Mixed-methods case study reveals zero credit-transfer utilization despite multiple partnerships in higher education, highlighting the need for structural leadership reforms.
For higher-education leaders, a formal inter-institutional agreement is often treated as evidence of collaboration, yet an agreement on paper is no guarantee of one in practice. This study examines a theoretically extreme single case: a Korean university holding credit-transfer agreements with 31 partner institutions yet recording 0% utilization over five consecutive years (2019–2023), verified against institutional registrar and audit records. Drawing on institutional theory, we argue that decoupling persists not through a single barrier but through interlocking informational, procedural, and cultural mechanisms. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design—stakeholder surveys (students n = 37; faculty n = 15; staff n = 13), one expert focus group (n = 7), and a two-round Delphi panel (n = 16)—we identify and theorize the leadership and governance conditions that, on the available evidence, appear to sustain this gap. Although 54.1% of students (20 of 37) reported willingness to participate, they rated system functionality at 1.7/5.0, indicating a structural intention–behavior gap. Expert consensus (CVR > 0.75 across priority items) supports a five-stage, foundation-first intervention sequence. The findings offer leaders a practical diagnostic: an agreement’s existence says little about its operational health, and closing the gap requires deliberate leadership action rather than additional agreements. The proposed framework requires implementation testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: