This book focuses on models, strengths, opportunities, constraints and tensions in internationalisation in Vietnamese higher education.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The public/private distinction is central to higher education but there is no consensus on the meaning of ‘public’. Two different meanings are in use. Economic theory distinguishes non market goods (public) that cannot be produced for profit, from market-based activity (private). This provides a basis for identifying the minimum necessary public expenditure, but does not effectively encompass collective goods. In political theory ‘public’ is often understood as state ownership and/ or control. This is more inclusive than the economic definition, and recognizes the scope for norms and policies, but lacks clear boundaries. The first part of the article synthesizes these two approaches, developing an analytical framework with four quadrants (civil society, social democracy, state quasi-market, commercial market) that can be used to categorise activities in higher education and research. The second part summarises the findings of 30 semi-structured interviews in the Russian government and two universities, conducted in 2013, concerning perceptions of public goods produced in Russian higher education. While most interviewees saw research as a global public good, they were divided in relation to teaching and learning. Some understood the education function as a public good in both the economic and political sense and wanted the government to take greater responsibility for improvement in higher education. Others saw higher education as a private good in the economic sense, and while they acknowledged the need for government because of market failure, wanted public intervention and regulation to be reduced. This division in thought about public/private paralleled the larger division between Soviet and neoliberal thinking in the Russian polity, and also the divided character of higher education, which is evenly split between free government administered places and a fee-paying student market.
Global university rankings have arrived, and though still in a process of rapid evolution, they are likely to substantially influence the long‐term development of higher education across the world. The inclusions, definitions, methods, implications and effects are of great importance. This paper analyses and critiques the two principal rankings systems prepared so far, the research rankings prepared by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the composite rankings from the Times Higher Education Supplement. It goes on to discuss the divergence between them in the performance of Australian universities, draws attention to the policy implications of rankings, and canvasses the methodological difficulties and problems. It concludes by advocating the system of university comparisons developed by the Centre for Higher Educational Development (CHE) in Germany. This evades most of the problems and perverse effects of the other rankings systems, particularly reputational and whole‐of‐institution rankings. It provides data more directly useful to and controlled by prospective students, and more relevant to teaching and learning.
Our common understandings of the public/private distinction in higher education are drawn from neo-classical economics and/or statist political philosophy.
For more than two decades, governments around the world, led by the English-speaking polities, have moved higher education systems closer to the forms of textbook economic markets. Reforms include corporatisation, competitive funding, student charges, output formats and performance reporting. But, no country has established a bona fide economic market in the first-degree education of domestic students. No research university is driven by shareholders, profit, market share, allocative efficiency or the commodity form. There is commercial tuition only in parts of vocational training and international education. While intensified competition, entrepreneurship and consumer talk are pervasive in higher education, capitalism is not very important. At the most, there are regulated quasi-markets, as in post-Browne UK. This differs from the experience of privatisation and commercialisation of transport, communications, broadcasting and health insurance in many nations. The article argues that bona fide market reform in higher education is constrained by intrinsic limits specific to the sector (public goods, status competition), and political factors associated with those limits. This suggests that market reform is utopian, and the abstract ideal is sustained for exogenous policy reasons (e.g. fiscal reduction, state control, ordering of contents). But, if capitalist markets are clearly unachievable, a more authentic modernisation agenda is needed.
In the last fifteen years several policy moves have enhanced the space for international cooperation and competition in higher education, especially in Europe through staff and student mobility schemes and the initiatives towards a European Higher Education Area and...
The chapter introduces the remarkable worldwide growth of participation in higher education, defines higher and tertiary education, and discusses and critiques the principal explanations for educational growth, from the path-breaking study by Martin Trow of the transition from elite to mass to universal higher education, to institutional theory and economic explanations. After discussing methods of theorization and comparison it introduces the contents of the chapters that follow, delineating key themes explored in the book: the dynamics of growth, driven primarily by family aspirations for betterment, the convergence between higher education and society, the rise of the corporate multi-purpose university (the ‘multiversity’), the meanings of educational massification for individual agency, and social (in)equality.
Australia's international education industry', a major export sector, slumped in 2010 because of more restrictive migration policy and visa processing, a crackdown on backdoor migration schemes, a high Australian dollar and tardy official response to racist violence affecting international students. A package of reforms in late 2011 freed up visa processing and work experience for graduates but so far industry recovery has been slow and uncertain.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The international and global dimension of higher education continues to expand in an increasingly inter-dependent and connected world, notwithstanding geo-political tensions and conflicts. There are several different strands of research and scholarship in relation to international and global phenomena. Each has distinctive perspectives, methods, and concerns; issues that it seeks to investigate, understand, and explain; and often, policies and practices that it wants to develop and change. These strands of thought can be summarised as follows: comparative higher education, higher education and international development, post-colonial studies of higher education, global higher education studies, and studies of international education mobility. This Special Issue of Oxford Review of Education adds a further strand, one not prominent in the English-language literature but longstanding and influential in China, the perspective of thinking through the world (tianxia). Each of these strands is the starting point for one of the six articles in the Special Issue. The introduction compares the approaches taken in the six articles to matters of geo-spatiality, ethics and values, and relations of power. It also discusses how each perspective sees the other perspectives; and their respective suggestions about the future development of research and scholarship in relation to international and global higher education.
This is a major work by three international scholars at the cutting edge of new research that investigates the emerging set of complex relationships between creativity, design, research, higher education and knowledge capitalism. It highlights the role of the creative and expressive arts, of performance, of aesthetics in general, and the significant role of design as an underlying infrastructure for the creative economy. This book tracks the most recent mutation of these serial shifts - from postindustrial economy to the information economy to the digital economy to the knowledge economy to the 'creative economy' - to summarize the underlying and essential trends in knowledge capitalism and to investigate post-market notions of open source public space. The book hypothesizes that creative economy might constitute an enlargement of its predecessors that not only democratizes creativity and relativizes intellectual property law, but also emphasizes the social conditions of creative work. It documents how these profound shifts have brought to the forefront forms of knowledge production based on the commons and driven by ideas, not profitability per se; and have given rise to the notion of not just 'knowledge management' but the design of 'creative institutions' embodying new patterns of work.
This book is the first comprehensive history of Australian education systems, programs and policies of the period since 1960. The narrative of changes in schooling, training and university life is placed in the context of changing policies and governments and evolving economic and social trends. The book draws on economic and sociological data, key texts and political events, anecdotes and a review of other analyses to build its rich picture of the role of education programs in the modernisation of Australian life. The book traces the shift from universal public provision to market systems, with the concomitant change in definitions of participation and equity. It examines the implications of this change for the labour market and the economy, in social policies and in cultural life. An important focus of the book is the discussion of the extension of citizenship through education.
Introduction: Global students and their discontents Governing globalisation? National regulation and international student welfare Fast growing, diverse: Mapping the business of international education 'There's gold in them thar students!' Australia and New Zealand in the global market Much regulation, minimal protection: The Australian model Pastoral care, minimal information: The New Zealand model Different frameworks, similar outcomes: Comparing Australia and New Zealand Doing it differently: National re-regulation and trans-national student citizens Conclusion: Managing student mobility.
The paper critically reviews the widely adopted definition of 'internationalisation' of higher education shaped by Knight and colleagues since 1993 through successive revisions and intended for universal application. Here, internationalisation is defined as 'the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension' into post-secondary education. The definition has long led cross-border scholarship, discourse and practice, being promoted in support of a wide range of governmental, commercial and institutional agendas. However, the disjunction between idea and reality has increasingly troubled advocates of the definition; and underlying this tension are more fundamental difficulties. It attempts to unify contradictory cross-border practices under the leadership of the global West/North. The geography of the definition rests on an ideological binary of 'globalisation' (bad) and 'internationalisation' (good) that locks practitioners into nation-bound approaches. The definition is non-relational in form yet relational in consequence, focused on characteristics of the self – the person, the institution, the nation – without regard for the consequences of internationalisation for the other. Hence when applied by Western/Northern agents the definition facilitates continued Euro-American domination. The paper suggests a different approach to terminology, geography, relationality and power in cross-border education.
Equality of opportunity has been the most important organising principle in education policies in postwar Australia. Equality of opportunity was central to the expansion of publicly-funded education: the promise of upward social mobility through education had broad appeal. Equality of opportunity objectives are now being displaced by the newer and more limited concept of market equity. Equality of opportunity usually implies equality of the educational resources provided to each child, and sometimes goes further to mean positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged. However, equity is usually understood only as the right to participate in education. Whereas economic objections used to work in tandem with equality of opportunity policies, the two are now often in contradiction. Further, the failure of the older equality policies to deliver on their promises has partly eroded people's support for the equality of opportunity perspective, especially middle-class support. There is a growing emphasis on relative individual advantage through education. This new policy environment threatens to result in significantly greater inequality of opportunity.
