This paper reflects on some consequences in academic practices in higher education, of the neo-liberal project for the remaking of social order. In conventional critiques of neo-liberalism, it is understood as a project for the suppression of university autonomy, academic criticism and free creativity. But these critiques (which perhaps confuse the neoliberal project with the political conservatism often joined to it) do not go to the root. Neo-liberal practices constitute more than the suppression of persons or opportunities. The neo-liberal positioning of human subjects not only offers benefits to those subjects privileged by it; successful entrepreneurs, senior managers in universities and so on; it provides all human subjects with forms of positive action. Much of the popular appeal of neo-liberalism lies in its potent message about freedom. The argument in this paper is not that neo-liberalism suppresses academic freedoms, but that it channels and limits academic freedoms. We are not robbed of agency per se, but we are robbed of certain forms of agency vital to us.
In research in cross-cultural psychology, cross border international education is largely understood as a process of `adjustment´ to host country norms and institutions. The student is seen as in deficit in relation to these requirements. Home country identity becomes a barrier to be broken down. This paper instead defines international education as a process of self-formation in which student subjects manage their lives reflexively, fashioning their own changing identities, albeit within social conditions and relations largely not made by them. International students form their selves and their trajectories between home country identity, host country identity and a larger set of cosmopolitan options.
'The Handbook constitutes an essential reference source for everyone interested in studying the current meaning, scope and implications of globalization. Strongly recommended.' - Higher Education Review. Higher education has entered centre-stage in the context of the knowledge economy and has been deployed in the search for economic competitiveness and social development. Against this backdrop, this highly illuminating Handbook explores worldwide convergences and divergences in national higher education systems resulting from increased global co-operation and competition.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The paper provides an overview of geopolitical developments and tensions in universities and science, and the impact in social space-making and relations of power. Innovations in space-making in higher education combine pre-given materiality with the ideas and interpretations of agents, and the social practices they develop, some of which become part of the ongoing materiality of the sector. One example of global space-making is the Academic Ranking of World Universities (the ‘Shanghai Ranking’), an early example of China ‘going out’ in higher education to transform global university relations. Global evolution in universities and science has passed through three historical layers, all of which enter into current practice: 1) the beginnings of post-coloniality and the 1945 UN Charter and its sovereign international order; (2) from 1990 onwards the strengthening of neo-coloniality in Pax Americana and U.S.-led processes of accelerated globalization; (3) in the last 15 years the partial fragmentation of the neo-colonial order amid growing multi-polarity and the rise of China. The paper expands on present issues and tensions, including the advent of AI in education and research (which should be the subject of international cooperation but is not), and the U.S.-driven closure of relations with China in science and technology. It argues that the decoupling strategy is ill-conceived, and while it has been disruptive it is unlikely to achieve its goals. Despite the geopolitics universities need to find ways of nurturing and developing a cooperative global space based on mutual respect.
Brexit has weakened collaboration between UK higher education institutions and their EU counterparts, with negative implications for UK resources and capacity, without leading to new global strategies and opportunities. In 2020 the UK government withdrew from the Erasmus student mobility scheme and introduced the Turing scheme. While Erasmus had supported both outward UK student mobility and inward movement from Europe, Turing supports only outward mobility. In 2021–2022 the cessation of UK tuition fee arrangements for EU citizens entering UK degrees led to a sharp drop in numbers. Collaborative European research programmes have been crucial in building the infrastructure and network centrality of UK science and in attracting EU citizen researchers, but at the time of writing future UK participation as a non-member country was unresolved. The long uncertainty about this, coupled with the cessation of free people movement, have triggered the exit of some UK-based researchers and declines in UK researchers' competitiveness in European grants, EU doctoral students and established researchers entering UK, and EU country citizens as a proportion of UK academic staff. In addition, the loss of access to European structural funds has slowed the modernisation of UK higher education institutions and reduced their social contributions.
Choose from multiple link options via Crossref
Using international and cross-country comparative analysis, this book explores how governments influence international student welfare, and how students shape their own opportunities.
In 2006, 2.9 million tertiary students enrolled outside their countries of citizenship, almost five times the 0.6 million in 1975. Since 2000 foreign tertiary students have increased at 7.5 per cent per annum, twice the rate of increase of tertiary students as a whole. Tertiary campuses are ‘more cosmopolitan thereby intensifying the intercultural aspect of internationalisation at home in host countries’, says the OECD, though the effects are uneven across the world. Australia has seen very rapid growth of international students coupled with modest growth in local students, an extreme version of the overall pattern. The degree of intercultural education is less clear.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Introduction In September this year, the Victorian government conducted an Inquiry into Residential Accommodation in Melbourne, through the Department of Consumer Affairs, Victoria. This paper is based on our submission to this review and addresses specific key issues outlined in the Residential Accommodation Issues Paper and the conclusion of this paper includes some of the recommendations made to the review. The data was collected through in‐depth interviews with 200 international students from nine public Australian universities.
