575 publications from this institution
‘Competition has got a bad name in education circles in recent years, but competition is itself a good thing. Moreover, competition is a fact of life. We live in a highly competitive environment, whether we like it or not. School education should help children to learn to cope with competition, it should teach them how to succeed, how to cope with occasional failure. It is futile and cowardly and ultimately self-defeating for schools to attempt to abolish competition … We all know that the Japanese school system is highly competitive and we all know that this can produce stresses for students. But our own system has become far too uncompetitive so that bright students are not challenged.’‘Our education: nothing short of disaster’, editorial in The Australian, 6 January 1988.
The paper reviews higher education and university-based research in the Asia-Pacific, focusing principally on the ”Confucian” systems of Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong China, Taiwan and Singapore. These systems exhibit or have exhibited a special developmental dynamism-one still playing out in all systems except Japan-and created a distinctive model of higher education provision. The Confucian Model is rapidly pluralizing global power in higher education because in some respects it works more effectively than system designs in North America, the English-speaking world and Europe. The model rests on (1) a tendency to universal participation in tertiary education partly financed by high and growing levels of household funding of tuition, sustained by the private duty to invest in education in the context of social competition mediated by examinations; (2) accelerated public investment in research and ”world-class” universities, and (3) strong nation-state shaping of priorities and behaviours. The Model has downsides, e.g., in relation to social equity in participation, and the tendency to top-down governmental interference in university autonomy and academic creativity. But together with economic growth in the context of low tax regimes, the Confucian Model enables these systems to move forward-rapidly and simultaneously-in relation to each and all the goals of mass tertiary participation, university quality, and both the quantity and quality and science-based research in higher education.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The 70th year of the IAU has been marked not only by the Covid-19 pandemic but by the geopolitical tension between the United States and China. After almost four decades of cooperation, which began in shared opposition to Soviet Russia and a shared interest in...
Early expectations after the emergence of the Internet in 1990 that globalization would weaken the role of nation states, leading to a cosmopolitan super-space, have been disappointed. Communicative globalization in higher education since the beginnings of the Internet in 1990 has been associated with extensive intersubjective networking and cooperation between institutions, the mobility of ideas and people, and the integration of science on a worldwide basis within a single system, but has not created a shared space based on respect for the other, cultural diversity and mutual learning. The chapter reviews three overlapping aspects of globalization in higher education: (1) neoliberal models of national regulation and international education, (2) Anglo-American linguistic and cultural hegemony in the organization of knowledge, and (3) global practices embodying White Supremacy. These suggest that the neo-imperial Anglo-American global project has been more successful in higher education than in most other social sectors but is now under challenge.
Choose from multiple link options via Crossref
Free Massive Open Online Courseware—MOOC—is less than a year old but it is already clear this will be the game changer in higher education worldwide. Right now, it is reverberating through the world's universities like a tectonic shock.
Globalization is the tendency towards convergence and integration on the world scale (Held, et al., 1999). All research universities are now immersed in processes of globalization. This is directly apparent in the power of the global research system in local affairs. The drive to publish in journals with international standing is now universal to the science disciplines in research universities. Another global system is apparent in the impact of university comparisons and rankings on the local and national status of universities. A comparative survey by Ellen Hazelkorn (2008) for the OECD showed that comparative rankings and research output metrics have been quickly adopted in the visions, performance measurement systems and policy goals of both national governments and institutions. Furthermore, they enter the funding decisions of corporations and donors, and affect student choices. Globalization is also apparent in the growing mobility of students and faculty (Enders and De Weert, 2009). In this regard, between 2000 and 2007 the number of cross-border students increased by 59%, an annual rate of 7%, reaching a total three million a year (OECD, 2009, p. 312). Doctoral student mobility and the short-term movement of faculty are also growing although the trend in long–term academic migration is less clear (Marginson, 2009). Policy borrowing and the partial convergence in policy frameworks and organizational templates, albeit with national and local rhythms and variations (King, 2009), are other forms of globalization in higher education.
Against the context of higher education expansion initiated in 1998, this Special Issue sets out to critically examine the major developmental trends in higher education in China. The present article sets out the broader policy context for the Special Issue with particular focus on reviewing the rapid expansion of higher education in the last two decades. More specifically, this article discusses the higher education development trends in China through the massification, diversification and internationalisation processes in transforming the higher education system. This article also highlights the major arguments of the articles being selected for this Issue.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The paper critically reviews the concept of 'global flows', beginning with the discussions of flows and networks in Appadurai (1996 Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalisation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]), Castells (2000 Castells, M. 2000. The rise of the network society, Oxford: Blackwell. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and Held et al. (1999 Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. 1999. Global transformations: politics, economics and culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]). Emphasising the need to embed 'global flows' in agency and history, and to explore global connectedness in terms of situated cases, the paper develops an analytical framework for analysing global flows in higher education. It then applies that framework in an examination of global 'scapes', impacts, transformations, situatedness and relations of power in two national universities, research leaders in their nations but located in contrasting nations: Universitas Indnesia and the Australian National University.
The number of non-EU students entering UK higher education has fallen for the first time for many year, especially students from South Asia. The UK government is under pressure from the neo-nationalist UK independence Party to reduce all forms of migration and international education has been caught by this.
No abstract is provided for this article.
"How Universities have Been Positioned as Teams in a Knowledge Economy World Cup" published on 01 Jan 2010 by Brill.
University rankings widely affect the behaviours of prospective students and their families, university executive leaders, academic faculty, governments and investors in higher education. Yet the social science foundations of global rankings receive little scrutiny. Rankings that simply recycle reputation without any necessary connection to real outputs are of no common value. It is necessary that rankings be soundly based in scientific terms if a virtuous relationship between performance and ranking is to be established, the worst potentials of rankings are to be constrained, and rankings are optimised as a source of comparative information. This article evaluates six ranking systems, S hanghai ARWU , L eiden U niversity, QS , S copus, T imes H igher E ducation and U ‐ M ultirank, according to six social science criteria and two behavioural criteria. The social science criteria are materiality (rankings must be grounded in the observable higher education world), objectivity (opinion surveys should not be used), externality (ranked universities should not be a source of data about themselves), comprehensiveness (rankings should cover the broadest possible range of functions), particularity (ranking systems should eschew multi‐indicators with weights, or proxy measures) and ordinal proportionality (vertical distinctions between universities should not be exaggerated). The behavioural criteria are the alignment of the ranking with tendencies to improved performance of all institutions and countries, and transparency, meaning accessibility to strategy making designed to maximize institutional position. The pure research rankings rate well overall but lack comprehensiveness. U ‐ M ultirank is also strong under most criteria but stymied by its 100 per cent reliance on subjective data collected via survey.
Choose from multiple link options via Crossref
The development of market relations is a striking feature of education in Australia and comparable countries. Education continues to produce non-market outputs (‘use values’) as well as market outputs, but participation in schooling is being reworked as market consumption; schools, TAFE institutions and universities are now required to sell themselves, and a range of services is provided on full cost basis. This article re-theorises markets in education, drawing on political economy and social theory (including the literature on post-modernism). It defines educational markets and describe four types of commodity produced: positional goods, self goods, training goods and knowledge goods. Post-compulsory education's long-standing role, as a vast competition for scarce social position, constitutes a form of market (one ordered by both government and private interests), and is the platform on which more orthodox economic markets in training and knowledge goods are being erected.
No abstract is provided for this article.
This paper assesses how UK universities seek to maintain their global dominant position post-Brexit through comprehensive strategic partnerships with key European institutions as part of their internationalisation strategies. Drawing on 24 semi-structured interviews conducted from November 2017 to July 2018 in 12 UK universities vertically differentiated and spread along the highly hierarchised spectrum of British universities in all four nations, we aim to examine which types of universities are most inclined to form international comprehensive university-wide strategic partnerships, and how they identify their partners. The analysis is framed within Bourdieu’s theory of “economy of practices” which considers all university practices as economic practices that are ultimately tailored towards maximising either material or symbolic profit. Unlike in business and industry, where organisations traditionally compete to maximise profit, universities must both compete and collaborate with one another in order to improve (or maintain) their position in the field. UK universities will need to navigate the post-Brexit space they find themselves thrown into, and in the process will need to review international institutional links with both European Union (EU) based and non-EU universities. This paper will assess how UK universities seek to maintain their dominant position in the field through comprehensive strategic partnerships with key foreign institutions.
