Globalization and Higher Education: Quality Trends in Asia/Pacific

IFE 2020

Feb 23-March 6, 2009

John Hawkins and Deane Neubauer

The Capacity Continuum

• Expanding HE populations--China, Malaysia, Indonesia

• Contracting HE populations-Japan, Korea, Taiwan,

• Conflicting dynamics--e.g. US, Europe-slowing birth rate of some populations, first university-goers in other populations

Capacity Issues• Physical capacity: where are we going to put

the bodies?• Financial capacity: who pays for what, and

how much is there?• Human capital capacity: who prepares the

new staff required for this expanded capacity? To what standards?

• Managerial capacity: preparing managers for expanded and refined managements tasks, including innovation and adaptation, and development of HE systems.

Quality Issues

• Creating and sustaining capacity

• Creating and assuring quality

• The continuing story of public and private

• The “urge to know”--league tables

Definitional Issues Affecting Quality

• Shifting ground of market definitions• Linking HE standards with those of

particular industries• The compulsion toward equality of

application for quality standards• HE contestations of quality by discipline• Multiplicity of measures provided by

society for HE quality

Sanyal and Martin (2007): ten core meanings of quality

• Providing excellence• Being exceptional• Providing value for money• Conforming to specifications• Getting things right the first time• Meeting customers’ needs• Having zero defects• Providing added value• Exhibiting fitness of purpose• Exhibiting fitness for purpose

Four QA Trends• Where no quality assessment existed-build

it--the 1990’s as the decade of HE quality assessment program development

• Refining measurement to reflect differentiations of quality

• Shifting from inputs to outputs--from capacity for quality to demonstrations of quality

• The rise of cross-border quality assessment and accreditation

Underlying QA Factors

• Conceptual– Defining HE environments through neo-

liberalism– Shifting relationships between state and

HEI’s– Changing methodologies and methods for

applying QA to HEI’s– Internationalization and Globalization

QA Factors

• Structural– Privatization and “incorporation movement”– Changes in funding patterns and sources– Autonomy– Rapid expansion of HE in given environments– Rise of national agencies dedicated to quality

assessment– Diversification of HE systems– Curricula changes and “alignment” issues– Proliferation of multi-campus systems

QA Factors

• Social/Policy– Public accountability movements– Extension of managerialism– New types of students– Public policy responsibility for QA

Cross Border Education

• Two views of education: reactor to globalization; actor of change

• Demand for higher and adult education--especially professional--increasing in most countries

• Information and communication technologies providing alternate and virtual means of delivery

• New types of providers: international companies, for-profit institutions, corporate universities, IT and media companies

Education as a Good and as a Commodity

• Trade talk renders education a service and not a commodity

• Education sector often resents language shifts that move initiative and regulation away from education policy centers and into trade centers

• GATS a wake up call: It has forced education to carefully consider (a) significant growth in crossborder education that is happening irrespective of trade agreements and (b) reality and impact of multilateral trade rules on both domestic and crossborder higher education and commercial trade in education services

Growth and Shift to Commercial Crossborder Education

• Crossborder education=movement of education (students, researchers, professors, learning materials, programs, providers, knowledge, etc.) across national/regional or geographic borders

• Demand will increase from 1.8 million international students in 2000 to 7.2 million in 2025

• 70% of demand will come from Asia Pacific• Exponential growth predicted for programs and

institutions/providers

Global Higher Education Index (GEI)

• Companies that offer education programs and services publicly traded on a stock exchange

• 49 Companies in five groups:– Brick and Mortar– E-learning– IT training– Publishers– Software and consultancy firms

Category Forms and Conditions of Mobilit y

Development Educational Commercial Cooperation Linkages Tra de

People Students Professors/scholars Researchers/ Experts/consultants

Semester/year abroad Full degrees

Field/research work Internships Sabbaticals Consulting

Programs Course, program sub-degree, degree, post graduate

Twinning Franchised

Articulated/ Validated Joint/Double Award

Online/Distance

Providers Institutions Organizations Companies

Branch Campus Virtual University

Merger/Acquisition Independent Institutions

Projects Academic projects Services

Research Curriculum

Capacity Building Educational services

Rankings Intensify Global Competition

• Universities are widely judged by research performance. The Jiao Tong data shape reputations

• Marketing (‘we are world-class’, ‘we are a research university’ etc.) is no longer enough - the data must confirm the university’s claim •

• Many governments/nations now want ‘super-league’ universities, leading to greater concentration of research, selective investment, more stratification

• Every university wants to lift its rankings • The competition for high quality researchers leads to price

effects (salaries rise) and intensifies brain drain (Simon Marginson 2007)

The Urge to Know and Excel

• The rapid emergence of “league tables”, e.g. London Times and Shanghai Jiao Tong data

• Issues of which indicators are employed and what kinds of institutions will rank best on these indicators

• Leads to engagement of the policy process in the quest to have globally competitive universities

Financing of Higher Education

• Universal trend of declining public sector support

• Creates possible double bind– Declining public support draws private funding--

accelerated by liberalization– When private funding increases, often public

sector response is to let support fall even more.

• Trade enters as countries without capacity or will turn increasingly to foreign investors, creating dependency nexus

Quality Assurance

• Significant new activity--over sixty countries in last decade• Historically countries have not been concerned with imported education• Sectors other than education (e.g. business, accounting, etc.) also

pursuing quality standards (e.g. Baldridge Awards)• High level of non-commercial cross border activity also drives quality

questions.• Commercialization of accreditation through:

– Export and contracting of existing agencies (e.g. Regional and specialized accreditation in the US.

– Invention of new international accrediting mechanisms– Quality control of HE accreditation itself an issue

• Accreditation an important part of branding for trade

Diversification and Diversity Issues

• Which courses are offered and why? Market selection can lead to significant bias toward high return courses (business, information technology, communication)

• What gets left behind and must the public/non-profit sector make up the difference?

• What happens to HE overall when research is left out of the equation?

• Two faces of commercialization and cultural diversity:

– English language dominance

– Conflict over “fusion” or “dilution” of culture.

– Will commercial providers spend “extra” for relevant local content?

Human Capacity or Brain Gain Drain?/Trade Creep or Trade Choice?

• Trade offs as private sector provides capacity and crossborder exchanges increase. Who goes where for what and stays where for how long? Including migration out of HE to private sector.

• Trade creep=“the quietly pervasive introduction of trade concepts, language and policy into the education sector.” (Discursive shifts)

• Trade choice=the welcome investment of resources into HE as an export industry and its promotion.

• Mixed benefit packages for differentiated recipients

Traditional HE

• Trinity of teaching/learning, research and service guided evolution of universities and contributions to social, cultural, human, scientific, technological and economic advancement of nation

• And--total development of individuals• To what extent can these attributes be disaggregated

and rendered by different providers?