575 publications from this institution
ScopeThis series maps the emergent field of educational futures.It will commission books on the futures of education in relation to the question of globalisation and knowledge economy.It seeks authors who can demonstrate their understanding of discourses of the knowledge and learning economies.It aspires to build a consistent approach to educational futures in terms of traditional methods, including scenario planning and foresight, as well as imaginative narratives, and it will examine examples of futures research in education, pedagogical experiments, new utopian thinking, and educational policy futures with a strong accent on actual policies and examples.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The chapter discusses educational and social equity in the context of high participation systems (HPS) of higher education. It begins by discussing the terms ‘equity’ and ‘equality’ in a historical perspective. Noting that the growth of HPS is associated with more intensive competition at the entrance to elite higher education, the chapter develops four propositions in relation to equity in HPS: as systems expand, equity in the form of social inclusion is enhanced; growth is associated with increased stratification of higher education, and greater social inequality in educational and graduate outcomes, unless there is compensating state policy; the positional structure of the higher education system increasingly resembles that of society; and it becomes more difficult for states and institutions to redistribute social opportunities in education. In short, social inclusion via greater participation is more readily achieved, while an improved social mix in elite higher education institutions is more difficult to achieve.
We might be coming to one of those watershed times in Australian higher education when the system is transformed. Such transformations have occurred three times before. There was the initial building of national university and advanced college sectors between the late 1950s and the mid 1960s. There was the consolidation of mass tertiary education and its funding in the 1970s. In the late 1980s, in the Dawkins reforms, there was the creation of a mixed funded competitive university sector, with half an eye on the outside world, which had been moved closer by financial deregulation and the opening up of the Australian economy. This chapter argues for the renewal of this national mentality in the age of the global knowledge economy, grounded in somewhat different understandings and mechanisms from those of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s especially a deeper engagement at the international level. The chapter begins with five overarching challenges for policy on tertiary education, training and research in Australia (hereafter the generic 'education' is used; unless otherwise specified, this includes training and university research). Then the chapter summarises eight specific policy problems and matches those problems to possible policy solutions.
Using international and cross-country comparative analysis, this book explores how governments influence international student welfare, and how students shape their own opportunities.
The New Silk Road strategy and the rise of China in higher education raises the stakes in the engagement between China’s universities and their Western counterparts, including Anglo-American universities. The chapter focuses on the similarities and differences between Sinic and Anglo-American political and educational cultures (state, society, family, individual) and in collectivism and individualism, and the implications for higher education. The state in China is a comprehensive state rather than an Anglo-American limited liberal state. China has greater potential for collective ties, shared goods, and state intervention in higher education. These are long-standing differences. Since 1949, both state power and indigenous individualism have been enhanced in China, while Anglo-American higher education has moved toward a more exclusively individualized approach to outcomes. There is closer convergence between China and Anglo-American in universities than in the configuration of society, suggesting ongoing potential for divergence in higher education.
No abstract is provided for this article.
The autonomous global system of science, grounded in collegial networks of scientists, publishing, and cross-border papers, is expanding rapidly and spreading to a growing number of countries. Strong national science systems have emerged outside Euro-America. Yet the multipolarization of economic capacity and scientific output plays out within a continuing Euro-American science world regulated by an inside/outside binary. Global science remains primarily Anglo-American in language, leading institutions, disciplinary and publishing regimes, agendas, and topics. Non-English and endogenous knowledges are excluded. The article critiques the world-systems theory interpretation of relations of power in science. The determinist center-periphery model fails to grasp the growth and pluralization of global science and its relation with national science systems. It normalizes the Eurocentrism it opposes, radically underestimating agency outside the "center" countries. The article argues for a more ontologically open theorization of global power in science, in terms of cultural hegemony, and for an ecology-of-knowledges approach.
OBE 1978, PhD Lon., Hon D Lit (Ed) Lon., Hon D Litt (Ed) Syd., MA Illin., MA M Ed Melb., FASSA, FACE Foundation Editor of the Australian Journal of Education (1957-1972) William Fraser (Bill) Connell made a profound contribution to research and scholarship in relation to education in Australia, to teacher education and its organisation, and to policy and public understandings of education. He conceived education as a field of practice that was at the same time a field of knowledge, arguing consistently that both should be augmented as much as possible, the one informing the other. Bill Connell enjoyed a long and highly productive career, which continued after he stepped down from full-time work at the University of Sydney at the age of 60 in 1976, `retiring' to Mornington, a beach town located just off the south-eastern edge of Melbourne, to produce major work in the history of education and in comparative and international education. He influenced generations of students and was greatly respected by his colleagues here and abroad. Bill Connell was born on 28 June 1916 in Lockhart, New South Wales. He was raised in Melbourne, attending Glenferrie State School, Mont Albert Central School and Melbourne Grammar School before completing a BA and BEd at the University of Melbourne, where his lifelong interests in the history of education, and comparative and international education, had their roots. During World War II he served in the Navy while enrolled in an MEd at Melbourne, where he won the Cohen Prize. In 1946 he graduated with a PhD from the University of London. The thesis was published as The educational thought and influence of Matthew Arnold. From 1948 to 1951 he worked at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he completed a second MA. This was a seminal period: Bill developed strong and affectionate ties at Urbana-Champaign, returning as a Visiting Professor and encouraging many Australian colleagues and graduate students to make the same journey. The University of Illinois established a Connell scholarship to facilitate international movement. He was appointed as a Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney in 1951, becoming a Reader in 1954 and a Professor in 1955 before turning 40. At that time he had only one other academic colleague in education. The Faculty of Education at the University of Sydney was created in the next two decades. The growth of education at Sydney and other `sandstone' universities was particularly important. It ensured that the emerging field of education was not confined to the teachers' colleges and the colleges of advanced education, which were formally excluded from the university research culture. While at Sydney University, Bill was active on many fronts. He conducted two major surveys of adolescents in Sydney, he chaired the Australian UNESCO Education Committee (1964-1973) and the National Committee on Social Science Teaching (1970-1977), and organised a major international conference on education in the social sciences for UNESCO. He contributed markedly to international relations in and through education, being active in the United States and the United Kingdom as well as Australia, and conducting visits to China and the USSR during the period of the Cold War. He took part in study tours to China in 1972 and 1974, just as relationships between Australia and China were beginning to open up. At different times he was a Visiting Professor at Illinois, Columbia, the University of California Los Angeles, London and Wolfson College at Cambridge. He served as President of the Australian Association for Research in Education in 1973: in 1978 he was made an honorary Life Member of the Association. He was a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, Australia. On his formal retirement, Bill Connell became an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney, and a Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. …
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.
"2 Higher Education and Science in the Age of Trump, Brexit and Le Pen" published on 11 Apr 2018 by Brill.
This chapter focuses on higher education in systems influenced by Confucian educational traditions: China, Hong Kong China, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and Korea. Though there are many differences between these countries there is convergence in system design in...
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.
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.
