This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 16 October 2014, At: 10:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Theorizing student mobility in an era ofglobalizationFazal Rizvi aa Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne ,Victoria, AustraliaPublished online: 26 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Fazal Rizvi (2011) Theorizing student mobility in an era of globalization,Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17:6, 693-701, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2011.625145

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625145

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Theorizing student mobility in an era of globalization

Fazal Rizvi*

Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

(Received 11 February 2011; final version received 25 February 2011)

Over the past two decades, considerable importance has been attached around theworld to international student mobility as a way of internationalization of highereducation. A whole range of institutional strategies have been employed toencourage students to consider education abroad, either on a short term basis, ona study tour or educational exchange, or enrolling for a longer period in degreeawarding programs. At the same time, in many ways, international mobility foreducation has become a marker of success and social status. As a result, the num-ber of students studying in higher educational institutions outside their nationalborders has increased from less than half a million in mid-1980s to almost threemillion now. In this paper, I want to discuss this historical phenomenon both asan expression of and response to the contemporary processes of globalization. Iwant to argue that the growing student interest in international mobility cannot beadequately understood without paying attention to the ways in which institutionalstrategies for the recruitment of international students articulate with the shiftingsocial imaginaries of people, broadly linked to the processes of globalization. Indeveloping my argument, I want to use the illustrated case of Australian highereducation and the manner in which it has been enormously successful in captur-ing the changing cultural and political dynamics of globalization.

Shifting historical rationales

International mobility of students has, of course, always been an important featureof higher education. From their very beginning, universities have attracted scholarsfrom abroad, stressing the importance of intellectual exchange of information andideas. Historical evidence suggests that foreigners traveled long distances to studyat ancient universities in India, China, and the Middle East (Guruz, 2008). In theseventh and eighth centuries, for example, students flocked to Indian universitiessuch as Nalanda, Takshila, and Sarnath not only to study art, architecture, and reli-gion but also the sciences and mathematics. Alexandria, Fez, and Baghdad housedmajor centers of learning, hosting a large number of scholars and students fromGreece and Rome. In turn, medieval European universities, such as Bologna andPadua, attracted students from Asia and the Middle East. There is thus nothing newabout international student mobility.

The notion of exchange of ideas and intercultural learning has always been apart of the mission of higher education. But beyond these broad objectives, studentmotivations for mobility, on the one hand, and the guiding principles and institu-

*Email: frizvi@unimelb.edu.au

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practiceAquatic InsectsVol. 17, No. 6, December 2011, 693–701

ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online� 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625145http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

tional forms around mobility, on the other, have varied greatly over the years.Rationales underlying international mobility of students and scholars have beenhistorically situated, located within a broader understanding of the global dynamicsrelevant to the particular and shifting historical circumstances. Indeed thephenomenon of mobility does not only express broader historical shifts it alsosometimes drives them. Mobility gives shape to institutional forms and has thepotential of transforming social identities.

This can clearly be shown by pointing to the ways in which during the colonialperiod, from the eighteenth century, international student mobility was linked mostlyto various colonial arrangements designed to develop a local elite that was sympa-thetic to the economic and political interests of the colonial powers. While theseunidirectional and asymmetrical arrangements were often justified in terms of ‘thecivilizing mission of education,’ they also masked a deeper imperial logic. From theperspective of the colonizing powers, the rationale for international student mobilitylargely resided in the fact that the empires needed an educated administrative classable to manage local populations. To perform this task, the development of‘western’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes among the indigenous elite was consid-ered essential. International education was designed at least in part to impart suchattributes.

Graduates of European universities, it was assumed, would return to the colonies,not only appropriately socialized in western modernist dispositions but also indebtedto their colonial masters. In this way, the western idea of modernity was fundamentalto the role universities were asked to play in meeting the political needs of theempires. The local elites within the colonies, on the other hand, viewed education at aleading European university, such as Oxford, Cambridge and London in England, orSorbonne in France, as a kind of ‘finishing’ school, enabling them to ‘mimic’ the col-onizers (Bhabha, 1994) and thus maintain their position of power, by marking them-selves apart from the rest of their fellow citizens. In this way, international educationserves as a social technology, designed to differentiate classes of people.

After independence, in the post-colonial era, international student mobility wasstill highly prized, but now had to assume a new rationale, driven largely by theideologies of nationalism and ‘developmentalism.’ Programs such as the Colomboand Fulbright Plans – and also similar plans in the Soviet Union – were created toprovide opportunities for talented students in the newly independent countries toacquire advanced, technical, scientific, and administrative training. Designed primar-ily as a foreign aid program, the Colombo Plan, for example, represented a commit-ment by the richer Commonwealth countries to provide education that wasconsidered necessary for the development of the new nations (Oakman, 2005).

The focus of this education under these aid programs was on transfer of knowl-edge and skills, and local capacity building, the elements of which were selectedlargely to meet the nationalist aspirations of industrialization and economic develop-ment. These programs were not however crafted solely in support of these develop-ment aspirations: it was also linked to the strategic interests of the West within thebroader ‘cold war’ politics. An ‘aid’ program was viewed as a key instrument inpublic diplomacy, designed to make it less likely for the newly independent nationsto fall into the communist block. This line of thinking was perhaps most clearlyevident in the Fulbright Plan, created by the United States as an exercise in ‘softpower’ (Nye, 2005), leading Soviet bloc to develop similar programs.

694 F. Rizvi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

By the mid-1980s, however, the ‘developmentalist’ assumptions underlying sucheducational aid programs were no longer popular. Not only was the cold warcoming to an end – making the programs of educational aid arguably unnecessary,but the discourse of development itself was also increasingly treated as ideologicallysuspect. It was argued, for example, that the ideology of development represented anew form of colonial practice that effectively institutionalized global inequalities ofpower, and that notions such as knowledge transfer served the interests of theeconomically developed countries more so than they helped the poorer nations(Escobar, 1991). It was pointed out, moreover, that a large proportion of interna-tional students did not return to their countries of origin to take up the developmen-tal roles that had been envisaged for them, contributing to what became known asthe phenomenon of ‘brain drain’ (Rizvi, 2005).

At the same time, under the financial pressures of their own, universities in thedeveloped countries felt they could no longer continue to support international stu-dents, especially with a declining number of scholarships provided by governments.They noted moreover that many of these students came from elite families whocould easily afford to pay tuition. In Australia, debates around these issues wererehearsed in two major government reports, prepared by Golding (1985) andJackson (1986). These reports presented two somewhat contrasting views of interna-tional student mobility: in terms of ‘aid’, as had traditionally been the case, on theone hand, and ‘trade’, as it was strongly suggested by Jackson, on the other.

Against the backdrop of a shifting set of historical conditions, Australia becameone of the first countries to recognize the potential of a new discourse of interna-tional student mobility that did not entirely abandon the development aspirations ofthe Colombo Plan but supplemented it with the language of educational markets. Itwas widely believed that the legacy of the Colombo Plan, which had helped forge apowerful elite in Asia well disposed toward Australian education, could be used tocreate an educational market in higher education, recruiting initially fee-payingstudents from the fast developing countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and HongKong, where the demand for Australian education appeared considerable. Similarsentiments existed in the UK, whose universities were able due to their coloniallegacy to begin treating international students as a source of revenue, within thecontext of declining public funds.

The Australian policy shift from ‘aid’ to ‘trade’ turned out to be relatively seam-less (Harman, 2004), leading to the emergence of a new ‘markets’ perspective oninternational education that is now widely celebrated. It would be wrong howeverto characterize this perspective as totally market-driven. Instead it had a hybrid formthat did not entirely abandon the older ‘development’ rationales for internationalstudent mobility, as it continued not only to stress the traditional values of educa-tion but also the notions of modernization, social and cultural development, capac-ity-building, and the role of education in promoting international relations.

However, superimposed upon these sentiments emerged a newer discourse ofeducational markets and institutional reform linked to the concerns of revenue gen-eration for universities, building institutional profile and reputation, diversifying thecampus, and the development of human resources for a fast globalizing economy.As Jane Knight (2004) has pointed out, this view of international student mobilitycontained a range of competing ideas and practices, focused, on the one hand, uponthe need to integrate an international perspective into the primary functions ofteaching, research and service, and to promote international activities for ‘mutually

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

beneficial relationship’, and the opportunities to develop a robust set of marketpractices, enabling higher education to become ‘an export industry’ in whichuniversities competed for students and funds, on the other.

In Australia, this hybrid formation was institutionalized in 1988 by the so-calledDawkins reforms, which not only introduced the higher education contributionscheme (HECS) for domestic students but also allowed universities to chargeinternational students full cost-recovery tuition fees. Yet while the introduction ofHECS was politically contested to some extent, the policy on international studentfees was embraced by most universities in Australia with great enthusiasm, unleash-ing a culture of entrepreneurialism that had been inconceivable earlier in the decade.This entrepreneurialism did not however reject the importance of international rela-tions through which the Australian government had promoted its strategic interestswithin the Asia-Pacific region (Beazley, 1992). Instead, it sought to re-define theways in which universities could now relate to Australia’s regional neighbors, andhow they needed to engage with the emerging dynamics of globalization that hadunleashed various commercial opportunities in services. It encouraged a new kindof knowledge about international relations and programs based on a particular inter-pretation of the changing nature of the global economy in which knowledge wasincreasingly viewed as a commodity, and in which national development itself wasbelieved to require a new set of globally transferable skills.

Technologies of recruitment

Against this perspective relating to the commercial value of knowledge, an empha-sis upon student recruitment became an increasingly dominant feature of Australianhigher education, with activities of international education filtered through the lensof marketing. During the 1990s, large bureaucracies were created at all Australianuniversities to recruit international students and meet their needs as clients. Market-ing initiatives of international offices at universities came to occupy a central placewithin the administrative structure of Australian universities. While other aspects ofinternationalization, such as teaching and learning, were not entirely overlooked,market concerns disproportionally attracted the attention of senior university admin-istrators, as they struggled to balance their budgets within the context of decliningpublic funds. The success of universities was now measured in terms of the numberof fee-paying international students, and celebrated by government agencies, as inthe case of the annual Export of Education Award. Each year universities and themedia noted the spectacular increase in the number of students, often sidelining thecritical issues of quality and the capacity of universities to provide them with thepromised educational experiences.

Within less than 10 years, most Australians began to view international educa-tion as an industry, with its own administrative technology. As with other industries,this technology created its own rules of operation based on an expertise that incor-porated knowledge of market segments and specificities as well as a symbolic lan-guage about the distinctive benefits of internationalization. Developed also werehighly specialized structures and functions responsible for global operations, as, forexample, in well-developed advertising and marketing programs conducted not onlythrough the media but also through educational Expos and market-orientated confer-ences. Complex articulation arrangements with overseas educational providers werenegotiated to ensure a steady flow of students. A highly innovative system wasforged for the use of recruitment agents, who were often the first point of contact

696 F. Rizvi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

between potential students and the university. Also established was a vast array oftransnational programs, to teach in which Australian academics and support stafftraveled far and wide (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2005).

The spectacular rise in the number of international students now attendingAustralian higher education – from around 40,000 in 1989 to more than half amillion in 2010 – could not have however been achieved without the role playedby the Australian government, whose policy settings were highly supportive ofentrepreneurial activities, allowing recruitment practices to take place through itsdiplomatic missions. The work of Austrade in casting higher education in tradeterms was also crucial. Australia also provided leadership in steering internationalorganizations, such as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), toward a discourse of global markets in education, beyond a view of edu-cational mobility that was already familiar to Europeans through EU programs suchas Erasmus. It actively participated in many of the negotiations over a GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade Organization, aimed atdetermining a globally agreed set of rules for trade in educational services. It alsoforged a nexus between its education and immigration policies. Through its ‘points’system, Australia’s immigration policy permitted potential students in many fieldsof study an easier path to permanent residence.

As important as these specific initiatives of the Australian government and uni-versities were, the development of a market-oriented view of international studentmobility cannot however be fully comprehended without an understanding of thedynamics of globalization within which it became possible for Australia to capturehigher education’s commercial potential. This dynamics is clearly embodied withinthe language of GATS, but relates more broadly to a social imaginary of globaliza-tion (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

Student mobility and shifting imaginaries

The concept of globalization has of course been defined in many different ways,but common to most definitions is the idea of social processes that describe therapid movement of ideas, goods, and people around the globe, radically transform-ing relations among people and communities across national borders (Cohen &Kennedy, 2007). Driven largely by developments in information and communicationtechnologies, globalization has given rise to new forms of transnational interconnec-tivity. It has implied that while people continue to live in particular localities, theselocalities are increasingly integrated into larger systems of global networks.

Crucially, however, it needs to be noted that globalization involves both anobjective and a subjective dimension. It seeks to represent an objective account ofthe ways in which geographical constraints on economic, political, and culturalactivities are receding; but on a more subjective level, it suggests that peoplearound the world are becoming increasingly aware of this fact and are re-shapingtheir lives accordingly. As people – as well as governments and institutions such asuniversities – experience on a daily basis the realities of transnational economicrelations, technological and media innovations, and cultural flows that cut acrossnational borders, with greater speed and intensity than ever before, they increasinglyuse these experiences to make strategic calculations of their futures, and how theymight take advantage of the opportunities global interconnectivity now offers.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 697

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

These calculations are not however made in a void, but within an imaginary ofglobal conditions and possibilities. Appadurai (1996) has argued that while we livein a world that offers a multiplicity of social imaginaries of the ways in which theworld is now interconnected, a particular imaginary has become globally dominantThis imaginary is informed by the various assumptions of neo-liberalism,influencing not only the processes of state and institutional decision-making but alsothe strategic calculations individuals make. As a range of loosely connected ideas,the neo-liberal imaginary of globalization implies the extension of market relationsthrough which people, communities, institutions, and states are now assumed to beglobally interconnected (Steger, 2009).

In policy terms, this view replaces an earlier imaginary that had assumed theimportance of state provision of goods and services as a way of ensuing the socialwell-being of a national population, and as a way of forging social and nationalcohesion. In contrast, the neo-liberal imaginary advocates a minimalist state, con-cerned with the promotion of the instrumental values of competition and choiceacross national boundaries. It rests on a pervasive naturalization of the logic of themarkets, justifying it on the grounds of both individual autonomy and social effi-ciency. It preaches the principle of global ‘free trade’, applying it equally to bothgoods and services, including education, which had once been marked by its largelynational character.

The neo-liberalism imaginary thus encourages a particular way of interpretingglobal interconnectivity, as an objective set of social processes, the logic of whichis designed to steer people and institutions alike toward a particular subjectiveawareness of recent changes in global economy and culture. It thus promotes notonly a specific way of interpreting the ‘facts’ of global interconnectivity but alsothe values attached to that interpretation. In this way, neo-liberalism is highly nor-mative, and directs us toward a collective consciousness of the world as an inter-connected space, in which new commercial opportunities exist for global trade inareas that had once been regarded as public goods. Australia was one of the firstcountries to seize upon these opportunities, with its higher education institutionsrecognizing how the global knowledge economy had created a class of studentswho were prepared to invest in global mobility for higher education, and who con-sidered the value of international knowledge networks in largely economic terms.

Australian policies and institutional practices on student mobility were arguablydeveloped within this neo-liberal imaginary and involved a set of assumptions aboutthe calculations students and their parents make with respect to educational invest-ment, and returns on international education. International students had traditionallybeen motivated by such factors as lack of opportunities at home; perceptions of bet-ter curriculum and pedagogy; prestige associated with international education; fol-lowing family tradition and social networks; interest in travel and a morecosmopolitan life; and greater freedom and independence abroad, possibilities ofimmigration or permanent residence, and so on. However, what the Australianuniversities recognized early was that a new set of factors linked to the neo-liberalimaginary, such as assumptions about returns on educational investment and betteremployment prospects in transnational corporations, as well as beliefs about thevalue of international education in the global labor market, were also becomingimportant.

Through the 1990s, Australia became a global trend setter in developing policiesand practices around this insight. Other systems of higher education viewed the

698 F. Rizvi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Australian case with a great deal of interest, and soon embraced a similar discourseabout the importance of global mobility of students, developing and following asimilar set of industrial practices. The commercial opportunities in internationaltrade in higher education from which Australia had benefited are now pursued bymost countries. In one sense, this vindicates Australian universities, but, in theanother sense, it poses new challenges for them. While the demand for internationaleducation continues to grow, so does the competition.

Over the past decade, for example, the annual global rate of growth in interna-tional student mobility has been around 4.8%, driven by not only China and India butalso other countries around the world. On the other hand, most established systems ofhigher education have developed their own policies to attract fee-paying internationalstudents, with considerable success. Regional mobility has been growing steadily, ascountries such as Egypt, South Africa, and Singapore become major hubs for interna-tional education (de Wit, Agarwal, Said, Sehoole, & Sirozi, 2008). In Europe, univer-sities are increasingly offering courses in English in order to attract internationalstudents, convinced that English is now the lingua franca of the global economy.

At the same time, however, and especially after the Global Financial Crisis in2008, a range of concerns have emerged about the neo-liberal imaginary, and the mar-ket model of higher education to which it had given rise. These concerns apply to allsystems of education but are particularly relevant to Australia higher education, givenits heavier reliance on international students as a source of revenue. To begin with,there are some legitimate concerns about issues of quality, capacity, and supportprovided to international students in Australian universities (Marginson, Nyland,Sawir, & Forbes-Mewatt, 2010). There is now considerable evidence of exploitativepractices within the educational markets that have been inadequately regulated.

It is also clear that the fields of Business Studies, Engineering, and ComputerEducation remain dominant in international student mobility, with more than 70%students enrolled in these disciplinary areas; and that English appears to havebecome institutionalized as the language of international education. In one sense,given the neo-liberal imaginary of globalization this is not surprising, yet in anothersense the knowledge asymmetry that this represents is unhelpful to higher educa-tion’s broader mission, which cannot afford to be driven more by the profit motivethan by its traditional cultural and educational concerns. Problematic therefore isthe fact that international mobility in higher education has largely become a privategood, available mostly to the transnational elite.

The philosopher, Taylor (2004), has noted that social imaginaries are alwaysdynamics: they contain within them the seeds of resistance and opposition, and thepotential for change. If this is so then the neo-liberal imaginary, upon which theAustralian commercial success in international education is largely based, cannotpersist for ever. If contradictions of their approach to international student mobilityare becoming apparent then Australian universities need to renew their thinking,and develop new discourses and practices of internationalization of higher educa-tion, consistent with the emerging dynamics and possibilities of transnationality. Itis now increasingly clear that the global context within which student mobility takesplace is now characterized by multiple ties and interactions linking people and insti-tutions across the borders of nation-states – not always mediated by internationalrelations, but defined by systems of ties, interactions, exchanges, and mobilities thatdemand reciprocity and mutual benefit. As higher education systems around theworld embrace mobility, there is a growing awareness of the new demands and

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 699

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

possibilities of collaboration and networking among institutions dealing withknowledge production and dissemination (Vertovec, 2008).

This new ‘transnational’ context of higher education can no longer assumeasymmetrical power relations that had in the past resulted in uni-directional flow ofstudents – from the rest to the West. With the changing political architecture of theworld, there are now numerous challenges to this asymmetry of global powerrelations, as well as an erosion of the market fundamentalism that defines the neo-liberal imaginary of globalization. There is now a confident assertion of knowledgetraditions other than western scientific rationalism, together with the recognition ofnon-economic values. At the same time, the developments in technology haveeroded the distinction between knowledge production and dissemination, and havegiven rise to new pedagogic possibilities of the ubiquitous social media and com-munication technologies, such as the Open Source and Open Access Movement.Major shifts in youth cultures are accompanied by new practices of global network-ing, transforming the ways in which international student mobility is now envisagedand experienced.

Conclusion

These and other developments have highlighted the importance of transnational col-laborations in higher education, ahead of a focus on educational markets and theircommercial possibilities. They suggest regularized, on-going, and symmetrical trans-national links inherent in the emerging distributive systems of knowledge develop-ment and dissemination. They indicate the need to create transnational bilateral andmultilateral teaching and research networks among both universities and industries,as a way of developing new modes of sharing income, resources, and effort.

If the neo-liberal market view of international education was largely aboutrecruiting students, enabling them to experience international education, then theemphasis on transnational collaborations implies rethinking the nature and scope ofthat education itself. Emerging in the new context is the need to re-examine the tra-ditional curriculum, challenged now by the claims of ‘other’ knowledge traditions,and to develop new pedagogies that are more responsive to recent innovations insocial media and the ubiquitous technologies of communication. Beyond the focuson educational markets, it is indeed possible for universities around the world towork toward a new social imaginary that views transnational collaborations inhigher education as not only socially and culturally productive but are alsoeconomically efficient.

References

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimension of globalization. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Beazley. (1992). Ministerial statement on internationalization of education. Canberra: Aus-tralian Government Printing Office.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.Cohen, R., & Kennedy, P. (2007). Global sociology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: University of

New York Press.de Wit, H., Agarwal, P., Said, M., Sehoole, M., & Sirozi, M. (2008). The dynamics of inter-

national student circulation in a global context. Rotterdam: Sense.Escobar, A. (1991). Encountering development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

700 F. Rizvi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Golding Report. (1985). Overseas students in Australia. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPrinting Service.

Guruz, K. (2008). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowl-edge economy. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.

Harman, G. (2004). New directions in internationalising higher education: Australia’s develop-ment as an exporter of higher education services. Higher Education Policy, 17(1), 101–120.

Jackson Report. (1986). Australia’s Overseas Aid. Canberra: Australian Government PrintingService.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, approaches and rationales.Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E., & Forbes-Mewatt, H. (2010). International studentsecurity. London: Cambridge University Press.

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2005). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshorehigher education. London: Routledge.

Nye, J. (2005). Soft power: The means to success in world success. New York, NY: PerseusBooks Group.

Oakman, D. (2005). Facing Asia: A history of the Colombo Plan. Canberra: ANU Press.Rizvi, F. (2005). Rethinking brain drain in the era of globalization. Asia-Pacific Journal of

Education, 25(2), 173–195.Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.Steger, M. (2009). The rise of the global imaginary: Political ideologies from the French

revolutions to the global war on terror. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Vertovec, S. (2008). Transnationalism. London: Routledge.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:08

16

Oct

ober

201

4