Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

global market competition.²³ Writing in 2003, Giroux argued that neoliberal capitalism and “corporate culture” in the American context of higher education is dangerous to the democratic and social function of the university through.²⁴ Giroux also expressed concerns that private, corporate interests drive university research agendas, unfairly influencing and degrading the moral and civic purpose of the university.²⁵

While diversification and expansion in the types of institutions in higher education systems provides populations with a greater variety of options, many higher education systems are now unequally stratified in terms of prestige, influence, and resources. In the United States, for instance, Richard Münch writes that competition between universities for students, especially at the undergraduate level, has intensified, not only raising tuition costs for students but also exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities. As universities become more selective in their admissions criteria, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who have fewer opportunities for academic achievement in turn become less likely to gain entrance into top universities. Deregulation in England follows similar trends: universities now compete for not only the best students, but also for the best professors, researchers, and funding opportunities in a “quasi-market.”²⁶

Whether beneficial or not, marketization and privatization have already affected higher education systems around the world, including China and Taiwan. Market

mechanisms have replaced strict government oversight in Taiwan, and efforts to balance private and public initiatives to improve Mainland Chinese higher education are

underway. Chapter 4 more deeply explores the growth and marketization of China and Taiwan’s higher education systems.

2.3. Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education

In addition to massification and marketization within economies, higher education institutions themselves have pursued policies, curricula, and programs to embed

themselves within the global economy. The term internationalization has emerged to

23 Les Levidow, “Marketizing Higher Education: Neoliberal Strategies and Counter-Strategies,” in Kevin Robins and Frank Webster, eds., The Virtual University?, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 228.

24 Henry A. Giroux, “Selling Out Higher Education,” Policy Futures in Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 2003, pp.

179-200.

25 Henry A. Giroux, op. cit., p. 181.

26 Richard Münch, op. cit., pp. 129, 133.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

describe these developments in higher education since the 1980s that integrate education systems with the globalized economy and aim to develop a more international outlook. As a scholar at the forefront of the discussion, Jane Knight defines internationalization in higher education as “…the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education.” This describes the active and continuous efforts of higher education institutions to incorporate an international or intercultural dimension into their policies, curricula, and services.²⁷ While internationalization is related to economic globalization, Altbach and Knight in 2007 argue that these two concepts are not identical: while globalization is seen as an

“unalterable” phenomenon that involves the emerging interconnectedness of economic and social systems, internationalization involves the many choices higher education institutions make to and cope align themselves with the larger trends of globalization.

Traditionally, internationalization efforts at the university campus level include initiatives such as study abroad or foreign exchange programs, enhanced foreign language and international studies curricula, the establishment of satellite campuses abroad, and the recruitment and sponsorship of foreign students. In the early 21^st century, Altbach and Knight identify trends such as the cross-border movement of students and programs, the growth of international markets for highly-educated professionals, and the

commercialization of higher education to summarize the landscape of

internationalization. Several factors motivate higher education institutions to pursue internationalization, including revenue generation for the institution, access provision in locales with high demand for higher education services, and curriculum enhancement with international and cross-cultural perspectives for students. Altbach and Knight ultimately emphasize the role of individual students in driving international education markets: as largely self-funded, today’s international students number over 2 million and form the largest source of funding for internationalization in higher education.²⁸

2.3.2. The Global Network of Higher Education

While contemporary universities and other institutions of higher education generally retain high levels of autonomy, they are hardly isolated or completely

27 Jane Knight, “Updating the Definition of Internationalization,” International Higher Education, vol. 33, 2015, pp. 2-3.

28 Philip G. Altbach and Jane Knight, “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motives and Realities,” Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 11, no. 3, 2007, pp. 291-294.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

independent from regulatory oversight. Guri-Rosenblit et al. view higher education institutions as “embedded in in common frameworks of societal expectations, regulatory frameworks, and cooperative or competitive linkages.”²⁹ In this context, we may speak of higher education systems as networks of institutions falling under a common set of regulations, rather than governments overseeing or applying laws to individual

institutions.³⁰ The changing role of state as a regulatory actor in higher education systems is linked to the marketization and diversification of higher education institutions, allowing them to act more like private businesses than public institutions.

The concurrent massification and internationalization efforts of higher education institutions and systems have created a highly uniform global network of institutions and universities based on the Western European and American models, with few exceptions.³¹ Universities around the world by and large follow similar accreditation and curriculum standards in accordance to western conceptions of learning, research, and knowledge creation and dissemination. In this international system of higher education, the academic credit serves as the “currency” with which students can accumulate credentials and transfer them between institutions, even across international borders.³² This global credit-transfer system highlights the flexibility with which higher education systems can

operate. Additionally, English serves as the universally necessary language for not only scholars and researchers but also students in the global higher education system.³³ This flexibility within a relatively uniform global network forms the foundation upon which international student recruitment and exchanges may take place between higher education institutions.

2.3.3. International Student Flows

Analyses of international student flows often highlight the general trend of students from developing countries migrating to Western Europe and North America.

Chen and Barnett’s macro-level analysis of international student exchange networks in the later part of the 20^th century found that international student flows followed this general pattern between 1985, 1989, and 1995.³⁴ The industrialized, Western countries

29 Sarah Guri-Rosenblit et al., op. cit., p. 375.

30 Ibid.

31 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 5.

32 Sarah Guri-Rosenblit et al., op. cit., p. 382.

33 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 6.

34 Tse-Mei Chen and George A. Barnett, “Research on International Student Flows from a Macro Perspective: A Network Analysis of 1985, 1989, and 1995,” Higher Education, vol. 39, 2000, p.435.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Canada formed the center of international exchange networks as the most popular destinations for students.

Tying student flows to relative economic development, Chen and Barnett noted that economically powerful countries hold a concentration of educational resources and remain at the center of international student flows, while less developed countries have remained on the periphery, attracting fewer international students.³⁵ Countries

experiencing recent strides in economic development, such as the newly-industrialized economies (NIEs) of Asia, the newly-independent (at that time) post-Soviet states, and Eastern European countries with recent economic and political reforms had started to

“catch up” in terms of attracting international students and becoming embedded in networks of international student flows.³⁶

In this regard, the global configuration of higher education institutions and the flow of international student exchanges mirror global economic disparities that have developed under globalization. Altbach also spoke of the global higher education network as one of a center and periphery, to borrow terms from World Systems Theory of the international relations discipline.³⁷ Former colonial relationships also impact the flow of international students, with students from former colonies forming a significant share of international students in the former metropole.³⁸ Therefore, today’s networks of higher education not only reflect changes in individual institutions’ policies to recruit more foreign students but also reflect geo-political relations and inequalities between countries.