Cross-national partnership and boundary organization : the case of a Confucius Institute in Thailand

Abstract

By December 2016, more than 512 Confucius Institutes (CIs) and 1,073 Confucius Classrooms (CCs) had been established, in over 140 countries. Through the employment of a case study approach, this research investigates the development of a CI in Thailand, and examines how different stakeholders in the partnership coordinated their various perspectives during that development. The concepts of organizational isomorphism and boundary objects were used as the study’s main theoretical lenses. Interviews, field observations, and documentary analyzes were also applied as core methods of data collection. The findings indicate that, although the CI was formed by and remains dependent on several large donors, including Chinese Hanban, it must maintain its strategic autonomy, while integrating its activities into the formal system in Thailand. Moreover, the CI must first serve the interests of the Thai university, then those of its Chinese partner university, followed by those of the donors and the Thai government. The CI must also present itself as a boundary organization, based on forms and regulations commonly accepted by the host university and the local community, to avoid uncertainties about its legitimacy. Furthermore, the staff members must have high qualifications, to make them professionally respectable and trustworthy. Several properties of the partnership were found to contribute to its plasticity in handling the different perspectives, and the tensions arising from them. First, the CI must provide sustainable outcome objects (e.g., language courses, cultural activities, exchange programs, and community service), and exist as a concrete physical object (e.g., building spaces and facilities). Second, its rules and regulations must ensure the institute is properly governed by the host university, and in accordance with its goals and practices. These are all boundary objects that rely on the input and cooperation of different partners, instead of a single party that handles every aspect on its own. Third, co-construction and modification of these boundary objects must occur, to legitimise the CI in a different social world, and the partners must position themselves among one another accordingly. Finally, it is important that practitioners and policy makers become more informed about the tensions and plasticity that must be considered in facilitating the sustainable development of CIs. Such informed understanding can lead to a more in-depth consideration of the policies and regulations guiding CIs. This study adds to the literature on the development of CIs by introducing the new perspectives of boundary objects and isomorphic processes, two theories not previously used in international education research, into the analysis of CIs. Its findings shed light on the debate over China’s program of global Chinese language and cultural promotion.