blue carbon. This will lead to expanded opportunities for students and researchers and a stronger connection to Odisha’s recently inaugurated Marine Biotechnology Research and Innovation Corridor, which will benefit both countries.

The final report of the Strategic Examination of R&D is due to be presented to ministers before Christmas. So far it hasn’t had much focus at all on the national benefits of international collaboration. But the opportunities are clear.

Setting up our R&D system to maximise the benefit to Australia into the future requires an up-to-date understanding of our place in the world and the exciting opportunities that brings. By building on the distinct strengths, missions and international profiles of our universities – including our campuses around the Indo-Pacific region – Australia can boost its national innovation system by connecting it more explicitly to international and transnational education.

India’s research and innovation system is growing – and internationalising – fast. Australian universities see huge mutual benefit in new models of both TNE and transnational research. The Australian government should make this connection at the policy level as well.

ADVERTISEMENT

Paul Harris is executive director of Innovative Research Universities (Australia).

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (1)

new
Email: notifications@officeforstudents.org.uk Dear Sir/Madam, Formal Notification/Complaint: Misuse of the Prevent Duty by De Montfort University Leadership as an Example of Workplace Bullying, Harassment, and Potential Misconduct in Public Office I am writing as a Professor at De Montfort University (DMU) to notify you of a grave concern regarding the university’s senior leadership’s application of the Prevent duty under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This appears to represent a deliberate misuse of counter-terrorism powers to intimidate and suppress legitimate staff criticism of university management, constituting workplace bullying and harassment, while also raising questions of misconduct in public office by the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Katie Normington, and her executive team. Such actions undermine free speech, academic freedom, and staff wellbeing, contrary to employment law, health and safety obligations, human rights protections, and the principles of good governance in publicly funded higher education institutions. The incident occurred in September 2025 and centred on an unofficial online town hall meeting organised by DMU staff, UCU members, student groups, and external community participants. Held on a private Zoom platform during work hours but without any university sponsorship or affiliation, the meeting addressed serious concerns about proposed redundancies (affecting nearly 100 teaching staff and 300 agency staff), financial mismanagement, and institutional leadership under Professor Normington. Invited speakers included local MP Shockat Adam and Green Party councillor Patrick Kitterick, contributing to discussion on these local employment and governance issues. One day before the meeting, on 10 September 2025, DMU’s Executive Director of People Services, Bridget Donoghue (acting under the direction of the university’s senior leadership), emailed staff and UCU members with explicit threats to report the event to the Office for Students under Prevent. The email alleged that the speakers presented a risk of “radicalising” students and demanded they be un-invited, citing a university policy on external speaker vetting. The meeting proceeded regardless, after which DMU confirmed it would include the event in its annual Prevent return, claiming it was “university-affiliated”. This deployment of Prevent appears not only disproportionate but intimidatory, designed to silence dissent rather than address any genuine safeguarding concern: 1. Workplace Bullying and Harassment: The threat to invoke counter-terrorism reporting against staff organising lawful discussion of workplace issues creates a climate of fear and intimidation. This amounts to bullying behaviour by senior management, breaching the university’s duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (to protect employees from psychosocial risks, including stress from harassment) and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in employment contracts. Such actions deter staff from raising legitimate grievances, exacerbating an already toxic environment amid ongoing redundancies and prior no-confidence votes in Professor Normington (May and June 2025). 2. Misconduct in Public Office: As Vice-Chancellor of a publicly funded institution, Professor Normington holds a public office. Directing or approving the misuse of statutory Prevent powers to target internal criticism—rather than genuine extremism risks—may constitute wilful misconduct amounting to an abuse of public trust, contrary to the common law offence of misconduct in public office. This weaponisation of anti-terrorism measures against elected representatives and staff discussing employment rights undermines public confidence in higher education leadership. 3. Chilling Effect on Free Speech and Human Rights: The actions infringe freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) and assembly (Article 11 ECHR) under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as statutory duties to secure free speech under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. In a liberal democracy, university leaders must model open debate, not suppress it through veiled threats. 4. Lack of Proportionality and Affiliation: No credible radicalisation risk existed; the event was unofficial, privately hosted, and focused on institutional accountability. Invoking Prevent here serves no safeguarding purpose but clearly aims to harass and bully dissenting voices. As the regulator with oversight of Prevent compliance, free speech duties, and institutional governance, I urge the OfS to investigate this matter promptly. In particular, please: • Examine whether DMU’s actions reflect a proportionate application of Prevent or an abusive attempt to intimidate staff; • Assess implications for workplace wellbeing, bullying/harassment policies, and potential breaches of employment/health and safety law; • Consider if this indicates misconduct by senior public office holders warranting referral to appropriate authorities; • Issue guidance or take enforcement action to deter similar abuses across the sector. I am available to provide additional information or evidence. This incident has received media coverage, including in The Canary on 23 October 2025 (https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/10/23/de-montfort-rely-on-prevent/). Thank you for addressing this serious issue, which strikes at the heart of democratic values in higher education. I await your response. Yours faithfully, Professor Josiah Carberry De Montfort University

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT